Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

Peer review is a bloody cakewalk... The hell? 70% of peer-reviewed studies are non-reproducible.

When done right peer review is a good way to test conclusions and spur discussion. The problem is the way Marxist scholars interject politics into literally EVERYTHING as a way to steer society to its “inevitable” conclusion. They ruined a good thing.

Absolutely correct. Search "Bruce Gilley."

Exactly what the Pluckrose, Lindsay & Boghossian stunt proved

Duke $112 million

Which is kinda sad but @peterboghossian @HPluckrose and @ConceptualJames have already proven this to be very real. The fact that you can no longer trust scientific journals is pretty horrifying.

Most of IQ studies are peer reviewed as well. If you disregard peer reviewed, might as well disregard Rushton or Lynn works.

The social & political sciences themselves are pretty much garbage, trapped as they are in pre-Darwinian dark age, with about as much understanding of socio-political reality as medieval academics had of material & physical reality.

You're not a scientist. You are a moron... my guess is peer review for you is just other morons who have no idea how the physical world operates agreeing with you.

You're right. We should listen to right-wing gobsytes instead of this PC science bollocks.

peers are stupid. the entire science community laughed at the ideas of washing your hands before surgery. the ability to fly, that the earth wasnt flat and the center of the universe. shrodingers cat was a mockery at quantum mechanics. peers cant see reality

YES THANK YOU. I'm so tired of having topic/thought experiment debates where people cling to their own perception of "peer reviewed studies" and act like that is the gold standard for objective truth. As if a bunch of interest funded pricks will ever produce real science.