Stefan Molyneux on Twitter: "Peer review is mostly garbage. It ensures stifling conformity, promotes prejudice and is terrible at rooting out errors. It is a form of collectivist social control.… https://t.co/S18sXHlpGw"

Country	Code	For customers of
United States	40404	(any)
Canada	21212	(any)
United Kingdom	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brazil	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Ireland	51210	Vodafone, O2
India	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italy	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» See SMS short codes for other countries

Peer review is mostly garbage. It ensures stifling conformity, promotes prejudice and is terrible at rooting out errors. It is a form of collectivist social control.https://twitter.com/GaneshNatesh/status/1169294476617158660 …

Natesh Ganesh @GaneshNatesh

Replying to @PanTade44669670 @Philip_Goff and 14 others

Huh? Peer review isnt about loving someones work. It is about ensuring that the work meets certain stnds like logical consistency & in many cases backed by good evidence. I would rather get good reviews from ppl who dont like/disagree with me but agree tht the arguments r sound.

10:03 AM - 4 Sep 2019

85 Retweets
337 Likes

36 replies 85 retweets 337 likes

1. janet‏ @OustideVoice Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  Yet, Stefan refers to "studies" all the time to support his messages. Hypocrisy much?
  
  4 likes
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. Vake_Biblia‏ @BibliaVake Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  Amen. Amen. Amen.
  
  1 like
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. Fionn O Lochlainn‏ @OLochlainn Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  100% Agreed, with applause!
  
  1 like
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. Miyagi-san ‏ @izawaru Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  News flash: Nobody actually checks the methods or verifies the results. Only if something is glaringly obvious will a good reviewer catch it. Even in that case, if the author doesn't change it, the paper usually gets in anyway. Nobody wants to commit the mortal sin of say "No."
  
  1 like
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. Jesus Coffmanski‏ @MrJoshuaCoffman Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  The blockchain is technocractic peer review.
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. Steve‏ @spectre82 Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  Yes. Michel Foucault is a prime example. #flamingfaghomosexualprivilege
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. Steady‏ @Steady_WP Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  In regards to Academia right? In a business environment my experience is peer review and QA are necessary steps to any quality product or service.
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. Natesh Ganesh‏ @GaneshNatesh Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  What do you mean by prob of conformity? Small incremental work on existing complex idea? Or people trying to reproduce existing work? 1st is how most science happens & 2nd addresses reproducibility prob.
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. independent_i_‏ @independent_i_ Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  See this report: https://www.corbettreport.com/sciencecrisis/ The peer review process is not what we are led to believe.
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo
1. AffluentlyHomeless‏ @JoannMu20723166 Sep 4
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @StefanMolyneux
  
  Right again Stefan.
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo