kind of a brutal own of Science that they never got around to testing the efficacy of peer reviewhttps://twitter.com/firstthingsmag/status/1074394984990691328 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @eigenrobot
It's odd that philosophers of science have never, as far as I know, taken peer review very seriously as a part of the justification of knowledge, and yet it has become the default standard of scientific proof for almost everyone else.
5 replies 2 retweets 36 likes -
In theory it's meant to fall under reproducibility and objective verification. In practice, it's gatekeeping/a scam, but...
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ChrisExpTheNews @eigenrobot
But outside of math, where it has less use anyway, peer review cannot reproduce results by merely reading the papers. That's the sense in which it's philosophically irrelevant.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I don't think there's meaningful reproduction in any case where there's not out-of-sample prediction or testing something something external validity
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.