So, here's a thing. We figured the right would want to turn on the peer-review system and burn it to the ground as a result of our project. We even took steps to minimize the force of that foolish attempt. We didn't expect the left to do it to protect grievance studies, though.
Anyone who respects peer review is ignorant and superstitious for, predictably, peer review has become dominated by the consensus of the ignorant and superstitious, which is what inexorably happens when you generate truth by social consensus.
-
-
Meant respect, in the sense it’s a mechanism within the Scientific community & must be dealt with there. Instead of burnt down for political reasons. Agreed it’s flawed, but that is for scientists to deal with, not society in general.
-
World War II had the US get the upper hand over Britain, so Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society. From 1603 to 1946, the Royal society enforced the scientific method. Lost power, lost the scientific method.
-
From 1663 to 1946, the Royal Society socially enforced the scientific method. You won arguments by the scientific method. With Harvard on top, you win arguments by getting your views incorporated into the state religion, as with Global Warming and the Food Pyramid.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.