Peer review was supposed to be the gold standard of science. Instead, it turned out to be a fraud that polluted the knowledge base, corrupted the profession, and destroyed confidence in the method.
It’s very important to remember that most people neither know or understand anything about science, so the idea that science is not only less than perfectly reliable, but is, in fact, reliably false is extremely foreign to them. They have no idea that reliable science is called “engineering”, and in fact, their grasp of the credibility of the two fields is usually inverted.
But if you are an independent thinker capable of processing information on your own, it should not be too difficult to grasp that science is intrinsically flawed due to several unavoidable factors that boil down to the absence of any controlling factor for the human element.
Peer review was never that missing factor. As I pointed out years ago, peer review doesn’t even rise to the level of editing, much less auditing, it is more akin to slush-file reading by volunteers. The great irony of the primary defense of peer review is that it is a concept based on nothing more than pure logic utilized to justify an activity specifically conceived to replace the use of pure logic.
This is an excerpt from:https://voxday.net/2023/05/15/the-failure-of-modern-science/
B-BUT, REAL PEEEEER REVIEW HAS NOT BEEN TRIED.
The follow up and how the scientists circle the wagons to defend their monopoly:>The dance of the naked emperors>A followup to "The rise and fall of peer review”>Last month I published a paper by uploading a PDF to the internet and people were like “nice paper, here are some thoughts!” >Two weeks ago I wrote a post saying peer review is a failed experiment and that one alternative is to upload PDFs to the internet and some people were like “HOLD ON THERE, BUSTER!” >A tenured professor hinted she might try to get me fired. A person with a PhD accused me of “cynical metacognitive polywaffle,” which a good name for a postmodern noise band. I got some weird and vaguely threatening emails, including one that had a screenshot of my personal website with my improv experience highlighted, proof that I am literally a clown. Which is, I guess, true.https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-dance-of-the-naked-emperors
The consensus of the scientists is a way to avoid debate.
Keep in mind that the social "sciences" are the ones with least reproducible results. Not all sciences are created equal.
Well, the corona hoax has demonstrated that science is a fraudulent activity used for political purposes. Add to that that scientists are cheaper and easier to buy, then the scope of the fraud gets off the charts.
Social sciences are mostly charlatanry, but the rest might be not far behind.
I would guess medicine is full of bought and paid for faggots, but chemistry, physics, engineering, ect would be pretty hard to corrupt.