/sci/ - Science & Math

Why are schizos so terrified of the concept of peer review?

>>15347476
Why schizos?
1. It's a weak point that allows to subvert science with a couple of people.
2. Scientists know there are things they are not allowed to write
3. Science worked just fine before it.

>>15347476
Why is it that the quality of scientific output drastically decreased beginning when peer review was implemented in the 1960s?

>>15347476
Why are hacks and gatekeepers so terrified to free access to information?

>>15347540
That is not when peer review was "implemented" it is when peer review was corporatized and opened up to corporate interests instead of purely academic ones, the problem is not about opening up your hypothesis for other people to review, it is in paywalling access to the information so that only a financially elite few can review your information and conclusions.

>>15347577
>Why are hacks and gatekeepers
shills. youre talking to a shill

>>15347537
>>15347540
>>15347577
>>15347614
>>15347622
Someone should make a peer reviewed study of schizo behavior on this website

>>15347626
why not you? idle hands are the devils hands

>>15347614
>That is not when peer review was "implemented"
It is.
>>15347626
You have a couple of people deciding what is or isn't right, which is an exact thing that shouldn't happen. I have no idea why you'd want to restrict it in this way. I have no idea what is so schizo about it.

>>15347628
I'd rather spend my time doing something enjoyable, like insulting schizos.

>>15347629
That's not how peer review works, schizo. No one is censoring your worthless ideas.

>>15347459
No, and that assumption is an ad hominem attack. It is however an admission that you’re a neurotic with an unhealthy fear of opinions that challenge your worldview.

>>15347629
>It is.
No it is not, Newton peer reviewed Kepler among many others and was the subject of peer review by Lagrange, Einstein, and all the scientists that came after Newton.

>>15347631
Science worked before the perr review, and became virtually worthless with peer review. What problem lead to its implementation that needed such a radical measure?

Yes it is how it works. There is no scientific consensus anymore, it's what the reviewers decided is correct.

>>15347633
That isn't what "peer review" means, retard.

>>15347634
Are the reviewers in the room with you right now?

>>15347638
Why?

>>15347634
>There is no scientific consensus anymore, it's what the reviewers decided is correct.
Scientific consensus has always been achieved through peer review.

>>15347637
Yes it does, as long as their have been collective institutions of education, the peers have been reviewing each other, you are attempting some retarded post modern semantic redefining of peer review that isn't accurate because you haven't even read the basic common knowledge information about the subject that has been common practice since the 16th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

>>15347644
Not a valid argument. You pretend that people talk about something else than they obviously do.

>>15347649
No, I am talking about actual peer review as per the peer review encyclopedia entries and you are conflating post modern corporate gatekeeping of the peer review process that is mostly just your own headcanon and pretending it is the only possible means of peer review.

>>15347658
Nobody actually argues agains scientists being allowed to contradict or criticize other scientists.
You are either being intentionally obtuse, or you have schozophrenia.

>>15347658
Nobody argues against scientists being allowed to contradict or criticize other scientists.
You are either being intentionally obtuse, or you are a schizo yourself.

>>15347662
>>15347666
I never said they did, I think you are confusing multiple different conversations because you have yet to master the anonymous mechanic, scientists contradicting, criticizing, and correct each other is peer review, your corporate bullshit is unnecessary, so quit trying to make out corporate gatekeeping peer review to be the only way it can be done, shill.

>>15347640
So that I can know whether or not you've taken your meds, schizo.

>>15347632
Zero self awareness lmao. What you just said is leagues closer to an ad hominem attack than pointing out that peer review loses credibility when you can lose your livelihood for wrongthink. Are you autistic?

>>15347672
And this is why jews had to be killed. The Germans had no other choice.

>>15347671
People obviously talk about the formal review process before a paper gets published. You are mentally ill.

>>15347693
You are the one who imagined the word published where it did not appear, schizo, scientists don't have to wait until anything is published to criticize each other which is exactly why your corporate nonsensical concept of peer review is retarded.

>>15347690
Those germans you admire also killed mentally ill schizos like you.

>>15347672
I know it is you shit eater. Ever wonder how I can find you in every thread?

>>15347703
That is an image of you talking to at least 5 different people, though.

>>15347701
They killed jews who were so retarded that the typical human's intelligence exceeds their own so vastly that they can't tell it from madness, and think they are the intelligent and sane ones.

>>15347707
Deranged trash

>>15347712
Why does everything a jew touches fail?
Why couldn't jews understand european culture so much that they had to destroy it?

>inb4 why did they win
Guns take no intellect to kill, and they killed anyone responsible for keeping order.

>>15347715
>In July 1933, the "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" prescribed compulsory sterilisation for people with conditions thought to be hereditary, such as schizophrenia
Lol. Your precious hitler daddy would love to cut off your balls.

>>15347706
you eat 5 different people's shit? impressive, very nice

>>15347719
Why did you have to hire the Nazis to get you to the Moon?
Why do you engage in excrutiatingly elaborate discussions of things that are utterly trivial, and can't understand relatively basic things at all, like don't cause trouble to otger people or steal their things, or you will feel the consequences?


Why does everything turn ito shit, ESPECIALLY those things the jews love to brag about?

>>15347719
The way schizophrenia was described at those times matches your beloved normie NPC.

>>15347725
I was one of the people shitting on you, you were the one eating every else's shit, then posting pictures of it and celebrating eating their shit for weeks going on months now.

>>15347726
>>15347729
h*tler's coming to take your balls, schizos! snip snip!

>>15347737
do you really think saying shit like this is going to affect anyone

>>15347743
You wouldn't reply like this if it didn't affect you :)

>>15347737
>Hear voices in their head. The voice took their thought over. They can only think through their voice. Hear voices in random noises.
>School knowledge preserved. Can do math, point cities ob a map. Extremely impaired capacity to deal with novel situations.
>Unreasonable obedience. They were told it must be done, so it must be done, in spite of discomfort or pain.
>No interest in their family or the neghborhood, yet ape and adopt phrases of those who happen to be around.
>Act randomly without a rational reason, and canxt be stopped from doing so.
>Inpaired perception, cannot use what is seen or heard, yet obviously able to see when questioned.
>Speech stereotyped and slips into nonsense and irrelevancy.

>>15347747
congrats, hopefully you can sleep easy now

>>15347701
technically true considering ashkenazi jews have 40% higher rates of developing schizophrenia due to their long, sordid history of inbreeding and other dysgenic practices like sucking the blood out of baby dick. mostly the inbreeding though

>>15347719

>>15347730
Yes I know you are the one person making meals of shit on this board

>>15347459
Go back to your containment board, you low IQ redneck.

>>15348453
the r-word is racist
racism is banned on 4chan outside of /b/

Peer review just means science by consensus
whoever sets the consensus sets the science.

peer review is communism

>>15348471
>Peer review just means science by circlejerk
fix'd

>>15347819
funny how female genital mutilation is a serious crime and circumcision is practically mandatory

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=md6gekqjjVU

>>15347730
https://theendofziondotcom1.wordpress.com/the-fecal-fixation-of-the-chosen-ones/

>>15347677
Yes, as it happens abusing a system to censor views you don’t like is indeed a sign of neuroticism. Neck yourself, tranny.

>>15347476
Because then they would have to face the fact that there's only two genders.

>>15347712
not an argument

>>15347459

>>15354831
classic, some talentless loser inserts themselves as gatekeeper between people who have spent 8+ years studying a field.

>>15347577
Based

>>15347459
the problem these days is no one gives a shit about peer review because there is no incentive to, so shit papers get published.
also, thanks to the fucking shenanigans the medical field pulls to get their funding, the rest of science is made to suffer by being saddled with those lying pieces of shit.

what's the actual solution to this problem?

>>15347577
baseado

>>15347743
>>15347726
very based and insightful poster

>>15347737
>>15347747
unintelligible basement dweller obsessed with inflated perception of having "high iq"

>>15347459
yes

>>15354967
>no one gives a shit about peer review because there is no incentive to
Don't we rather want to know how members are selected for clubs like those who develop dietary guidelines and how these members select the papers into consideration and how they apply the system for rating strength of evidence? That seems more important to me than peer-review.

>>15354853
political activism takes precedence over science for everyone who isn't capable of succeeding on the basis of their abilities as a scientist. its very common.

>>15347537
>Science worked just fine before it.
go back to /pol/ you church boi nazi

>>15357263
keep crying

>>15347476
Einsteins miracle year in 1905 occurred without peer review. By the way I'm positive if peer review existed at the time einsteins papers would have been rejected given how hostile the experts were at the time.

>>15347631
>No one is censoring your worthless ideas.
Yes yes I'm sure all physicists at MIT are reading vixra publications to learn different ideas.

>>15347644
Are you a habitual liar or do you just lack reading comprehension?
>The first peer-reviewed publication might have been the Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process,[17] began to involve external reviewers in the mid-19th-century,[18] and did not become commonplace until the mid-20th-century.[19]

jumb

>>15357911
MIT has a whole staff devoted to studying 4chan

>>15357263
>go back to /pol/ you church boi nazi

>>15347476
I'm opposed to the high school popularity contest known as 'impact score'.

>>15347634
The problem with peer review:
>I want prestige, but am incompetent
>somehow get into science
>incompetent partly because lazy
>too lazy to reproduce other's results
>'I know I'll just scream racist/schizo at them for telling me to do my job!'
>40 years later no one knows which results are valid anymore

>>15362170
>'I know I'll just scream racist/schizo at them for telling me to do my job!'
also sexist

>>15347459
>Of course "All Scientists agree" when you only ask the so-called "humanities".
FTFY
The "peer review system" wasn't necessary for the actual sciences of old.

>>15364940
researchers have constantly corresponded with each other throughout the history of science, you fucking pseud

>>15365232
It wasn't necessary to get the "Okay" from a "peer" to release anything in the formally accepted way, though.
These days I more often find myself skimming through blogs and personal websites rather than journals to stay on the forefront of research.
The only actual value journals have these days is, that regularly getting into them guarantees further funding.

>>15365260
>It wasn't necessary to get the "Okay" from a "peer" to release anything in the formally accepted way, though.
For much of the history of the Royal Society, papers and results were presented sometimes at the protest of "peers" who would lose their life's work if they were disproved. And yet the knowledge flowed unimpeded despite fights breaking out and shouting matches.

>>15347476
>Why are schizos so terrified of the concept of peer review?
>The concept of peer review in action

>>15347629
because he is an actual schizo moron who doesnt know anything about anything. he just sits on the site posting stupid shit and calling everyone schizo but never even understands anything being discussed. see exhibit A >>15347703

>>15347459
when Monsanto does it

>>15347540
Because the influx of science started to become so large that individual scientists didnt have time to gatekeep schizos out of their field, so peer review did it for them.

Uncoincidentally at the same time science was becoming more difficult/advanced, so more studies were needed. Now it appears that it's becoming so difficult that grouping together isnt even helping.

>>15347459
>Is abusing the peer review system to silence dissent equivalent to admitting that you have no rational basis to defend your point of view?
Yes, its also equivalent to deciding the value of pi by vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

imagine being lame enough to consider scientists your peer
if i looked in the mirror & saw the equivalent of picrel i'd presume somone had played an unreasonably nasty practical joke on me

>>15365832
Bullshit. You began labelling actual scientists as schizos so that you can push whatever agenda you have.

>>15365814
I don't really care, I still reply unless it's obvious. You can tell by the pseudo-logical thinking that schizos use, and there definitely is at least one who calls other people schizos, but as I said, I don't really care.

>>15369577
>i don't care
>*makes longwinded reply filled with emotional distress signals*

>>15367492
yeah, the sois still chimp out over than one. happened in the 1800s, before calculators were commonplace, it was considered as a convenience & didn't pass, but the sois still getting triggered over it 150 years later

>>15369589
Is this a bot?

>>15347459
absolutely

Is anyone complaining about this published or interact with the peer review process in any way or are you all brainlets?

>>15347459
Because "defending your view" only gets you so far with schizos. Eventually you just need to shut them out. Especially when the science/explanation is going to be too complicated for them to understand within a single internet thread.

Anything that rules out schizos is generally good.

>>15369312
Even einstein himself admits scientists are low iq

>>15379176
So you're saying that abusing the peer review system to silence dissent is equivalent to admitting that you have no rational basis to defend your point of view?

>>15364940

>>15357263
Peer review is useless and replication is necessary. If a study hasn't been peer reviewed but has been replicated, it's valid. If a study has been peer reviewed but hasn't been replicated, it's invalid.

>>15347476
peer review is overrated.

public review is what god intended.

>>15382246
>>15382332
These are both the best posts in the thread.

>>15382176
Oh, so peer-review happened when the first wave of wokies hit the universities.
Makes sense. In a way.

I mean, in the actual sciences, when someone writes absolute bullshit, you can simply ignore it, and it will do no harm.
Now, the humanities are thoroughly bullshit, but even regular people may start noticing that, when consistency gets even worse than it already is.
That must be prevented. For the public money must flow. For "justice".

>>15347459
Tangential to this topic...why doesn't Google Scholar come up with a way for dealing with self-citation? It's so fucking obnoxious when you check someone's profile, you see that they have 1000 citations or whatever so you assume they must be hot shit, then you check who is citing their papers and like 90% of the citations are them or people you know they work with citing them

>>15347476
>Why are schizos so terrified of the concept of peer review?
yeah, sure. it should be general public review, not peer review.

>>15384153
the way forward is to shitcan citation index evaluation. it breeds all sorts of behavior usually characterizing online celebs.
>"then how do I know whom to trust hurr durr"
if you cannot determine which works have value from reading the work itself you have no business to be in science.

whats the differnce between peer review and a circular mantrain?

>>15382332
The Royal Society was founded on that principle.

>>15384149
>Oh, so peer-review happened when the first wave of wokies hit the universities.
Except wokeism started in 2012

>>15347540
Literally didn't happen.

>>15387403
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968

>>15347459
>Is abusing the peer review system to silence dissent
No one uses the peer review system to silence dissent. People only use the peer review system to screw over competing researchers, who are usually the people doing the same thing as them. Get it right.

>>15387418
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968
None of that has anything to do with wokeism.

>>15347634
Consensus has always relied on peers approving research.
What the fuck do you think, "consensus", means?
And science has not at all become 'worthless' after the introduction of peer review. You being able to use type this up is proof of that.

>>15387451
>Consensus has always relied on peers approving research.
>What the fuck do you think, "consensus", means?
What do you think "peer review" means?
>And science has not at all become 'worthless' after the introduction of peer review. You being able to use type this up is proof of that.
I don't see how.

>>15353506
What climate scientists are rich?
It pays well below par for that level of education.
It is actually one of the biggest flaws with climate change conspiracies. At this point, basically every extant climate scientist would stand to gain more from exposing the conspiracy, than perpetuating it.

>>15387450
They are their direct ancestors.
For fuck's sake, that breed was actively trying to legalize sex with minors back then.

>>15387460
What do you think peer review means?
It means a general group of peer level individuals checking over your paper for obvious or glaring mistakes, as well as relevance and immediate plausibility, before allowing its publication within a specific professional journal.
The biggest flaw is that different journals with different peers to call on for your specific paper can potentially give different results, given individual variance. As even very intelligent scientists aren't free of bias.

Now, what do you think Peer Review means?

>I don't see how.
Of course you don't.

>>15387463
>They are their direct ancestors.
Lmao nope. They're like, diametral opposites.

>For fuck's sake, that breed was actively trying to legalize sex with minors back then.
Thanks for proving my point I guess?
Wokeoids hate pedos at least as much as alt-righters and conservatives do. Arguably even more since they even want to ban sexualized drawings of children.

midwit here, can researchers/scientists/whatever nominate their peers for peer review?

>>15387497
No, peer review is usually anonymous. The journal editor contacts researchers that are doing similar things as you to evaluate your draft and say whether your work is worth publishing or not.

>>15387502
how does is so much trash published then?

>>15387512
these are just the ones we know about btw...

>>15387516

>>15387519

>>15387512
Lots of peer reviewers aren't paid. It's basically community work. A journal editor asks you to tell them your opinion on a paper and you have to take time out of your day to critically read it and then write a report >for free. I'd imagine some peer reviewers aren't taking their job seriously and just OK whatever. Maybe a solution could be to use some of the money journals earn to pay reviewers to incentivize effort.

>>15387473
Consensus implies a widespread agreement, not two people reading something and tellimg their opinion.
>Of course you don't.
Well I don't. It isn't sciemce, it's engineering. Engineering isn't peer reviewed, it's works in the real world reviewed. You can't bullshit it.

>>15387616
It is extremely rarely 'just two people'. It is typically a relatively large sized board.
Technical peer review, relevant to engineering, is just as important in that field as research peer review is to research science.

>>15387502
>The journal editor contacts researchers that are know to give the politically correct feedback and shuts down everyone else

>>15388103
Two is typical.

>>15388446
>the humanities summed up in a single post

>>15347459
in social sciences definitely, but not science in general? Or is there a certain school of thought that dominates in every subject matter?

>>15388608
no matter what the discipline, if you try to publish anything that challenges the establishment dogma, you will be shut down via the peer review process.

>>15389512
name 5 times this happened

>>15387462
That's the biggest joke. They literally do it for free. Climate jannies.

>>15389896
the persistence of the establishment dogma proves that it happens every time anyone publishes anything that contradicts the dogma

>>15387462
You should read "Theory of the leisure class: a study of institutions"
It will explain everything to you.

Peer review and Maoist "struggle sessions" are identical in nature

>>15387462
>It is actually one of the biggest flaws with climate change conspiracies
Except for the fact that one of the largest "climate activism" outfits is literally bankrolled by big oil. I don't feel like finding the sources atm but pleeeeeeeeeease call me liar so I can dunk on and embarrass you and show utterly clueless you are. Of course the golem foot soldiers arent rich because they are peasants with a peasant who do it for scraps

>>15396062
Youre a liar

>>15396692
no you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAqhyTI-C8Q

>>15352401
judaism is a matriarchal culture

>>15354967
>the rest of science is made to suffer by being saddled with those lying pieces of shit.
the rest of science is every bit as greedy, unethical and dishonest as the medical sector

>>15388601
>>15388608
>its only in the humanities
>its only in social sciences
cringey coping mechanism and dumb excuse

took me a while to find this for you OP. reddit soience glowfags BTFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3eMWLG7Rro

>>15400088
thats a great video, an all time /sci/ classic

>>15400088
kek I posted this here years ago, classic indeed. It is /sci/ incarnate

>>15400088
>the go into universities as bright young people
>they come out of them braindead

>>15387403
>2012
that was when the fags from the 60s became the senior bosses at the universities

How do I cope with imposter syndrome and the depressing feeling that the paper I'm writing is worthless or wrong and is like something a child or fanatic would write?

I always get that feeling no matter how much good are the results I produce...
Am I the only one with going through this?

>>15347476
Peer review has a dual meaning by people like you. The first meaning is what you pretend it means: where ideas are critiqued by your peers and only the strongest and correct ideas survive. The second meaning is how peer review actually works (especially so for topics that have become politicized): write articles in journals in support of the status quo. Rejecting the status quo is to have your paper rejected and not published. As such only a single narrative is promulgated.

When you talk about publishing a finding with peer review, you're relying on the dual meaning of the phrase either intentionally or not. You're presenting it as the former while relying on the function of the latter. In short, you're being a dishonest fuck.

Source: recent nature paper on the decline of disruptive journal papers + your boneheaded post.

>>15404502
Impostor syndrome doesn't exist, it was invented to placate affirmative action victims.

>>15387490
>Lmao nope. They're like, diametral opposites.
>Wokeoids hate pedos at least as much as alt-righters and conservatives do.
That's why they have minor boys dance naked as drag queens in front of adult males these days?
The woke are the second wave of 1968. It's the same kind of deranged fucks, except they now control the media and the universities.
That both of those have seen a massive decline since then is no coincidence.
To anyone in /sci/: Don't stay at university for too long. The industry is by far not as bad as they want to make it sound.

>>15406043
PhD is an abbreviation of Phukkin Dumb

>>15347537
>3. Science worked just fine before it.
lol, lmao, etc.

>>15353506
>that domain
remember when savetheinternet went all christcuck schizo and tried to kill vichan?
good times.

>>15407368
Looks like it worked perfectly fine, with the only people believing false information being journalists (aka liars).

>>15407369
The funniest part of that whole affair was that they started up their website to preserve /r9gay/ the first time moot nuked it and they were immediately overrun and dominated by /new/ refugees. Still a sore spot for them, I post on uboachan once in a while to make sure they don't forget.

>>15407355
Not necessarily. Over here students of medical sciences and philosophy get the PhD-in-name for their business cards before the Bachelor.
Anyone doing an actual PhD, getting abused by a system, that has nothing but absolute disdain for you, is fucking dumb, though. Yeah.
/sci/ence is very much alive, but the academics are dead.

>>15407368
That's how science is supposed to work dumbass

>>15404519
This is called that "Mott and Baily" argument strategy.

>>15408890
It's how they all argue. Very slimy and dishonest.

>>15409674
atheists are all hopelessly dishonest and academia & science is overwhelmingly dominated by atheists

>>15409982
you could just say jews. you're right and we know you're talking about the jews.

So this thread is still up. Does any non-schizophrenic want to try answering my question?

My question being this >>15347476

>>15410005
>>15410010
there is a new plate of fresh, warm shit waiting for you to eat back in your padded room schizo

Science must be gatekept. Think about how stupid the average person is, then 50% of the population is more stupid than that. Add into all of this bad faith actors, shills, politicians, schizos, etc. and science can get derailed pretty quickly. The average person is cattle who can't make up their mind, they must be gatekept.

>>15409983
pretty much, but theres tons of cryptos and shabbos goyims who willfully go along with the jew agenda

>>15410281
>The average person is cattle who can't make up their mind, they must be gatekept.
They must be gatecept, because they have the mindset needed for science?
Please explain. I hope you don't think that "we already know this" is an approach suited for real science.

>>15410281
>The average person is cattle who can't make up their mind, they must be gatekept.
They must be gatekept, because they have the mindset needed for science?
Please explain. I hope you don't think that "we already know this" is an approach suited for real science.

>>15347459
>Is abusing the peer review system to silence dissent equivalent to admitting that you have no rational basis to defend your point of view?
Pretty much, people who have something to hide tip their hand by hiding what they're ashamed of

>>15347633
Looking at a paper after hundreds of years and seeing if it still holds up isn't peer review, retard

>>15411288
ZOGschool brainwashing and lackadaisical parenting leads people to that fate

>>15413615
and atheism

>>15347459
Peer review just means some other fag read it and agrees with it, it doesn't mean it's true or science or factual. Considering how ideological many "scientists" are and how they openly push leftist bullshit as "science", it's really not hard to find some schmuck to sign off on your propaganda piece.

>>15347459
Yes, journos and politicians aren't our peers. That makes them seethe eternally.

>>15396042
Yep, its a way to shut out older, wiser heads and replace their wisdom with popular dogma

>>15394584
everyone should read that before going to university

>>15387403
>Except wokeism started in 2012
If by wokeism you solely mean tranny shit, then maybe.

>>15411423
No, because they're too stupid to understand what scientists are saying. Unironically unless you're an official you shouldnt "do your own research" because chances are if you need to do research then you're too stupid, too much of a sheeple to understand anything in a study or how to dissect it. That is what I'm saying. I've seen far too many retards on here misrepresent studies, tired of it.

>>15416982

>>15417010
>>>r/Iamverysmart

>>15417369
schoolteachers are mostly female, they destroy other women's children instinctively, it monkey breeding competition behavior

>>15347459
If they had rational bases to defend their points of view then they wouldn't need to rely on a consensus of liars

>>15419108
good point

>>15417345
Courts were forcing gay marriage on unwilling states as early as the 90s. Companies have jumped on the bandwagon, but none of this is new.

>>15347459
Can climate deniers produce any evidence to support their points that aren't just schizo nonsense and/or from paid shills of the fossil fuel industry?

Same goes for antivaxxers, and in that case it would be media shills who make money out of pushing the idea that the vaxx is dangerous.

>>15420587

peer review is a bunch of fags sucking each other's cocks

>>15387406
yes is did
https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1682106174290853.jpg

>>15417010
Real science would have no reason to fear people doing their own research.
The entire problem is that science got taken over by people who are too stupid to even understand what it is about, and treat it instead as a sort of hi-tech religion.

>>15422536
This. Real science encourages amateur research, because that's been the source of breakthroughs throughout history.

>>15420848
I believe we're talking about different things.

>>15422711
the government "professionals" spent over $20 million of other people's money in the late 1800s & very early 1900s trying to invent the airplane and they failed, then the wright brothers came along and pulled it off, for less than $100, using their own money.
they weren't wasteful idiots because it was their money rather than a bottomless pit of "grants" and gibes

>>15422711
the real science is behind military. and their enemy are people.

>>15423618
Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane, they only got enough duraluminium to actually build one first.

>>15423618
The Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane, they only got enough duraluminium to actually build one first.

>>15424054
It was made from wood.

>>15425420
the engine block was aluminum, not duralumin.
duralumin wasn't available until later in the century. duralumin is also a denser material, would've been a poor choice compared to aluminum.

>>15425420
It also needed an engine.
>>15426206
Pure aluminium is tinfoil, it's too soft.

>>15404519
You are not White.

>>15426419
tinfoil is made out of tin.

>>15426446
It used to be, but that was even softer.

>>15426419
it was a low compression engine

>>15426206
>>15426792
>An aluminum copper alloy (with a copper composition of 8 percent by weight) was used in the engine that powered the historic first flight of the Wright brothers in 1903.

>>15400088
good video

>>15414599
and that, in turn, is the equivalent to admitting that you have no rational basis to defend your point of view.
its collusion

>>15428524
nice pasta, shill. pseudo argumentation rant.

>>15420595
see this thread
>>15386219
a physicist has been btfo'ing climate shills for weeks now

>>15407368
Before muh peer review:
The vast majority of physics and chemistry and biology, nearly all of currently useful mathematics.
After:
Quantum bs
DNA
Superconductivity
...
Yeah you're a retard

>>15428841
belief in global warming relies on ignorance of math and physics

>>15430028
This is what it comes down to. The only way to believe in the hysteria is to deny science.

>>15430104
>The only way to believe in the hysteria is to deny science.
Ignorance of science is extremely easy to obtain

>>15347459
Is complaining about peer review an admission you've never done anything worth publishing?

>>15431278
> worth
subjective. shill detected.

>>15431278
no

>>15407368
So... there was a small hold-out group that didn't last more than 2 years. You do know that the modern replication crisis has been ongoing for over 5 times that long, with science being "settled" and unchanging.

>>15431491
replication crisis goes back to the 20th century

>>15419112
can someone explain this to me

>>15347459
Do you think a “rational basis” even matters here? They only care about preserving order in society, not about determining what’s correct

>>15347540
feminism & atheism

>>15430670

>>15347540
its called progress

>>15347459
isnt peer review effectively herd mentality?

>>15436241
>lets put the midwits in charge of science

>>15437000
who cares. government pays for science, and with or without peer review it's fucked. government is primary "peer"

>>15434833
>First, they were climate-experts, then virus-specialists, and now authorities on war.
>At this time, they are heating tradespeople. Just in school, they were too stupid.

>>15347459
Yes

>>15407368
>science accomplishments before peer review:
everything
>science accomplishments after peer review started:
nothing

>>15438646
peer review is a result of saturation of science, not cause.

>>15428922
also dark matter, global warming and even worse and more blatant fakery

>>15347459
indubitably

>>15438660
so you're saying the crab bucket mentality only appears after the bucket has minimum number of crabs in it?

>>15428841
climatefags can't do math

>>15442250
they can count money