[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 89 KB, 736x736, 1657978791371.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14667532 No.14667532 [Reply] [Original]

Is everything not supported by multiple peer reviewed research articles automatically pseudoscience?

>> No.14667908

I live in a trailer park in Tennessee among peers and I had them review my science article and they said they liked it, so to answer your question, yes. If I can do it, others should just do it. You gotta respect the truth process

>> No.14667915

peer review is worthless

You are not being reviewed by your peers you are being rubber stamped by post-docs

>> No.14667946

not exactly, what is incompatible with the scientific method and is presented as science or factual evidence is pseudoscience

>> No.14667972

>>14667532
No, but it should also be taken with a grain of salt. And if it contradicts prior observations, a mountain of salt.

>> No.14668046
File: 88 KB, 1024x443, peerreview.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14668046

peer review became important in academia around the same time that NASA forgot how to go to the moon, peer review is lets the lunatics run the asylum.

>> No.14668072

How can science be anything other than a game of gatekeeping.

Science is a kingdom of perfection. There are gates at the kingdoms walls.

Whatever is found out to be imperfect in the kingdom is thrown out the gated walls.

Perfect = Truth

The most perfect true members of the kingdom stand guard at the gates, and make sure only perfect truth is admitted in

>> No.14668629
File: 867 KB, 813x1008, 1657055358095.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14668629

>>14667532
I would say no. The only thing peer review can ad is a bit of a debate about the validity of the experiments and the theory explaining the results.

I would say that when you are not allowed to debate a theory, then it will quickly devolve into pseudoscience

https://youtu.be/617jPt6DyQ8

>> No.14668866

>>14667532
yeah I only trust when the company that sells the product peer reviews its own research and throws out the research of every other lab for bad lab practices (Syngenta)

>> No.14668932

Schizos hate peer review because it keeps all their shit ramblings from being put into credible academic journals. Before peer review the relative obscurity and small scientist population could self filter based on name alone, peer review is a natural consequence of more people getting degrees and more schizos passing the filters.

>> No.14668936

>>14667532
No, only most of the time. It just makes it not worth my time.

>> No.14668940

>>14668932
>it keeps all their shit ramblings from being put into credible academic journals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

>> No.14668941

Yes, that's why Einstein's papers are crap because they were never peer reviewed. Moreover, Einstein publicly rejected peer review.

>> No.14668945

>>14668940
psychology is not a science

>> No.14668949

name of pic? shes beautiful

>> No.14668963

>>14668945
>no true scotsman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

>> No.14668966

>>14668940
Replication crisis is a case for stricter peer review because apparently bad papers still pass the current one. Which is true for the case of the various pseudo sciences effected by it.

>> No.14668970

>>14668940
It was mostly confined to soft sciences and/or medicine. Even economics hasnt actually experienced much of a breakdown from the """crisis""" despite being slightly soft. Besides that wasnt even schizo ramblings, that was pretty much just entire fields making shit up and building on each other to farm citations.

>> No.14670949

>>14668072
>How can science be anything other than a game of gatekeeping.
>Science is a kingdom of perfection. There are gates at the kingdoms walls.
>Whatever is found out to be imperfect in the kingdom is thrown out the gated walls.
>Perfect = Truth
>The most perfect true members of the kingdom stand guard at the gates, and make sure only perfect truth is admitted in
Anyone?

>> No.14670953

name?

>> No.14670956

>>14670949
When we become One with science we become objective and perfect and one with God and the universe.

There is Truth.

We are born in ignorance.

There is no better way at becoming fulfilled with truth, then by science.

We shed every facet of ourselves that is wrong, to become only fully wholly right. In essence making ourself in the universes image.

>> No.14670983

>>14668949
>he's

>> No.14670988

>>14670983
the fuck?

>> No.14671015

>>14667532
>peer reviewed
That just means "I scratch your back, you scratch mine." It has been the downfall of research, causing all research now to be de-legitimized.

>> No.14671478

Peer review is worthless. All that matters is replication count and to a lesser degree citations.

>> No.14673736

>>14668072
>>14670956
Come on guys

>> No.14673743

>>14670988
>draw girl
>call it a boy

>> No.14673776

>>14667532
In the strictest sense yes, but only because what is considered "pseudoscience" is largely controlled by the current scientific prevailing notion/status quo. Not necessarily a good/bad thing.

>> No.14673792
File: 304 KB, 884x693, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14673792

Given that a ton of actual pseudo-science in the humanities gets "peer reviewed" as long as the conclusion is satisfying to activist agendas and all the right buzzwords are used then what value is there really in peer review nowadays?

>> No.14674099

How many novel science breakthroughs occur each year on average?

>> No.14674461

>>14673743
true, pls name?

>> No.14675433

>>14674099
>How many novel science breakthroughs occur each year on average?
?
X amount of science papers are published every year

What percent of them are valuable or meaningful?

How much noise is produced?

How do the peer review journals sort through the noise and signals? And ensure they don't make a mistake?

>> No.14676034

>>14667532
pseudoscience = not establishment dogma

>> No.14676063
File: 35 KB, 840x467, IMG_20220718_220119.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14676063

>>14667532
Sure, but what's psuedoscience but science with a psuedovector? All you gotta do is invert it.

Proudly non peer reviewed videos you can find below. They're trippy.
https://youtu.be/9ZrhVTtEOr4

>> No.14676216

>>14667972
How do you use a grain of salt to take something

>> No.14676232

>>14667915
>peer review is worthless
>You are not being reviewed by your peers you are being rubber stamped by post-docs
Thread/

>> No.14676307

>>14667532
Yes, science is the application of the scientific method.
Pseudoscience is something that partially applies the scientific method while skipping one or more steps.
Peer review is one of the steps of the scientific method, so your theory is pseudoscience until it can pass that step as well as all the other steps of the scientific method.

>> No.14676445

>>14675433
how come the peer review process allows so much noise through? the peers must be total dimwits if they can't separate the wheat from the chaff, if they don't do that then they're just rubber-stamping colleagues in exchange for similar favors in return.

>> No.14676607

>>14676445
People are biased and delusional plus most of them kind of suck, its the entire reason science is needed in the first place and its a better filter if bias and delusion than nothing.

>> No.14676728

>>14676445
I was genuinley asking the question, consider the post of mine you responded to as being the question that heads a scientific study and analysis.

I seriously have no clue.

It could be that 100% of successfully peer reviewed accepted papers are integral to to the overall project that is the succesful history of important valid science.

>> No.14678650

>>14668629
>Do NOT Trust a theory that you are forbidden to debate

IE: the holocaust

>> No.14678656

name?

>> No.14678667

We have (or rather had) the best we could derive in the academia and science, now it's a bit messy of course.

>> No.14678831

>>14667532
>peer review
>qeer review
>quer review
>queer review
For anything political, no. Activists will block sound science just because.

>> No.14678908 [DELETED] 
File: 337 KB, 853x1808, 1658174796884328.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14678908

>>14678650
also the meaning behind chromosomes. /sci/ is so heavily censored that you risk being banned for racism if you criticize einstein or any of his racial cohorts.

>> No.14680489

>>14667532
>>14668046
>>14668072
>>14668932
>>14673776
>>14676307
>>14676445
>>14676728
Science has been dominated by pseudoscience for decades. The push in favor of rationalism began about a century ago, and it seems that peer review was made to cement the change. The exception was Nazi Germany, who kicked them out and allowed science to continue for a while more, which brought the last scientific advancements like the jet planes and rockets and Moon landings. (nothing really to do with most of them being Jewish, only as far as they insisted on applying this Yeshiva logic to science) Since peer review was established we've been completely stuck with this proto religion that produces no advancements whatsoever.

>> No.14682429

>>14680489
source?

>> No.14682444

>>14667532
Is everything supported by multiple peer reviewed research articles automatically pseudoscience?

>> No.14682559

Unfortunately everything not supported by multiple meta-analyses of many peer-reviewed studies is automatically junk

>> No.14682573 [DELETED] 

>>14680489
No thank you I don't want to subscribe to /pol/

>> No.14683704

>>14682559
Can you please link the peer reviewed study that proves that claim of yours?

>> No.14684074 [DELETED] 

>>14668949
Good luck finding it among the billion chinese sites its on. Best i can do is a less pixelated link
https://pin.it/4h1nOfl
(raw img link)
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/96/e0/cd/96e0cdd4629690ab64e49a85009ee92f.jpg

>> No.14684115

>>14668949
>>14670953
source is a since deleted tweet from Ryo_40819 on twitter

>> No.14684219

>>14684115
uh thx

>> No.14684239

>>14667532
>have perfect place to fully discuss topics from A to Z
>still request sources
>still link to wikipedia and paid toilet papers
>you're just meant to repeat what you read in science bible
some people are just helpless OP

>> No.14684934

>>14667532
Peer review is capitalist gatekeeping to hoard profits and stifle competition. These are not scientists, they are sell out faggots who have done everything they can to stop human progress.

>> No.14684989

>>14682429
My foot in your ass.

>> No.14686587

>>14680489
>like the jet planes
lmao

>> No.14686591

>>14682559
except when you perform meta analyses and find results that the scientific community dislike, in which case you're a crank

>> No.14686600

No.
Pseudoscience is viewed positively by /sci.
Peer reviewed research articles are not.

>> No.14686638

>>14686591
I guess you would know.

>> No.14686796

>uhh our model doesnt work
>quick just invent some dumb idea or fill in a new term that makes it work
>this gets peer reviewed as being perfectly reasonable
yeah im thinking science is gay

>> No.14687510
File: 24 KB, 480x404, 122vae.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14687510

>>14686600
>Pseudoscience is viewed positively by /sci.
Sooner or later every science community is defunct or overtaken by pseuds. You can't win against the legions of marching morons. You can only laugh.

>> No.14687563

>>14667532
what if your peers are all facile imbeciles?

>> No.14687625

>>14680489
no advacements since wwii
???