-----
--- 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?
--- 15347476
Why are schizos so terrified of the concept of peer review?
--- 15347537
>>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.
--- 15347540
>>15347476
Why is it that the quality of scientific output drastically decreased beginning when peer review was implemented in the 1960s?
--- 15347577
>>15347476
Why are hacks and gatekeepers so terrified to free access to information?
--- 15347614
>>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.
--- 15347622
>>15347577
>Why are hacks and gatekeepers
shills. youre talking to a shill
--- 15347626
>>15347537
>>15347540
>>15347577
>>15347614
>>15347622
Someone should make a peer reviewed study of schizo behavior on this website
--- 15347628
>>15347626
why not you? idle hands are the devils hands
--- 15347629
>>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.
--- 15347631
>>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.
--- 15347632
>>15347459 (OP)
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.
--- 15347633
>>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.
--- 15347634
>>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.
--- 15347637
>>15347633
That isn't what "peer review" means, retard.
--- 15347638
>>15347634
Are the reviewers in the room with you right now?
--- 15347640
>>15347638
Why?
--- 15347644
>>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
--- 15347649
>>15347644
Not a valid argument. You pretend that people talk about something else than they obviously do.
--- 15347658
>>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.
--- 15347666
>>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.
--- 15347671
>>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.
--- 15347672
>>15347640
So that I can know whether or not you've taken your meds, schizo.
--- 15347677
>>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?
--- 15347690
>>15347672
And this is why jews had to be killed. The Germans had no other choice.
--- 15347693
>>15347671
People obviously talk about the formal review process before a paper gets published. You are mentally ill.
--- 15347698
>>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.
--- 15347701
>>15347690
Those germans you admire also killed mentally ill schizos like you.
--- 15347703
>>15347672
I know it is you shit eater. Ever wonder how I can find you in every thread?
--- 15347706
>>15347703
That is an image of you talking to at least 5 different people, though.
--- 15347707
>>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.
--- 15347712
>>15347707
Deranged trash
--- 15347715
>>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.
--- 15347719
>>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.
--- 15347725
>>15347706
you eat 5 different people's shit? impressive, very nice
--- 15347726
>>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?
--- 15347729
>>15347719
The way schizophrenia was described at those times matches your beloved normie NPC.
--- 15347730
>>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.
--- 15347737
>>15347726
>>15347729
h*tler's coming to take your balls, schizos! snip snip!
--- 15347743
>>15347737
do you really think saying shit like this is going to affect anyone
--- 15347747
>>15347743
You wouldn't reply like this if it didn't affect you :)
--- 15347751
>>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.
--- 15347752
>>15347747
congrats, hopefully you can sleep easy now
--- 15347819
>>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
--- 15348449
>>15347730
Yes I know you are the one person making meals of shit on this board
--- 15348471
Peer review just means science by consensus
whoever sets the consensus sets the science.
--- 15351451
>>15348471
>Peer review just means science by circlejerk
fix'd
--- 15352401
>>15347819
funny how female genital mutilation is a serious crime and circumcision is practically mandatory
--- 15353514
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=md6gekqjjVU [Embed]
--- 15354664
>>15347730
https://theendofziondotcom1.wordpress.com/the-fecal-fixation-of-the-chosen-ones/
--- 15354701
>>15347677
Yes, as it happens abusing a system to censor views you don’t like is indeed a sign of neuroticism. Neck yourself, tranny.
--- 15354715
>>15347476
Because then they would have to face the fact that there's only two genders.
--- 15354738
>>15347712
not an argument
--- 15354831
>>15347459 (OP)
--- 15354853
>>15354831
classic, some talentless loser inserts themselves as gatekeeper between people who have spent 8+ years studying a field.
--- 15354883
>>15347577
Based
--- 15354967
>>15347459 (OP)
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.
--- 15355129
what's the actual solution to this problem?
--- 15355470
>>15347577
baseado
--- 15355704
>>15347743
>>15347726
very based and insightful poster

>>15347737
>>15347747
unintelligible basement dweller obsessed with inflated perception of having "high iq"
--- 15355789
>>15347459 (OP)
yes
--- 15355915
>>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.
--- 15357256
>>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.
--- 15357263
>>15347537
>Science worked just fine before it.
go back to /pol/ you church boi nazi
--- 15357275
>>15357263
keep crying
--- 15357907
>>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.
--- 15357911
>>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.
--- 15357916
>>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]
--- 15360710
jumb
--- 15361855
>>15357911
MIT has a whole staff devoted to studying 4chan
--- 15362082
>>15357263
>go back to /pol/ you church boi nazi
--- 15362148
>>15347476
I'm opposed to the high school popularity contest known as 'impact score'.
--- 15362170
>>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
--- 15364838
>>15362170
>'I know I'll just scream racist/schizo at them for telling me to do my job!'
also sexist
--- 15364940
>>15347459 (OP)
>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.
--- 15365232
>>15364940
researchers have constantly corresponded with each other throughout the history of science, you fucking pseud
--- 15365260
>>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.
--- 15365635
>>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.
--- 15365640
>>15347476
>Why are schizos so terrified of the concept of peer review?
>The concept of peer review in action
--- 15365814
>>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
--- 15365825
>>15347459 (OP)
when Monsanto does it
--- 15365832
>>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.
--- 15367492
>>15347459 (OP)
>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
--- 15369312
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
--- 15369564
>>15365832
Bullshit. You began labelling actual scientists as schizos so that you can push whatever agenda you have.
--- 15369577
>>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.
--- 15369589
>>15369577
>i don't care
>*makes longwinded reply filled with emotional distress signals*
--- 15370258
>>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
--- 15372073
>>15369589
Is this a bot?
--- 15377557
>>15347459 (OP)
absolutely
--- 15378842
Is anyone complaining about this published or interact with the peer review process in any way or are you all brainlets?
--- 15379176
>>15347459 (OP)
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.
--- 15379910
>>15369312
Even einstein himself admits scientists are low iq
--- 15380530
>>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?