A new playmate. Great. I have three post graduate degrees so I am familiar with appropriate peer review. My general statement assumes the current use of peer review but allows for the existence of some remaining honest academics.
The small "a" academy has become so politicized that "peer review" simply does not operate in a neutral scientific manner. Indeed the entire scientific method appears to have been cast aside in pursuit of what are essentially political objectives. The conclusions arise, academic studies are done that appear, and obviously so in some areas of research like climate science and the T-19 research politically oriented. Then other studies, conducted by people that already agree with the results, to produce the agreement. The NAS is comprised of sheep that do not challenge politically necessary conclusions. I've seen now hundreds of studies on various topics that bypass simple questions in both the initial research and "peer reviews"-admittedly climate and economics would be more in my expertise but this has also been apparent in much of the T-19 research.
Perfect example, there are studies, and the lefties and their pukes in the media pounded the desk with them, that claim HCQ was not an effective treatment for especially early stage T-19. Yet the entire rest of the world was finding it successful in real time. So claiming peer review of such studies was, literally, just propaganda from the American medical scientific community. The peer review may have occurred but without any critical analysis.
By about my 3rd season of debate I realized you could literally find published academics to say anything and other academics to support the analysis. I was just being partially snarky when I said go find someone that agrees with you when some "peer review" may be self generated but nonetheless done by "reviewers" that already agreed with the conclusion they were reviewing and did not engage in hypothesis testing but rather mere reaffirmation of a preexisting belief/opinion.
My favorite, and there were many studies and much peer review, were the academics that concluded improvements in the US economy would linearly increase beef consumption and produce deforestation in Brazil and Central America to provide the increased cattle supply which would, within five-ten years, cause either a global freeze or unsustainable increases in global temperatures. Great debate game argument but, in the real world, absolutely nuts, since the world is neither unsustainably hot nor cold.
I'm sure you would agree that some observations and conclusions do not require a peer reviewed "study", like philosophical dialectics or mere observation of the contents of the Treasury, Census and BLS data.
You are spot on about this: "Personally, I seek out the toughest reviewers for my papers because I worry about mistakes in execution, logic, and the inevitable bias that creeps into anyone's thinking. The reviewers I avoid are those who correct typos and make no substantive comments. If anything, the weak link in science is the oversized role that Editors have in the process, but even that is offset by the number of journals available." That is what scientists and other academics should do.
The small "a" academy has become so politicized that "peer review" simply does not operate in a neutral scientific manner. Indeed the entire scientific method appears to have been cast aside in pursuit of what are essentially political objectives. The conclusions arise, academic studies are done that appear, and obviously so in some areas of research like climate science and the T-19 research politically oriented. Then other studies, conducted by people that already agree with the results, to produce the agreement. The NAS is comprised of sheep that do not challenge politically necessary conclusions. I've seen now hundreds of studies on various topics that bypass simple questions in both the initial research and "peer reviews"-admittedly climate and economics would be more in my expertise but this has also been apparent in much of the T-19 research.
Perfect example, there are studies, and the lefties and their pukes in the media pounded the desk with them, that claim HCQ was not an effective treatment for especially early stage T-19. Yet the entire rest of the world was finding it successful in real time. So claiming peer review of such studies was, literally, just propaganda from the American medical scientific community. The peer review may have occurred but without any critical analysis.
By about my 3rd season of debate I realized you could literally find published academics to say anything and other academics to support the analysis. I was just being partially snarky when I said go find someone that agrees with you when some "peer review" may be self generated but nonetheless done by "reviewers" that already agreed with the conclusion they were reviewing and did not engage in hypothesis testing but rather mere reaffirmation of a preexisting belief/opinion.
My favorite, and there were many studies and much peer review, were the academics that concluded improvements in the US economy would linearly increase beef consumption and produce deforestation in Brazil and Central America to provide the increased cattle supply which would, within five-ten years, cause either a global freeze or unsustainable increases in global temperatures. Great debate game argument but, in the real world, absolutely nuts, since the world is neither unsustainably hot nor cold.
I'm sure you would agree that some observations and conclusions do not require a peer reviewed "study", like philosophical dialectics or mere observation of the contents of the Treasury, Census and BLS data.
You are spot on about this: "Personally, I seek out the toughest reviewers for my papers because I worry about mistakes in execution, logic, and the inevitable bias that creeps into anyone's thinking. The reviewers I avoid are those who correct typos and make no substantive comments. If anything, the weak link in science is the oversized role that Editors have in the process, but even that is offset by the number of journals available." That is what scientists and other academics should do.
Last edited:
