Should we allow non-scientists to verify our work? Is peer review

>>8515752
that picture is bullshit.
other scientists are peer reviewing you as a scientist in the same way that the police is investigating you as a police officer

>>8515784
also to answer your question, or at least give you acounter question.
who, other than scientists would be competent enough to peer review a scientist?

How is a scientifically illiterate person going to verify science research is done correctly? You don't bring in a random guy with no electrical experience to inspect an electricians work.

With peer review you have people who know their shit from other universities checking over research. This is similar to how independent investigations of police misconduct are supposed to be handled. You get cops from LA to investigate cops from NYC so nobody is covering for their bros.

>>8515752
Non-scientists are allowed to do whatever they want. And the scientific community is free to ignore their useless input.

>Should we allow non-scientists to verify our work?
No, that's not practical. Someone with no experience of the topic or even the field will have no idea about most of the content of a paper.

>Is peer review as bad as allowing police to investigate the crimes of their fellow officers?
No. If you ever try to publish a paper with more than a few authors you will likely spend time arguing with them, even the people on your teem are determined to see everything checks out. With reviewers the worst thing that can happen is people don't do their job, take months or they have a vested interest to sink the paper because they have a similar one. The last one is rare but I've seen it once. In most rigorous fields it's in nobodies interest to see bunk papers published.

File: fbi_logo_twitter.jpg (547KB, 400x414px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 400x414px

>>8515752
Actually if you have evidence to suggest that the Internal Affairs Division of your local police department are not correctly investigating criminal activities of police officers, you can go to the FBI. Half of the reason for the FBI's existence is to investigate other government institutions. So no the police don't always investigate themselves.

>>8515784
to be fair, you usually aren't getting peer reviewed by your own department.

>>8515752
>well the police never report any problems about it so it must be ok

>>8515752
Difference is scientists are actively trying to bust each other's balls and many times actively trying to disprove each other because they don't want anyone to have the glory of making a discovery. Police offers literally have a fraternity type of organization and actively protect each other's interests during investigations. The same potential for corruption is there, but the culture with science is radically opposite of the fraternity culture you'd see in police work, or most other kinds of work.

>>8515946
Basically, if we had an completely transparent organization specifically dedicated to investigating the police, or if we allowed different departments from different states to investigate each other and reward departments for finding problems in the other departments they are investigating, then it'd be much better and more similar to the scientific peer review.

>>8515752
>Should we allow non-scientists to verify our work?

this actually happens all the time. its called Engineering.

>>8515752
>Should we allow non-scientists to verify our work?
Who is stopping them?
Of course anyone can verify the work of scientists no matter who he is.
He will probably have no Idea about what he is "verifying" but he definitely is allowed too.