Is peer review an ad populum argument?

File: 1492654266105.jpg (367KB, 3000x1683px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 3000x1683px

>>8842552
If it is not reviewed by alien scientists it is shit. Even if aliens review it it will still be shit but just a bit less. You need to get attention of the Creator or universe to review it and tell you if it valid, reliable. But other dimension Creators may not agree with your papers so I would try to get into contact with interdimensional beings so they can redirect you to the Creator with the most experience in dimensional peer reviewing. That may give you an itch of objectivity. Otherwise do not bother.

Let's be honest, you don't know if science is real. It's just an argument from authority.

>>8842578
yeah, exactly, it's not

just like the oblate-spheroid-earthers
if I can't see it and think it myself it's false, that's obvious

so far we have 2 minuses and 0 positives for Science
-ad populum
-argument from authority

File: f83cd4301f776a350938ed502e8fe626788e9e5031441c5a9e11ef67a59c5b2e.jpg (158KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1920x1080px

>>8842552
My experience with science is that deviation from the heard causes enormous backlash. Moreover, reviewers most definitely have a "dog behind a fence" type of attitude due to their anonymity.

In short, peer review makes people assholes and most scientists are cuckolds to popular opinion...

>>8842552
It is difficult for answer because it heavily depends on the subject of study. Any social sciences will have a hard time with this. And some theoretical not really observable theories would too. If we reduce everything we lose the system. If we study system we dont go deep into elements of the system and get harder reliability and validity. A lot of theories and paradigms are just agreements of scientific community.

I can see how known scientists getting their names written in papers of colleagues make their work seem better. There should be rules to peer review in my opinion. But then that would complicate things. It is definitely better to get the review than not as you will not lose anything. Demanding peer review could be used as business in the long run which could destroy credibility of science. But it already seems like that is happening. You get one breakthrough or get something right that noone did before and suddenly you are expert for everything is more dangerous and damaging. Also university or other facility "prestige" are under this same effect.

It seems to me that peer review is just branding if not done genuinely for the work. Then again how anyone starting out (students) or scientists from different branches can know if said papers are done correctly. There is no time to study everything.

>>8842584
>fallacy fallacy
Just because something is fallacious, doesn't mean it's wrong. Give some real criticisms.

>>8842614
I was just kidding with those two, but now that I think about it, peer review implies the need of eliminating subjectivity and human error by having more than one person review research / some other thing. But subjectivity will always be present in a system that relies on human to execute tests of corectness and logic. Muh feels, bias, personal feelings and especially frustrations (which everyone has, no matter how intelligent you are) are always present to some degree. The direction in which research is heading is decided by feels, trendy / meme ideas and buzzwords and at a bigger scale by normie feels. Normalfags in the end decide where everything goes and how everything evolves. Businesses, governments, etc. all of them do R&D based on what research opportunities / priorities appear in a world ruled by stupid normalfags.

There's probably less subjectivity in Mathematics, though. I'm sure there are some autists who pursue some branches of Mathematics just for the hell of it, without thinking about money or practical uses. Abstract, almost unneeded (unneeded by the public) branches, like the one explored by Ted Kaczynski in his PhD thesis.

I hope I didn't sound incoherent or retarded, I wanted to say that everything related to the development and evolution of absolutely every field, technology, business, art, etc. in our planet is dictated by normalfags. This is what happens in a system (which is the world) where there is such a large and infectious (in terms of influence) variable, like normalfags here on earth.

The amount of objective / non-biased research being done now is like paint in an ocean full of piss. And I'm talking about that dark yellow dehydrated-man piss.

>>8842661

is like throwing a cup of paint in an ocean full of piss*

>>8842661
looks like it's the opposite in the USA
for PhD you need a dissertation, not a thesis

File: Yes.jpg (81KB, 715x713px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 715x713px

>>8842578
That's only true for non-scientists