Editing Peer Review (section)

== Quotes ==

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932189028537053647
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=People who lie about the research of others cannot be referees. Period. And that lying is absolutely everywhere.

This is why we stagnate. 

If you put consensus scientists in charge, you always stagnate innovation. The consensus is VERY often wrong.

We had it more right before.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932184992173699397
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q: Why do I not back down when experts tell me I'm an idiot?

A: Mobs of credentialed experts are OFTEN just *TOTALLY* wrong in their very area of exerptise. They tend to reinforce each other in their certainties.

In particular, *SCIENTISTS ARE FLAT OUT WRONG* on '''"Peer Review"''':
|timestamp=9:16 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|media1=Melinda-Baldwin-Peer-Review-Scholarly-Kitchen-GtB-mQUagAAEpyl.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932187415332164018
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So, please, lecture me on '''Peer Review''' and how it has always been here in science. Just perserverate that same thing over and over and over again. I'm here for you.

When your head is often filled with malware, at least take a moment to figure out how much you want to teach someone else "with receipts" who isn't backing down.
|timestamp=9:25 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932187416850554940
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content='''Peer Review''' is a *RECENT*, unwanted, disastorous, administrative rewriting of research science culture. If you want to know what kills progress, it's this.

Source of image: Interview with Melinda Baldwin at the "Scholarly Kitchen".

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/26/the-rise-of-peer-review-melinda-baldwin-on-the-history-of-refereeing-at-scientific-journals-and-funding-bodies/
|timestamp=9:25 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}
|timestamp=9:32 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}

<blockquote>
''I call up MIT, and I call up David Kaiser. And I say, look, here's the history that I know. You know, we're not talking to people. I deal with colleagues who believe that peer review is is an intrinsic part of science, which is clearly not true. The brainwashing of our scientific institutions, that the fact that we don't know the history of the Golden Age of general relativity that we don't understand the way in which anti gravity intersected the way that we don't understand that we distributed programs in the interstitial regions between nonprofits like universities, government, agencies, like units of the military and private corporations, like our aerospace corporations. We used to know how things got done. And then we passed the Mansfield amendment in the late 1960s, early 1970s, to put the kibosh on military funding of civilian research. And we went completely insane. I mean, I understand their motivation for not wanting the military to be directing civilian research during the Vietnam War. But when you knock out a load bearing wall, you are responsible for putting some support in its place before the destruction is complete.''

— '''Eric Weinstein''', June 16, 2021, on [[Eric Weinstein & Michael Shermer: An honest dialogue about UFOs (YouTube Content)|Eric Weinstein & Michael Shermer: An honest dialogue about UFOs]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''For those who still believe in peer review and scientific consensus, ask yourself why someone like the great particle theorist Steven Weinberg (1933-2021) understood Corona Virus GoF risk enough to issue such a strong statement in support of @EcoHealthNYC: [https://www.coalitionforlifesciences.org/77-nobel-laureates-express-concern-of-nih-grant-cancellation/ 77 Nobel Laureates Express “Grave Concern” Over NIH Grant Cancellation]''

— '''Eric Weinstein''', March 6, 2023, on [https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1632936637125767169 X]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.''

— '''Julian Schwinger'''
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''Also, funding by peer review results in group-think and whole scientific fields floating off in a self-perpetuating irreality bubble for decades. Randomness will fund mavericks, mostly crackpots, but some may blow up established dysfunctional disciplines.''

— [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 '''David Chapman''']
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''A technical argument by a trusted author, which is hard to check and looks similar to arguments known to be correct, is hardly ever checked in detail.''

— [https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/voevodsky-origins '''Vladimir Voevodsky''']
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''Research by salaried laborers is becoming a rent-seeking citation ring consisting of large scale imitative rituals, with a decreasing number of results, an increasing cluelessness of participants, and a multiplication of useless rules.''

— [https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1009417068926722048 '''Nassim Nicholas Taleb''']
</blockquote>