5,984
edits
Peer Review: Difference between revisions
→Quotes
(→On X) |
(→Quotes) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Quotes == | == Quotes == | ||
<blockquote> | |||
''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": | |||
[[File:Melinda-Baldwin-Peer-Review-Scholarly-Kitchen-GtB-mQUagAAEpyl.jpg|thumb]] | |||
''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. | |||
''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: [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/ Interview with Melinda Baldwin at the "Scholarly Kitchen"]. | |||
''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. | |||
— '''Eric Weinstein''', June 9, 2025, on [https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932184992173699397 X] | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||