The Portal Wiki

Peer Review: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Peer Review (edit)

Revision as of 17:16, 28 September 2025

4,260 bytes added ,  28 September
→‎2025
Line 799: Line 799:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Medical Peer Review starts then because of the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 establishing Medicare. Scientific Peer Review comes out of Robert Maxwell, Pergamon Press and ultimately the Baumann Amendment a decade later responding to “Man, a Course of Study.”
|content='''Medical Peer Review''' starts then because of the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 establishing Medicare. Scientific Peer Review comes out of Robert Maxwell, Pergamon Press and ultimately the Baumann Amendment a decade later responding to “Man, a Course of Study.”
|thread=
|thread=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 807: Line 807:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Your reminder that *all* science before 1965 was not “Peer Reviewed “ and hence is totally unreliable. Allegedly.
|content=Your reminder that *all* science before 1965 was not '''“Peer Reviewed“''' and hence is totally unreliable. Allegedly.
|timestamp=3:35 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|timestamp=3:35 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1932099333119492254-GtAyGoEbcAAMI1H.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-1932099333119492254-GtAyGoEbcAAMI1H.jpg
Line 839: Line 839:
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.
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":
In particular, *SCIENTISTS ARE FLAT OUT WRONG* on '''"Peer Review"''':
|timestamp=9:16 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|timestamp=9:16 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|media1=Melinda-Baldwin-Peer-Review-Scholarly-Kitchen-GtB-mQUagAAEpyl.jpg
|media1=Melinda-Baldwin-Peer-Review-Scholarly-Kitchen-GtB-mQUagAAEpyl.jpg
Line 849: Line 849:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=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.
|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.
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.
Line 860: Line 860:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=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.
|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".
Source of image: Interview with Melinda Baldwin at the "Scholarly Kitchen".
Line 868: Line 868:
}}
}}
|timestamp=9:32 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|timestamp=9:32 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941379571607273722
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=<nowiki>*</nowiki>electron. My bad.
Q: How do we get relocate these people at scale? How do they enter theoretical physics? It’s so bizarre.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941374102197109183
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Quality Control: the scourge of Great Science.
You cannot quality control your nation to great theoretical physics. Can’t be done.
It’s about what has never been done. I could wipe out all of past theoretical physics with '''peer review''' &amp; quality control.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wcSIAJdOZ-Q
|timestamp=5:50 AM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941374104633999571
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“Mr Feynman: what is the measure on that integral?”
“But then your eigenfunctions aren’t in your Hilbert space.”
“Wait: why are we adding ad hoc positivity conditions again?”
“So nature just gives us this magic sector Mr Higgs because it would solve all your problems? Have you considered going into screenwriting?”
“But Dr Einstein, your equations must be wrong because they lead to singularities that can’t be removed.”
“Dr Gell-Mann: you are just randomly applying SU(3) to totally different things. Like a man with a hammer thinking everything is a nail.”
“But Paul, then the election and the proton would have the same mass. Rejected for publication I’m afraid.”
“But Dr Aharonov: surely someone would have noticed this. I’m sorry. You can’t give a talk on magical E&M.”
|timestamp=5:50 AM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
|timestamp=6:12 AM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941522806547829032
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We need to talk about what debunking was before it became “Covert influence operations”, “Image Cheapening”‘and personal destruction warfare.
So let’s talk.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941522171886739479
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I would like to talk to @MickWest and @michaelshermer and @francis_collins and  @neiltyson and @seanmcarroll and @nytimes about the role of debunking and discrediting professionals who do not buy into narratives that are later found to be cover stories about national interest.
|timestamp=3:38 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941522174428565613
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We have a COVID=Wet Market narrative.</br>
We have an Inflation and CPI narrative.</br>
We have a Quantum Gravity narrative.</br>
We have a Vaccine Narrative.</br>
We have “Americans suck at STEM”.</br>
We have a “Settled Science” narrative.</br>
We have a '''“Peer Review”''' narrative.</br>
We had a “Great Moderation” narrative.</br>
We have “Independent Journalism”.</br>
We have a “Disgraced Financier” story.</br>
We have an “Aerospace and UFO” opera.
It’s all one thing that cannot be named:
National Interest “Managed Reality.”
|timestamp=3:38 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
|timestamp=3:41 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1952882797313704120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=LONG: Science  + AI +  Traditional Academe</br>
———————————————————-</br>
SHORT:  '''Peer Review'''  +    Modern Academe
That’s the trade, in my opinion.
|timestamp=12:01 AM · Aug 6, 2025
}}
}}


Line 877: Line 990:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Peer Review is a recent unwanted development in Science.
|content='''Peer Review''' is a recent unwanted development in Science.


The lie is that it is bedrock science and dates back to the founding of the Royal Society. I’ve covered this extensively.
The lie is that it is bedrock science and dates back to the founding of the Royal Society. I’ve covered this extensively.
Line 889: Line 1,002:
|content=Our institutions are often lying about science. And *they* are the ones saying “We cannot allow public questioning of our institutions of science by PhDs.”
|content=Our institutions are often lying about science. And *they* are the ones saying “We cannot allow public questioning of our institutions of science by PhDs.”


And if you don’t believe me, start with the lie about Peer Review and Journals.
And if you don’t believe me, start with the lie about '''Peer Review''' and Journals.


We are literally lying about Peer Review:
We are literally lying about Peer Review:
Line 916: Line 1,029:
|content=Ask yourself the following.
|content=Ask yourself the following.


Q1: Would you rather have the science and scientists from before the advent of Peer Review during 1965-75, or after?
Q1: Would you rather have the science and scientists from before the advent of '''Peer Review''' during 1965-75, or after?


Q2: Do you trust scientists more or less if they claim that Peer Review is essential, and dates to the founding of the Royal Society?
Q2: Do you trust scientists more or less if they claim that '''Peer Review''' is essential, and dates to the founding of the Royal Society?
|quote=
|quote=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 926: Line 1,039:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/t_a_stephens
|usernameurl=https://x.com/t_a_stephens
|username=t_a_stephens
|username=t_a_stephens
|content=@EricRWeinstein It’s amazing that peer review is such a recent development. Prior to reading your comments on it, I had just assumed it was a longstanding tradition in the sciences.
|content=@EricRWeinstein It’s amazing that '''peer review''' is such a recent development. Prior to reading your comments on it, I had just assumed it was a longstanding tradition in the sciences.


Science obviously worked fine before peer review, and it may just drive groupthink more than anything else.
Science obviously worked fine before peer review, and it may just drive groupthink more than anything else.
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/22543"