5,984
edits
Peer Review: Difference between revisions
→Quotes
(→Quotes) |
(→Quotes) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
''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]'' | ''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] | — '''Eric Weinstein''', March 6, 2023, on [https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1632936637125767169 X] | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
''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.'' | ''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 | — '''Julian Schwinger''' | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
''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.'' | ''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] | — [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 '''David Chapman'''] | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
''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.'' | ''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] | — [https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/voevodsky-origins '''Vladimir Voevodsky'''] | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
<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] | ''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> | </blockquote> | ||