Peer Review: Difference between revisions

''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.

 

 

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

 

 

— '''Eric Weinstein''', June 9, 2025, on [https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932184992173699397 X]