5 ms·
Not particularly reliably. Peer review by people who actually know what they are doing is going to beat my puny brain 99% of the time.
by hackula1 13y ago
Not particularly reliably. Peer review by people who actually know what they are doing is going to beat my puny brain 99% of the time.
- coldtea 13y agoWasn't that the exact same argument given to the expertise of priests and medieval scholars? In any case, I wouldn't count on that. Recent meta-studies (if we are to at least believe those) show that a majority of scientific papers are non verifiable and non reproducible BS, contain fabrications and alterations, etc -- and that's talking about the "hard sciences". And having been involved with researchers, I don't doubt that at all. E.g: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-re... and: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-t...
- derleth 13y ago> Wasn't that the exact same argument given to the expertise of priests and medieval scholars? This is the "Experts were wrong before" dodge, which conveniently ignores how often individuals are wrong. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before