Peer Review in 5 Minutes

[fertilizerspike]

Peer review is not important, and it's not part of science. Peer review is an irrelevant political process that governs funding and publication. Empirical studies have shown peer review is unable to eliminate error and reinforces common bias. Peer review is also readily abused.

[BrooklynRagtag]

@fertilizerspike Hmmm ...You wrote the same anti-peer-review comment on another video. What is that study you are citing? It's strange that you've brought it up at least twice without directing anyone to the actual study.

How would you, in all your wisdom, recommend science operate? If there is no peer review, what process would you put into place in order to help weed out poorly done science.

[misterzonker2584]

@fertilizerspike What the hell are you talking about? Peer review is the standard for sifting through good and bad information. That doesn't mean knowledge can't come in other ways, but peer review is a necessary component of science. Without it, we'd be lost. It couldn't be more relevant. Did you get burned by a peer reviewer of something?

[TheCodedAtheist]

@fertilizerspike - No, the peer review process is an integral part of the scientific process. It seeks to weed out problems in methodology and logic, not to disapprove of findings simply because of personal biases. Though not being perfect, as there is always a human element, it's by far the best means by which we examine scientific hypotheses. Do you have another option, because I'd sure like to hear it. Incidentally, you're not by chance a creationist or conspiracy theorist, are you???

[uwgeraldchen]

The material can sound more convincing if the speaker can try speak up a little.