No, which is why the "appeal to authority" fallacy is such a flawed method, because it fails to address the root of the problem.
It's like stating that "Pedatric Science shows peer-reviewed evidence that transitioning 5 year olds is a net-positive for mental well-being"
Ridiculous example, but that's why it's an issue. If modern science is thoroughly compromised, asking for "peer review" on such topics from the scientific establishment is like asking if the Mafia believes that organized crime is a net-benefit to society.
"Experts say that science suggests that peer reviewed studies may show that there is a possible link to propoganda has some possible influence on how one can potentially react in some unexpected form, early studies reveal."
"MuH pEeR rEvIeW"
"LeTs SeE yOuR cReDeNtIaLs"
"sOuRcEs"
"ExPerTs SaY"
"ThE sCiEnCe iS SeTtLeD"
"PrObLeMaTiC YiKes oOf My DuDe"
Fuck Reddit.
Is there any difference between "peer review" and "academic circle jerk"?
Asking for a fren.
No, which is why the "appeal to authority" fallacy is such a flawed method, because it fails to address the root of the problem.
It's like stating that "Pedatric Science shows peer-reviewed evidence that transitioning 5 year olds is a net-positive for mental well-being"
Ridiculous example, but that's why it's an issue. If modern science is thoroughly compromised, asking for "peer review" on such topics from the scientific establishment is like asking if the Mafia believes that organized crime is a net-benefit to society.
"Experts say that science suggests that peer reviewed studies may show that there is a possible link to propoganda has some possible influence on how one can potentially react in some unexpected form, early studies reveal."