Yes, the peer review process actually gate keeps true scientific fact from reaching the public.
Many theories taught in academia as "accepted fact" are proven demonstrably false by new findings that have been silenced by the bought-out peer review process.
We saw that quite clearly in the "climate science" community. If you were one of the chosen circle then you all "reviewed" each other's papers and if you were an outsider with contrary views you would have a lot of trouble at the peer review stage.
On one occasion, a paper was held up for months until the righteous ones had managed to cobble up a counter message. Then the two papers appeared in consecutive issues of a journal making it look as if the original paper was easy to refute.
On another occasion, details of the paper were leaked and contrary paper was constructed and bot papers appeared at the same time. If the second paper had been a response to the first the originators would have had the last word but the ploy meant that if the writers of the first paper replied to the second then the second authors would have the last word.
Then there are the machinations of the IPCC. On one occasion, a disruptive paper was delayed until after the cutoff date for IPCC submission thus keeping it out of their reports for three years.
Peer Review seems to have become a thing around the time of Einstein. One journal asked him to submit his paper for peer review and he said No thanks and gave it to another journal! I always thought he was smart.
Now think of all the famous scientists leading up to Einstein without peer review and all the famous ones since with peer review: Faraday, Maxwell, Rutherford, Boltzmann, Planck, Lorentz, the Curies, Bohr.
Has peer review actually improved anything?
Is it any more than gate keeping?
In many cases, 70–130-year-old theories are trying to be upheld, while existing data and experimentation proves these theories antiquated and absurdly incorrect, but if you can't get published in the peer reviewed journals your paper does not exist.
Luckily the papers are still online, and the public is waking up. But I don't know of many people like me diving into six hours of hunting down studies on obscure topics.
The classic one for me is poor Alfred Wegener. He had the stupid idea that the land masses on the earth moved! He thought Plate Tectonics was a thing but the consensus view was that they did not.
The established scientists managed to maintain their view for decades until after Wegener died. Now everyone thinks he was right after all.
That should be borne in mind when considering science. We may be living in one of the decades when the correct idea is out there but the consensus says it is not.
It is hard for scientists. They first learn something over a couple of decades or so. Then they teach it for another three decades. If some young upstart comes along and says they are wrong they have half a century of experience telling them it is not true. Many never change their minds.
I think it was Max Planck who said something like science advances by one dead scientist at a time. Only when the establishment scientists change are new ideas accepted.
Transactional Management - designed in the forties, to control armies.
Also known as 'carrot and stick' - still used today. Also, that was apparent in the weird show Trump has been putting on. I could not believe he actually threatened Russia, and then seemed to play nice ... but I think he was putting on a show. The style needs clear rules - if you do X, you get Y, for both the reward and the punishment. That's why it works better in military or hard-labor situations, but It can very easily become tyranny,
BTW. Very not helpful in a digital environment - and I mean everybody has a computer and is using software in the workplace, and they have specialities - managers cannot start whupping them, sorry.. It just doesn't work. For example: Manager: You must write code, now, I'll give you a bonus. Why are you not typing? Answer: I am thinking.
Transformational Management - lol, birthed in the "I'd like to teach the world to sing' era of group hugs and amazingly powerful motivatioinal speakers. With it, came a whole shelf of pop-management books about how such managers need to have lots of leeway, so that they work their magic. And that rah-rah promotes productivity. A lot of back-slapping and grabbing elbows, touchy-feely stuff, and of ourse, lots of praise. Not much actual work though. Problem is: such managers are a dime a dozen these days: the theory has finally caught on, in un-edumecated management circles, but LOL they saw the Ted-talk.. The style suits narcissistic, manipulative shiny-arses, and usually they don't know a thing about the software..
Yes, the peer review process actually gate keeps true scientific fact from reaching the public.
Many theories taught in academia as "accepted fact" are proven demonstrably false by new findings that have been silenced by the bought-out peer review process.
Agreed.
We saw that quite clearly in the "climate science" community. If you were one of the chosen circle then you all "reviewed" each other's papers and if you were an outsider with contrary views you would have a lot of trouble at the peer review stage.
On one occasion, a paper was held up for months until the righteous ones had managed to cobble up a counter message. Then the two papers appeared in consecutive issues of a journal making it look as if the original paper was easy to refute.
On another occasion, details of the paper were leaked and contrary paper was constructed and bot papers appeared at the same time. If the second paper had been a response to the first the originators would have had the last word but the ploy meant that if the writers of the first paper replied to the second then the second authors would have the last word.
Then there are the machinations of the IPCC. On one occasion, a disruptive paper was delayed until after the cutoff date for IPCC submission thus keeping it out of their reports for three years.
Peer Review seems to have become a thing around the time of Einstein. One journal asked him to submit his paper for peer review and he said No thanks and gave it to another journal! I always thought he was smart.
Now think of all the famous scientists leading up to Einstein without peer review and all the famous ones since with peer review: Faraday, Maxwell, Rutherford, Boltzmann, Planck, Lorentz, the Curies, Bohr.
Has peer review actually improved anything? Is it any more than gate keeping?
In many cases, 70–130-year-old theories are trying to be upheld, while existing data and experimentation proves these theories antiquated and absurdly incorrect, but if you can't get published in the peer reviewed journals your paper does not exist.
Luckily the papers are still online, and the public is waking up. But I don't know of many people like me diving into six hours of hunting down studies on obscure topics.
The classic one for me is poor Alfred Wegener. He had the stupid idea that the land masses on the earth moved! He thought Plate Tectonics was a thing but the consensus view was that they did not.
The established scientists managed to maintain their view for decades until after Wegener died. Now everyone thinks he was right after all.
That should be borne in mind when considering science. We may be living in one of the decades when the correct idea is out there but the consensus says it is not.
It is hard for scientists. They first learn something over a couple of decades or so. Then they teach it for another three decades. If some young upstart comes along and says they are wrong they have half a century of experience telling them it is not true. Many never change their minds.
I think it was Max Planck who said something like science advances by one dead scientist at a time. Only when the establishment scientists change are new ideas accepted.
Yes, that one was egregious.
Try this on for size.
Yes, try:
Transactional Management - designed in the forties, to control armies. Also known as 'carrot and stick' - still used today. Also, that was apparent in the weird show Trump has been putting on. I could not believe he actually threatened Russia, and then seemed to play nice ... but I think he was putting on a show. The style needs clear rules - if you do X, you get Y, for both the reward and the punishment. That's why it works better in military or hard-labor situations, but It can very easily become tyranny,
BTW. Very not helpful in a digital environment - and I mean everybody has a computer and is using software in the workplace, and they have specialities - managers cannot start whupping them, sorry.. It just doesn't work. For example: Manager: You must write code, now, I'll give you a bonus. Why are you not typing? Answer: I am thinking.
Transformational Management - lol, birthed in the "I'd like to teach the world to sing' era of group hugs and amazingly powerful motivatioinal speakers. With it, came a whole shelf of pop-management books about how such managers need to have lots of leeway, so that they work their magic. And that rah-rah promotes productivity. A lot of back-slapping and grabbing elbows, touchy-feely stuff, and of ourse, lots of praise. Not much actual work though. Problem is: such managers are a dime a dozen these days: the theory has finally caught on, in un-edumecated management circles, but LOL they saw the Ted-talk.. The style suits narcissistic, manipulative shiny-arses, and usually they don't know a thing about the software..
indeed. It happened to me.