i've done computers most of my life
i routinely encounter professional IT administrators that do everything wrong and their environment is a permanent tire fire.these are people who have dozens of microsoft certs and training program receipts and they still can't into basic scripting.
when you think someone having credentials means they are incapable of mistakes ...
๐ณ๐ฑ
@icedquinn appeal to authority is fine, so long as their "credentials" are actual demonstrated success and not a cert.
it's clear these worshippers have never actually participated in science
@icedquinn Peer review means nothing unless the journal and peer reviewers have a good reputation for accuracy. Peer review alone means nothing without a history of good results.
@freemo i donโt actually believe peer review means anything itโs just bias enforcement.
thereโs been weird experiments to this.
one was a student deliberately publishing garbage math to check if the physics journal even looked at formulas (they didnโt) or were just policing for claims.
the other was the massive riot that ensued when Bemโs feeling the future paper was accepted in a prestigious journal and everyone was like 
HOW DARE YOU PUBLISH PARAPSYCHOLOGY YOU INSOLENT PEASANTS and there was a whole ordeal about it
@icedquinn All those examples prove is that those specific instances of peer review were done poorly. Again peer review is only as good as the quality of the reviewers based on their past success.
Anyone can start a shitty journal with shitty peer reviewers and use it to claim peer review is shit, it says **nothing** about **all** peer review
@icedquinn Nope, it only demonstrates which instances are failures. Peer review is not some generic badge that qualifies a paper. A scientist is expected to know which journals conduct reputable peer review and which dont. Even if there were 90% scam journals and 10% legit high quality peer review it doesnt change that,
@icedquinn Thats an idiotic take on what I just said... If einstein tells you an equation on special relativity is wrong, you listen. If joe blow tells you, who never even studied it and has gotten basic facts wrong, you dont. Nothing about that equates to a "no true scotsman". As a scientist you value the critique of people who have demonstrably proven themselves to be right, and you put les time into people who have demonstrably proven themselves to be consistently wrong. This isnt a tough idea to understand, and it carries over to journals as much as individuals.
@icedquinn Summary:
You: Getting other people to provide feedback is bias!
Me: Depends on who is providing feedback, its only as good as the people involved.
You: No true scotsman fallacy!
Me: ::rolls eyes::
