US GDP to fall by -32.9%, Europe's by -40.3%

[La Xinga]

Peer review does not mean it's true.

Except it literally does. Or rather it's as close to it as you can get within reasonable means.

But since you are intent on denying all science I do not see how this matters.

Intent on denying all science?

i don't think I understand your 'no on how it works'

Beacuse if you did you would know the work that goes into proveing or disproveing anything that gets peer reviewed.

And if I'm not there how would they know my opinion?

[Post War America]

Except it literally does. Or rather it's as close to it as you can get within reasonable means.

But since you are intent on denying all science I do not see how this matters.

Intent on denying all science?

Since peer review is the foundation of the scientific method, yes denying the validity of peer review is essentially denying the science.

[La Xinga]

Intent on denying all science?

Since peer review is the foundation of the scientific method, yes denying the validity of peer review is essentially denying the science.

"The" and "All" aren't the same.

[Post War America]

Since peer review is the foundation of the scientific method, yes denying the validity of peer review is essentially denying the science.

"The" and "All" aren't the same.

Given that science without peer review is generally considered to be quackery at best, what you're essentially saying is that quackery is more valid than actual science.

[La Xinga]

"The" and "All" aren't the same.

Given that science without peer review is generally considered to be quackery at best, what you're essentially saying is that quackery is more valid than actual science.

It's considered to be quackery maybe by you, but not by other people I know.

[Post War America]

Given that science without peer review is generally considered to be quackery at best, what you're essentially saying is that quackery is more valid than actual science.

It's considered to be quackery maybe by you, but not by other people I know.

Are other people you know actual scientists? Or are they random people?

[La Xinga]

It's considered to be quackery maybe by you, but not by other people I know.

Are other people you know actual scientists? Or are they random people?

Eh Random people why?

[Post War America]

Are other people you know actual scientists? Or are they random people?

Eh Random people why?

Generally, random people, when their opinions contradict experts in a field need to have some very serious evidence as to how they are right when experts are wrong. Since you are attempting to discredit the very foundations of how science works you're gonna need one hell of a mountain of evidence, and no "some other people agree with me" is not valid evidence.

[La Xinga]

Eh Random people why?

Generally, random people, when their opinions contradict experts in a field need to have some very serious evidence as to how they are right when experts are wrong. Since you are attempting to discredit the very foundations of how science works you're gonna need one hell of a mountain of evidence, and no "some other people agree with me" is not valid evidence.

Just because the're scientists doesn't mean they can say it with no evidence. I wasn't there by peer review.

So that just leaves you who to trust, to trust the other scientists over the demon COVID one.

In fact, I see plenty of "wearing masks help you stop spreading" not "stop form catching."

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... t-20485449

[Borderlands of Rojava]

"The" and "All" aren't the same.

Given that science without peer review is generally considered to be quackery at best, what you're essentially saying is that quackery is more valid than actual science.

There is only two sciences without peer review. Ufology and ghost hunting.

Many people consider them to be pseudoscience and there is no peer review involved. And yet according to Xinga, peer review is big bad.

[Caninope]

Peer review does not mean it's true.

So that would be a no on how peer review works.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review makes it more likely that it is true; it does not make it true however.

There are numerous examples of retraction of peer reviewed studies on COVID-19 alone; peer review sometimes fails on giving a good review and sometimes peer review is just outright wrong because later experimental or theoretical evidence overturns previous papers.

Even then, the point of peer review is not even to establish the truth of an experiment or theory; it is to certify that the experiment or theory contributes to the literature. This why you often have papers with competing theories all peer reviewed, sometimes published in the same issue of the same journal!

[Caninope]

Peer review does not mean it's true.

Except it literally does. Or rather it's as close to it as you can get within reasonable means.

But since you are intent on denying all science I do not see how this matters.

As I noted in my post immediately above this, this is false nor do scientists or social scientists believe peer review is to be considered an endorsement of the truthfulness of a theory on the whole.

For example: take, for instance, peer reviewed papers on competing theories. Competing theories cannot simultaneously both be correct. Peer review is better understood as saying "it's not immediately obvious that you made a mistake and you have a plausible or even compelling theory which contributes to the literature".

Of course, additional review makes things less likely to be false but should not be confused with an outright endorsement of said theory.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So that would be a no on how peer review works.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review makes it more likely that it is true; it does not make it true however.

And since we began the tangent with "it's still science if it's not peer reviewed" and have reached a consensus that failing peer review means it's not science ... the only thing remaining is to decide whether papers not yet reviewed (or never submitted) are science, nonscience, or some indeterminate state.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Except it literally does. Or rather it's as close to it as you can get within reasonable means.

But since you are intent on denying all science I do not see how this matters.

As I noted in my post immediately above this, this is false nor do scientists or social scientists believe peer review is to be considered an endorsement of the truthfulness of a theory on the whole.

For example: take, for instance, peer reviewed papers on competing theories. Competing theories cannot simultaneously both be correct. Peer review is better understood as saying "it's not immediately obvious that you made a mistake and you have a plausible or even compelling theory which contributes to the literature".

Of course, additional review makes things less likely to be false but should not be confused with an outright endorsement of said theory.

The social sciences are different, since they can't attain the level of rigors of the hard sciences. Obviously, peer-reviewed papers may be challenged, but if an idea is peer-reviewed and forms the academic consensus, it's probably right.

[Farnhamia]

Seems like this thread has served whatever purpose it had and has devolved into a discussion of the scientific method or something.