Why are trhe peer review monkeys inconsistent?

Question

I gave an example of a person who was non peer reviewed who worked at a patent office who said strange things.

Some Non-Deniers realized I was referring to Einstein..,.but they STILL did not realize I was mocking them for views that would have trashed Einstein.

They did not realize that they would have been the most venomonous opponents of Einstein.  His papers were not peer reviewed, he did not work in the field, and he had no title.

So again, people who deny differential equations govetn dynamical systems. why would you not have attacked Einstein?  He was a crackpot by your criterion.  Just admit it--try a little bit to minimize you creep[inesss.  Be sure to flood you response with "peer review"

The global wearming debates are klike the dwebates of Hitlerr verus Stalin--the Deniers are like Hitler, and the Non-Deniers are like Stalin.  The Deniers are the worst people4, but the Non-Deniers are garbage.

Ottawa Mike · Accepted Answer

The "peer review monkeys", as you call them, are very consistent.

All weather, temperature, sea ice extent, polar bear migrations, etc. is consistent with AGW.  The heat is going up and it will be very bad unless we immediately reduce CO2 emissions.  We are running out of time, again.  Anyone who doubts this is a Holocaust denier, an anti-science dupe, a right wing crackpot, a wind farm hater, a creationist, morally bankrupt or basically somebody who can't read a science textbook.

If you see any deviation from that consistency, please bring it forward; it would be unprecedented.

Trevor · Answer

So what you’re saying is that Einstein would have been ‘trashed’ because his work wasn’t peer-reviewed, seems a strange conclusion to have arrived at.

If his work had been peer-reviewed and found to be completely erroneous then he may well have been trashed but this wasn’t really the case.  It became apparent that Einstein was more than a ‘lowly clerk’ and was able to offer incredible insights into some of the most complicated and profound questions ever to have confronted physicists.

I would hope that the same thing would happen whenever a person puts forward a proposal.  If it has merit then it should be investigated further, if it doesn’t then it should be amended or rejected.  Whether this is a consequence of the peer-review process or not is of no relevance – rubbish is rubbish no matter where it comes from or what anyone says about it.

JimZ · Answer

Everyone is an dunce except you of course.  Probably all great theories were mocked and fought against when first proposed.  When you want to go with the crowd, it is useful to try to convince people that the crowd is on your side with peer reviewed papers and badges and titles. Why does that make me think of the scarecrow in Wizard of Oz

If I only had a brain
I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain.
I'd unravel every riddle for any individ'le,
In trouble or in pain

Anonymous · Answer

Well they didn't have peer review as we know it now, but other scientists examined his work and verified the theory to be solid mathematics. If he submitted to peer review today, he would get opposition to his theory and of course there would be those who would deny the validity of his theories as they deny the reality of global climate change. Stalin and Hitler have nothing to do with any of this.. Keep in mind geologists aren't climatologists.

Trending News

Why are trhe peer review monkeys inconsistent?

4 Answers