Disadvantages of Peer Reviews || Wisdom of knowledge
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ค. 2021
- "People talk GLIBLY about science. What is science? People are coming out of the university with a masters degree or a PhD and you take them into the field and they literally don't believe anything unless it is a peer-reviewed paper! That's the only thing they accept. If we say them, "Let's observe, Let's think, Let's discuss." They don't do it. It's just, "Is it in a peer-reviewed paper, or not?" That's their view of science! I think it's pathetic!
Going to universities as bright young people - they come out of them BRAIN DEAD, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers etc. NO! That's "Academia"! And if a paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the SAME, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when NEW knowledge emerges, NEW scientific insights... they can never ever be peer-reviewed.
So, we're blocking all new advances in Science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in Science, almost always they don't come from the center of that profession - they come from the fringe. The finest candle makers in the world couldn't even think of electric lights. They don't come from within, they often come from the outside the breaks.
We're going to kill ourselves because of stupidity."
~ Professor Allan Savory.
In the world of science, no one wants to believe the scientific outcome without peer review. This thinking affects the creative thinking capabilities of the human brain. Here we share a short clip from Return to Eden to clear one of the major disadvantages of peer review in the scientific community.
Note: For students (Educational Purpose).
#peerreview #paathshaala #drpro
![Things you don't say out loud in academia [9 open secrets]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sgAlFPMugWw/mqdefault.jpg)
I forgot one of our finest - Mary Greeley. The USGS is doing what they're all doing, lying and covering up. Mary is getting the truth out. There are probably so many more. And the fellow in Alberta, Can. and gal in Ireland who forced their govts to admit to the scamdemic. We all have to be the heroes we need.
When an old man with a ragged, sweat stained hat that looks like it has gone through dozens of adventures in the bush shares his wisdom, you sit down and listen.
Not enough people are viewing this important video. This is a huge problem across the entire planet right now. The whole "trust the science, listen to the experts, the scientific consensus, etc." arguments are destroying science and freedom of thought and speech.
So true
😢🎉
I cannot thank this Professor enough. What he said become part of me. I am opening my eyes and hearts to observe and understand the surrounding like when i was a child.
Science should be about discovery and learning about the world around us...this video should be required viewing for anyone going into science courses in any college or university world wide
Glad I found this video again, almost couldnt because its original title was the last thing he said and now dear loving mother youtube blocks all searches and asks if I need help lol
Peer reviews have been absolute nonsense for at least the past 40 years. This is true in the natural sciences to a degree but it has been embarrassingly 100% true most clearly in civics faculties - law, economics, business, finance, government, education, and social.
Well said, Doctor..
1:11
So true
Just ask the brilliant people that have come along in recent years. Ben Davidson of Suspicious Observers, and his gang. Dutchsinse. And there are plenty of folks in the field of economics too. That's why they have to be censored!
Advantage of non peer review: One doesn't need to show observations of its findings.......
Mr debunker should be awarded nobel prize for producing electricity from mudras
BS has still been published under peer review. Peer review doesn't mean anything is validate or has been actually test. It is low quality crap detector with a ton of false negatives and possibly even more false positives. Regardless though, the review process is a horrible way to have an actual intellectual discussion about the subject matter of the paper. If you wanted to actually solve the problem, publish with a disclaimer saying "NOT PEER-REVIEWED". Or make peer review and external testing earned badges of sorts. This actually makes the process a lot more open and reduces the ability of committee to control outcomes (because, yes, there are bad incentives out there).
@@akam9919 One should blindly believe on claims so there shouldn't be need of peer review (independent testing).
This reminds of Vedic Rashmi theory guy who too ignored question on peer review when someone asked to him about experiments and mathematics done to validate his theory 🤣🤣🤣
@@nikhar1234tare You are confusing the process of replication with the peer review process. Peer review is a very biased process as it is done by other humans who can have conflicting theories. There are many cases where there is friction of interests between peers. Certain scientific conclusions can be very devastating to the Academia. So they will reject it. Like in the case of Harlen J Bretz's scientific finding or Mary Schweitzer's findings.
Prevalent in the medical field
Truth &wisdom he is speaking !!
Ignaz Semmelweis
I'm not convinced that it's an unintended consequence.
Albert Einstein despised the peer review. Einstein's work did not pass the peer review. Harlen J Bretz's work about the Scabland floodlands did not pass peer review. Galileo Gallilei's work did not pass peer review. Eratosthenes's work did not pass peer review. Just because somebody's scientific work does not pass peer review, it does not mean that it's false.
Me : 2+2 = 4
Ideologically driven leftist : Sources? >:)
What's this from?
Return to Eden
@@Paathshaala Is that "Return to Eden"? And NOT "Return of Eden"?
Right and I correct it..
What they want?
They want, we should believe supernatural or any stupid things without any evidence