So true. Peer review is in part relying on consensus, but consensus only works if you can trust the peers. But peers who are sheep and who rely on authority for what they believe, are not trustable. Medicine is a major example of where this all fails. A lot of medical 'professionals' are merely liberal minds operating in a technical field. They are conditioned to obey authority. The doctors who deviate from this get ostracized. And the top of the food chain is the CDC, which is politicized and untrustable.
The comments I started seeing on podcasts are, " I don't need permission to think. If you have an issue with the data, bring it up. Then you've peer reviewed me" And, I agree with that. If there's no issue with the data to bring up, then it's just whining.
So true. Peer review is in part relying on consensus, but consensus only works if you can trust the peers. But peers who are sheep and who rely on authority for what they believe, are not trustable. Medicine is a major example of where this all fails. A lot of medical 'professionals' are merely liberal minds operating in a technical field. They are conditioned to obey authority. The doctors who deviate from this get ostracized. And the top of the food chain is the CDC, which is politicized and untrustable.
The comments I started seeing on podcasts are, " I don't need permission to think. If you have an issue with the data, bring it up. Then you've peer reviewed me" And, I agree with that. If there's no issue with the data to bring up, then it's just whining.
I can only speak to the topics I'm interested in, but they say they get people giving them more data and asking that their names not be used.