Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: about peer review
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 11:56:12 GMT
Message-ID: <v6tq0t$hqb5$1@solani.org>
References: <v6t1m0$he5u$1@solani.org> <v6tlo4$3i7qb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 11:56:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="584037"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (Linux-5.15.32-v7l+)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/8FVaLfxKxmGHI57afkmj87xWMU=
X-Newsreader-location: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (c) 'LIGHTSPEED' off line news reader for the Linux platform
 NewsFleX homepage: http://www.panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/ and ftp download ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/system/news/readers/ 
X-User-ID: eJwFwQcBACAMAzBLtHsgB3b8SyAxcXiGurna2NSL9K638xV5JjrDhdS1ZAtw0XcqNLmTWJjCBHTkUk57fmimFa8=
Bytes: 3258
Lines: 50

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:42:59 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tlo4$3i7qb$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 13/07/2024 3:00 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Peer review is essential for science. Unfortunately, it’s broken.
>>   https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/07/peer-review-is-essential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/
>>    There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway.
>
>It's a book that is designed to appeal to Cursitor Doom and other fans 
>of fatuous conspiracy theories.
>
>"Science is getting more complex over time and is becoming increasingly 
>reliant on software code to keep the engine going. This makes fraud of 
>both the hard and soft varieties easier to accomplish."
>
>One has to wonder how.
>
>> yea..
>> Lots of repeats in science of things that are obviously wrong.
>> Next generation maybe...
>
>Not that Jan Panteltje can cite any. 

Let's start with the endless one-stone babble, space is curved etc etc
Any clown can write formulas that approximate thing observed by some,
but understanding the mechanism is what counts.
vote-on particle, like vote-on some senile or some criminal..

>Peer review isn't perfect,

depends on who does it.

Earth was flat and at the center of the universe for a long time
Not only was it very hard to get published, you got burned if your idea conflicted with current religious fanatic leadership.
These day the mantra is 'humans cause glow ball worming' and if you just put that in your paper it passes.

Same for much of that kwantuum stuff... 

Same for no life signs have been found outside earth...
 http://www.gillevin.com/


>but it 
>works better than anything else that anybody has come up with. It's very 
>good at cracking down on stuff that is obviously wrong. I haven't 
>refereed all that many scientific papers, but rejecting the ones that 
>were obviously wrong was remarkably easy, and took a lot less work than 
>finding and explaining more subtle errors.

The wrong ones are taken by the masses, like capitalism is the solution...