You misunderstand, it's only the studies with conclusion that you don't like that can't be trusted ...
Congratulations you have succeeded in breaking my self-imposed ban from interacting with your gibberish but this is the most-blatantly anti-intellectual stupidity you’ve ever dared write on this forum. I hope you are embarrassed.I hope you can still feel embarrassment.
I feel like I have a Trump-like effect on your psyche. To the contrary, aren’t you embarrassed ? Indeed, how are you not ashamed ? To wit: had there been no SARS-Cov2 studies, untold millions worldwide would not have died from the effects of panic and despair.
PNAS is peer reviewed, although I suspect (without proof) that they have a relatively high rate of fraud due to my observation that they don't always screen papers thoroughly enough, in my opinion. PNAS is a very general journal with papers across fields and I tend to think that lack of focus causes problems at times. There is a reason that this paper and one of the two mentioned in regards to Dan Ariely in that article were in that journal. I will definitely cite that journal at times because its prestige attracts good papers as well, but I'm always a little cautious.
Science is absolutely filled with flaws, but we must ask what way of knowing isn’t? Despite all of the bias and fraud of scientists, science has at least one core philosophy that separates it from other approaches: it attempts to finds flaws in itself. A bias found in science? Guess who uncovered it? Science. Things like religion simply don’t critique themselves.
Person wakes up to an alarm on a wireless phone based on time from atomic clocks, uses an electric toothbrush, microwaves pasteurized milk, takes their daily medication, uses the internet to go to a message board to tell everyone the scientific process is fake.
If indeed the "science" behind this paper was actually peer reviewed, does this give anyone a pause in believing any papers on any subjects were peer reviewed?
Fair question. There are people on this thread who read “peer review” and that’s all they need to see. It’s like they’re totally okay with letting small groups of people doing all their thinking for them.
Exactly!!! I guess that is what I'm asking. Many posters on here rave about certain science papers that have been peer reviewed so the conclusions from them must be fundamentally accepted and correct. If these papers were peer reviewed, can we truly trust any of the science that is coming from peer reviewed papers? Sounds like either the researcher or the ones claiming the research is sound, the peer reviewers, can be influenced by outside sources.
I mean, it was peer reviewed. It is just important to understand what peer review is and isn't. Peer review generally doesn't replicate the study itself. It is to make sure that the paper is using proper methods, makes logical sense, is consistent with existing knowledge (or has a good explanation when it isn't), and isn't obviously fraudulent or plagiarism of another theory. It is not to root out all fraud, as that would be nearly impossible. Replication after publication is often more useful for that task. Journals have been getting better about providing replication materials as part of their transparency initiatives (many of the papers caught were published before these initiatives were up and running at many journals). The bigger issue, in my opinion, is the promotions and tenure system in the US, which incentivizes publishing above all else. It puts a lot of junior faculty (tenure-track but not yet tenured) in the bind of having to publish or losing their career. A pretty good incentive to put your thumb on the scale if you can convince yourself that you aren't harming anybody. Especially when rejection rates at a lot of top journals are over 95%.
I'm really not trying to be a jack@$$ here but the way I read your response, peer review is not much more than spell checker, and we probably shouldn't put too much value on it.
Read it again. You missed "It is to make sure that the paper is using proper methods, makes logical sense, is consistent with existing knowledge (or has a good explanation when it isn't), and isn't obviously fraudulent or plagiarism of another theory."
