It’s gotten to the point that it’s worse than useless, and has become an active shield against actual scientific inquiry:
…according to you, the NAS committee was right to ignore these official documents because they were not “peer reviewed.” What does it even mean to “peer review” official EPA documents?
You have similarly dismissed the evidence presented of clear and present conflicts of interest between EPA and the NAS board (BEST) that sponsored and organized the review. What does it mean to have evidence of conflicts of interest “peer reviewed”?
Is it a “violation of [NAS] policy” to consider official EPA documents and other documented evidence of potential NAS/EPA wrongdoing in a review of a controversy borne out of acknowledged EPA wrongdoing?
The other chief witnesses (Drs. John Dunn & Stan Young) at the August 24, 2016 public hearing (which was held for the specific purpose of taking our testimony) cited specific EPA documents and peer-reviewed literature in their testimony.
The other two commenters at the hearing (Dr. James Enstrom and Albert Donnay) also cited peer-reviewed literature.
But the NAS committee inexplicably ignored everything we presented. And now you have as well.
Although the NAS has a conflict of interest policy, you have not even bothered to consider my request in the context of this policy. So why have the policy if it will not be applied?
The entire federally funded scientific establishment seems to be rotting at the core.
[Update late morning]
The saga continues.
[Friday morning update]
The obfuscation continues in round three.
[Bumped]
“The entire federally funded scientific establishment seems to be rotting at the core.”
It’s almost as though no-one listened to Eisenhower when he predicted what would happen if science came to rely on Federal funds.
And, yes, ‘peer review’ is just another gatekeeper taken over by the left to ensure nothing ever threatens The Narrative.
At best “Peer Reviewed” means the researcher showed their work and there are no obvious errors in the report. All to often, especially in politicized fields, it doesn’t even mean that much.
I think there’s nothing wrong with peer review per se. The thing is it shouldn’t have as much relevance to your academic credentials as it does now. Neither should it be used in cases where it makes little sense. Like in this case.
We are fast approaching, or even already at an existential crisis. And it’s not just science or politics. No wonder Musk wants to get off the planet, the window of opportunity is going to be short. You don’t want to be around when they start lynching intellectuals.
We are fast approaching, or even already at an existential crisis. And it’s not just science or politics. No wonder Musk wants to get off the planet, the window of opportunity is going to be short. You don’t want to be around when they start lynching intellectuals.
You do understand that Musk leans decidedly left, correct? His motives for wanting to retire on Mars have nothing to do with politics. Even if they did, all terrestrial problems (crime, poverty, politics, etc) will follow humanity wherever they go. They can’t be run from.
“…Even if they did, all terrestrial problems (crime, poverty, politics, etc) will follow humanity wherever they go. They can’t be run from.”
The key is that those problems, inherent in a species of large obstreperously violent primates, increase by orders of magnitude as the agency costs of social hierarchy rise through building higher and steeper social hierarchies. The hierarchies most strongly exhibiting agency costs will be hitting hardest, and in return would be hit hardest. Academia has been doing its best to build hierarchy for 120+ years, and the hostility it draws from that is what makes Eric so nervous.
That is why the elbow room that the settlement of the Solar System can give us is so important. It gives those who are sick of the agency costs of academia’s hierarchies a place to go that is not dominated by the hierarchs trained into an academic worldview. That way they can leave the bastards behind, instead of lynch them. It may even allow us to repair the good name of science once the progressive/academic/political hierarchies no longer control the majority of its funding. That will take time.
Before we can colonize Mars, we’ll need 3D printers that can produce most of the things we need. And that will radically change life on Earth, too. Big, centralized, intrusive government is a product of the industrial era, and will die with it.
And academia in particular is on its last legs. It’s a great scam, where companies offload hiring to HR departments who have no idea how (or aren’t allowed) to test candidates before offering them a job, so they offload their job to universities instead. As big organizations become less and less beneficial, the whole concept of ‘HR’ will fade away, and most degree requirements will go with them.
The world is on the verge of radical change, and anyone who relies on being a gatekeeper, particularly one funded by big government, is going to have to find a new line of work.
Unless the government requires it (such as Section 8 housing), not just anyone will be able to go to live in a Mars settlement. First, the ride isn’t going to be free. Musk has thrown around the goal of being able to go to Mars for $500,000 once things are up and running. Even if you have the money, I suspect the first people they’ll allow to go will be those with useful skills who are still young enough to be productive. There may be no escaping politics but poverty may not be an issue. I doubt most types of crime will be a problem for the same reasons.
So what if he does lean left? You really think he’s going to invite the mentally ill, welfare bums and addicts?
Also, there’s a simple cure for stupid in places where you can’t breathe the atmosphere.
A victim of its own success. A strong host always attracts parasites.
I think there’s nothing wrong with peer review per se.
We now live in an age where reason itself has left the rails. It’s much bigger than just peer review. When an issue is decided in the courts, it’s no longer science.
In the age of blogs, there is no reason for scientific journals to exist. They are as outmoded as buggy whips. Publish your paper as a PDF online as part of a blog, and let the whole world review and critique it. Think arXiv.
Related:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/15/discussion-five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher-scientific-quality-than-journal-articles/