Tags for this video have been changed from 'great lyrics, new dogma, spit the truth' to 'great lyrics, new dogma, spit the truth, phEonix' - edited by EndAll

Tags for this video have been changed from 'great lyrics, new dogma' to 'great lyrics, new dogma, spit the truth' - edited by EndAll

>> ^MaxWilder:
^ Peer review is not "sitting around a table and coming to a consensus". It is looking at scientific papers and scrutinizing the methods and conclusions of the author. If the paper meets the standards set by the scientific community, it is deemed worthy of publication

Realistically, how is that much different than the process in which a group of clergy put out new dogma in the middle ages? Science is different because the predictions it makes can be replicated. I strongly advocate science--real science--science which actually goes through *all* eight steps of the scientific method, not just the first seven.

21st century "scientists" undermine science to a similar extent as creationists. What I want is a return to real science. Models, predictions, reliable information, practical information, and most importantly, reproducible results.

Peer review is susceptible to the ills of man--bias, politics, etc. It may serve some purpose, but it was never meant to be the "end" of the scientific process, as it currently is. When people talk of science, how often do you hear these statements:

"99% of scientists believe..."
"published in a number of peer reviewed journals"
"cited in over 100 papers"

and how often do you hear this:

"results replicated by several independent experimenters"

The top three are not scientific, the latter is.