Thread by @LT3000Lyall

Next time someone argues that something must be true because its published in a "peer reviewed academic journal", bear in mind the substantial academic fraud that has been uncovered in the social sciences where many famed studies have comprehensively failed to replicate.

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1383992803621949441

Academic peer review is not thesis confirming, nor does it prove the presence of rigor or a lack of bias. It does not prevent academics from inventing/embellishing conclusions for fame/recognition, succumbing to confirmation bias, or targeting politically convenient conclusions.

The way peer review often functions in practice is to entrench an elite clique who get to define what is true in a way that suits their own interests, & prevent outside scrutiny from other disciplines. A good analogy would be Catholic priests being such guardians in prior eras.

They could anoint themselves experts on existential matters, and decide what can be published. A critique of their theological beliefs about nature of universe from physicists could be met w "but you're not a theology expert and haven't published peer reviewed papers on theology"

You see this dynamic a lot in climate research. Most of the criticisms of mainstream climate narrative come from adjacent sciences, such as geologists, chemists, physicists etc, who identify incongruities between climate community and findings of their own scientific disciplines.

However, the climate priesthood is always able to dismiss these challenges by claiming "you're not a climate scientist" and haven't published "peer reviewed articles" in recognized climate journals. It is those being challenged, w interest at stake, doing the peer review.

The scientific method is an ideal, and it's not always adhered to in practice. Practical issues such as pressure to publish; a desire for fame/recognition; a desire for tenure, which requires popularity; and wanting to avoid political controversy, can often corrode it in practice

Ultimately, what is legitimate scientific knowledge is defined not by appeals to authority like fancy sounding institutions, degrees, or journals, nor consensus opinion, but instead by how rigorously claims can & have been tested in real world settings to verify their robustness.

We know many types of scientific knowledge are rock solid because they have been repeatedly tested in the real world. Planes fly. Microprocessors work. The real world commercial application of science demands & confirms theories work, and markets select for good ideas.

Academic contexts, by contrast, are political environments where acclaim, financial success (tenure), and truth are dictated by politics and popularity, rather than real world testing of ideas. The claims therefore demand a much greater degree of skepticism than applied sciences.

I am absolutely 100% willing to believe "the science" when it has been tested in real world settings/markets, and demonstrated to work. I am much less willing to automatically believe "the science" emanating from self-interested academic circles where real world testing is absent