My colleagues were recently in a tizzy because a journal they had long preferred to publish in was moving to an Open Access model, and would therefore suddenly start costing thousands of dollars per paper in page charges. Whatever will they do?
To which my response was to shrug. I have been saying what you said here for years ... essentially from the beginning of my career. May all these journals dry up and blow away in the winds of irrelevancy. They are a plague. As is peer review (you can demarcate the division between engaging, thoughtful papers and unreadable sludge quite precisely from the introduction of PR ... it's like a K-T boundary in the literature).
And then of course there is the connection between scientific publishing to Epstein via his Mossad handler's father, who is largely responsible for the entire grift....
Are you suggesting which I'm not sure you are that all media presently in so many ways is basically nothing but propaganda? If you are not suggesting it, the let me suggest it - tis true - nothing but propaganda coming out of the minds of a few demented ones I reckon cause they must know - after awhile - enough is enough.
I agree with the Author of this piece - the current journals are "rubbish" - not even worth the paper they are printed upon.
It is more akin to high school cliques and who gets to sit with who at the lunch tables. Many modern academics are juvenile midwits with the mentality of middle schoolers masquerading as respectable.
Discovering that academia was nothing more than a grindhouse for petty careerist strivers was one of the key revelations of my life. May it all collapse under its own incompetence.
It is funny when you realize that your average professor has nothing more interesting or insightful to say than the barista at your local anarcho-Communist coffee house.
Peer review is out of control. It has been like that for a long time. Getting rid of peer review will not change much. The problem of scientism is so profoundly rooted in the midwit bugman minds that the only cure, I think, is that they ''follow the science'' to disaster, and then some might open their eyes.
The only thing the rest of us can do is try to be excellent, connect with like-minded and build some alternatives.
Well, you expressed something, I checked it out, and then somehow - I ended up here. In my book that means you lured me here! I don't mind how, and truly the how of it is irrelevant now ain't it? I'm happy to be here and surprised in a way to see so many others I already was familiar with - but that makes me conclude - it ain't no coincidence.
Reasonable idea - Stuart Ritchie (Science Fictions) had a similar one, but I can't link because I did dare to contradict him onece - - -
Topsy-turvy - - - helter-skelter - - - we're living nervous lives (Dr. Freud & Hugo von Hofmannsthal & Egon Schiele & Georg Trakl/ Ludwig Wittgenstein/"Koal"/Karl Kraus . . . in Fin de siécle Vienna) in interesting times.
Great to see David Stove referenced. Love him. As for real science, we can find out what it is by reading (auto)biographies of the oldschool scientific heroes, such as Heisenberg's. Turns out science has more to do with sailing and hiking and talking between friends, like Heisenberg, Bohr and Pauli did, than any "method", much less any "process" like peer review which is nothing but a power technology.
Thank you. I remember Stove's being into rescuing the inductive method, and Darwinian Fairytales as well as his critique of certain enlightenment ideas had a big impact on me. But whether one agrees with all of his positions or not, OMG his style! Make philosophy fun again!
I'm in engineering. Formal papers are needed in order to prove a concept. It's falsifiable.
The problem you're complaining about is MEDICAL journals. You still need them, but people who falsify results need to be held accountable, because that's killing people. A group, PURPOSELY, killed people by overdosing them on Hydroxychloroquine.
Heard about LK-99, the "room temperature superconductor"? That was dismantled in weeks.
But the intentional murder of patients to "prove" that Hydroxychloroquine was "dangerous" - that's ignored. The Lancet article that published the findings (properly by the way, even though it was wrong), can't seem to find the MURDERS though.
OK fine - if it resonates it does - if it don't it don't.
You got yours I got mine, somebody somewhere posted somehow caused me to end up here - does that mean it is resonating or it is just a big coincidence? If you think the latter, then I doubt you will check my place out, but if you think the former, then who knows what might happen if things resonate - could be the sky is the limit - and could be a pipe dream.
My colleagues were recently in a tizzy because a journal they had long preferred to publish in was moving to an Open Access model, and would therefore suddenly start costing thousands of dollars per paper in page charges. Whatever will they do?
To which my response was to shrug. I have been saying what you said here for years ... essentially from the beginning of my career. May all these journals dry up and blow away in the winds of irrelevancy. They are a plague. As is peer review (you can demarcate the division between engaging, thoughtful papers and unreadable sludge quite precisely from the introduction of PR ... it's like a K-T boundary in the literature).
And then of course there is the connection between scientific publishing to Epstein via his Mossad handler's father, who is largely responsible for the entire grift....
Are you suggesting which I'm not sure you are that all media presently in so many ways is basically nothing but propaganda? If you are not suggesting it, the let me suggest it - tis true - nothing but propaganda coming out of the minds of a few demented ones I reckon cause they must know - after awhile - enough is enough.
I agree with the Author of this piece - the current journals are "rubbish" - not even worth the paper they are printed upon.
I can prove it - I already have.
So, it seems the peer review in science is akin to a Washinton DC jury of one's peers.
It is more akin to high school cliques and who gets to sit with who at the lunch tables. Many modern academics are juvenile midwits with the mentality of middle schoolers masquerading as respectable.
All of this, 100%.
Discovering that academia was nothing more than a grindhouse for petty careerist strivers was one of the key revelations of my life. May it all collapse under its own incompetence.
It is funny when you realize that your average professor has nothing more interesting or insightful to say than the barista at your local anarcho-Communist coffee house.
💬 (I put my work here on the blog, which is always free for readers.)
Ty ty! 🤩 And one more ty 😊
While academia's persiflagist falderol delenda est 🤸
hey you - you with your partial twirl in motion real time and all - I've seen you around.
What you think - is it resonating or not?
Hey backatcha! Having a stalker feels real empowering 😁
Peer review is out of control. It has been like that for a long time. Getting rid of peer review will not change much. The problem of scientism is so profoundly rooted in the midwit bugman minds that the only cure, I think, is that they ''follow the science'' to disaster, and then some might open their eyes.
The only thing the rest of us can do is try to be excellent, connect with like-minded and build some alternatives.
cheers from Norway
“who, under the tutelage of a purple-haired “educator”, or even on their own, suddenly all “discover” they are boys.”
Democratic Kampuchea never looked so good.
I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Publishing must perish!!
Laura - I think it you who lured me here.
Lured you where Ken? And how?
Well, you expressed something, I checked it out, and then somehow - I ended up here. In my book that means you lured me here! I don't mind how, and truly the how of it is irrelevant now ain't it? I'm happy to be here and surprised in a way to see so many others I already was familiar with - but that makes me conclude - it ain't no coincidence.
I hope you are ready - I know I am.
I plan in advance!
Peace,
BK
Yes I also enjoy the synergy that Substack allows. I am getting ready but haven’t yet gone full prepper. I also rely on prayer. And with you
I had a comment below - it didn't go through. Probably for the best. C u round.
My comment was about "non-compliance" - I went on and on so probably best it was lost.
But I do think this - too many rules just ruin everything.
Don't you think Laura non-complier - too many rules ruin everything.
BK
Reasonable idea - Stuart Ritchie (Science Fictions) had a similar one, but I can't link because I did dare to contradict him onece - - -
Topsy-turvy - - - helter-skelter - - - we're living nervous lives (Dr. Freud & Hugo von Hofmannsthal & Egon Schiele & Georg Trakl/ Ludwig Wittgenstein/"Koal"/Karl Kraus . . . in Fin de siécle Vienna) in interesting times.
Ol’ Goodhart's (bless his good heart) ‘when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure’ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Amen.
Great to see David Stove referenced. Love him. As for real science, we can find out what it is by reading (auto)biographies of the oldschool scientific heroes, such as Heisenberg's. Turns out science has more to do with sailing and hiking and talking between friends, like Heisenberg, Bohr and Pauli did, than any "method", much less any "process" like peer review which is nothing but a power technology.
To grasp the extent of the stupidity and corruption in science and peer review, I summarized a few things here, for those interested: https://luctalks.substack.com/p/the-death-of-science
A good deal of my work is based on Stove's, on probability and induction.
Forgot to include this. Jim Franklin is Stove's literary executor. This was in Phoenix earlier this year, where we both gave talks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBNjTSMd680
Thank you. I remember Stove's being into rescuing the inductive method, and Darwinian Fairytales as well as his critique of certain enlightenment ideas had a big impact on me. But whether one agrees with all of his positions or not, OMG his style! Make philosophy fun again!
Fancy meeting you here L.P.
Are you insane?
I'm in engineering. Formal papers are needed in order to prove a concept. It's falsifiable.
The problem you're complaining about is MEDICAL journals. You still need them, but people who falsify results need to be held accountable, because that's killing people. A group, PURPOSELY, killed people by overdosing them on Hydroxychloroquine.
Heard about LK-99, the "room temperature superconductor"? That was dismantled in weeks.
But the intentional murder of patients to "prove" that Hydroxychloroquine was "dangerous" - that's ignored. The Lancet article that published the findings (properly by the way, even though it was wrong), can't seem to find the MURDERS though.
::Standing ovation::
Didn’t Dr Boghossian, Dr Lindsay & Helen Pluckrose demonstrate the truth of your thesis with their ‘Grievance Studies’ hoax papers?
In theory. We need it experimentally, too.
I’ve just posted a short video on the grievance papers. This may interest you.
🔥 it all
OK fine - if it resonates it does - if it don't it don't.
You got yours I got mine, somebody somewhere posted somehow caused me to end up here - does that mean it is resonating or it is just a big coincidence? If you think the latter, then I doubt you will check my place out, but if you think the former, then who knows what might happen if things resonate - could be the sky is the limit - and could be a pipe dream.
You choose.