I’ve been looking at some series that are based on peer-reviewed science like “Missing Links” by Gregg Braden, and I’ve been reading that recent studies use peer-reviewed science, but it’s not clear to me what it really is. If someone could ELI5, I would appreciate it.
In: Other
It’s an excuse for not doing science properly.
The scientific method isn’t supposed to involve trusting people are checking they did a good job with their experiments. Don’t need it. All you have to do is have person A say “hey I did X and then Y happened” and then other people can try the same thing and see if it happens for them too.
No need to worry about if that first guy was a liar, a cheat a fool, or just got lucky. If anyone can reproduce the experiment for themselves that’s science.
But it’s often expensive to repeat the same experiment and a bit boring and it doesn’t get you in the newspapers or win science prizes. So more and more people don’t bother. They want to be doing their own cool experiment not reproducing someone else’s and then that guy gets the credit. So they cut corners. Instead of reproducing the experiment they look at the other guy’s notes and try to criticize it theoretically. Pointless. There’s no substitute for trying to perform the experiment for yourself.
Latest Answers