And people think we're just extremists making things up when we repeatedly state that science has become a corrupted religion.
Peer review and consensus isn't science. Just because a majority of 🤡 believe something, absolutely doesn't make it true.
Peer review could potentially be useful, if it was not controlled. I would love to see a nostr based platform for submitting scientific studies and white papers. Anyone could 'peer review' these studies to point out where they are not sound and expose funding.
Would need work and could be abused, just a quick thought. Maybe people with verified qualifications would have more 'weight' to their reviews. 🤔
As it is now, peer review is a poor stand in for reproducing the results of a study or experiment. How many studies are not reviewed because they do not involve carbon or cow farts as a cause for climate change?
one problem with peer review is it d9es not assess validity of study or conclusion, it is merely peers saying" yes, if you perform this study in this manner, this conclusion is consistent with the actions performed"
a Peer review that assessed validity of study parameters and soundness of conclusion would be an immediate improvement imo, but no idea how to set that up
Yes, this would be a difficult thing to figure out
The issue at large is the weaponization of consensus, where "all experts" allegedly agree on something, and then using that in an attempt to ascertain what is or isn't true.
I do think there could be something of value built on nostr too. Credentials should not necessarily be a qualifier though - look how many 'experts' have failed to realise or acknowledge the state of science at large today. In fact, it is those very people who have facilitated the fraud we are seeing in so many fields (vaccinology, climate, fiat, etc.).
At the very least, nostr could serve as a censorship-resistant place where these things could be discussed without interference from parties with an agenda, where ideas can be challenged without being forced off the platform or having your research removed because it goes against what 'most' people believe.
