🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@skells peer review is exactly how we identified ivermectin as a drug needing further consideration. The scientific community has handled it exactly as one would expect, it just takes time to approve new medications. But its hardly some conspiracy trying to suppress it, the peer review has shown it has some potential and has sparked further studies.

@travis

Not true. While it is true people knew and had shown th world to be round very early in history there were, in fact, flat earthers throughout history and many have tried to argue for it using various scientific methods. The record of those experiments up to the 1800s and even beyond shows that.

@skells

@skells People can reason just fine without peer review. You just cant make effective scientific headway without it. There will always be those who are so strongly influenced by bias that they twist objective facts and reality to their opinions. These people cant reason well on their own. There are others who can reason well on their own who are more critical of their own biases.

Peer review, when done properly, simply helps expose this. No one in their right mind would object to a process where mutliple people review a work and publish any mistakes they find which can then be either read by the end consumer (reader) or is used in public debate to help improve the publication.

I think its kinda obvious the importance of peer review and there is a reason we were killing people more than helping them before it became the norm in the medical community. Or that before becoming the norm flat-earth was a legitimate consideration.

@skells Its similar to democracy. Simply having one doesnt garuntee a sound government unless the population that is voting make wise choices with their vote. But that hardly suggests a dictatorship is any better.

@skells Thats not a criticism of peer review, that is a critisim of the conduct of those who participate in peer review.

I can get 3 crackheads off the street to peer review something, doesnt mean it will improve the quality. Yet if i pick good critical thinkers for peer review it will. Its not a panacea it is only one part in what makes good science. But you cant do good science without it, not at a group level.

@skells they believed in things like draining blood for the common cold and a lot of people died. Thankfully we have come a long way since that.

And we have a winner...

#Cuomo #Funny #humor #Humour #joke @funny

@bluejay Lawl :)

@bluejay You know you can post on things **other** than covid right? Try a little variety.

I miss the days where you could tell if your computer stalled or not by how much it was crackling, beeping and blinking.

@icedquinn

If you did heavy research and understand the topic, by all means, say you researched it

@bluejay

@bluejay I wouldnt expect disclaimers. I just dont expect people to say they researched shit they clearly did not.. Just say you have an opinion you pulled out of your ass, what it is, and move on.

@bluejay And yes, I agree both conservative and liberal news is just as guilty of bad information. They are not reliable sources.

@bluejay Then dont say you researched it, say you have no expertise or understanding, did no research, and just have an opinion pulled out of your ass. At least that I can respect more so than people pretending they researched things they obviously did not.

@strawberryfieldsforever lol getting your info from mainstream news is about as effective as doing calculus by chewing bubblegum

I just need to copy and paste this every time someone on the fediverse posts anything about COVID.