(February 21, 2016 at 4:23 am)robvalue Wrote: Wait...
Not overly concerned with peer review?
If that's isn't an anti-science motto, I don't know what is. The absence of peer review is "making shit up".
AAA seems to want to play both sides, science and anti-science, whichever is convenient at the time.
It's not like if it isn't peer reviewed it's making stuff up. Peer review is simply a good way to make sure that experimenters don't overlook things in their study, that they didn't fudge the data, and that they conducted it well. Do you have to rely on peer review for every one of your beliefs? Do you have a peer reviewed paper that describes your day yesterday? is everything you say about it then a lie? Also when's the last time you've read a peer reviewed paper? I know you aren't going to answer truthfully if you answer at all.
