We've all seen the effects of anonymous communication in the political and cultural sphere (and even the religious, shadilay), but what about science?
cell.com.sci-hub.cc
…so basically muh feelings?
found this from a link on this blog andrewgelman.com
pictures unrelated
Allow anonymous contributions. Require identification for peer-reviewers.
Are you retarded?
That's why they use a corpus.
Stop trying science, and stop trying to disrupt science. Your opening up to anonymous science (??!_???!@$$^&*) seems like a good idea, but it is not necessary.
On the BACKEND : You can make your own files, combine them with (anonymous) colleagues and make them into a scientific text.
Or just post them under Nomen Nescio.
never has science been so wrong
Whoa, someone is triggered.
Yeah, peer-reviews. Nothing like having kikes who understand nothing reading your text and declaring it's good to go. Remember the scandal about the scientist who bullshitted his way through a paper and journal published it? He claimed to have derived gravity from quantum physics and it was just lies and semi-believable bullshit slapped together. It got peer reviewed and published. Peer review is cancer. Besides, scientific progress nowadays is so quick that there are more papers coming out than they can be checked/archived. This causes scientists to discover same thing even though they might not have had any contact with each other. The entire way how science is archived needs to be overhauled to compensate for volume of scientists andengineers working on new discoveries.
...
...
Anonymous science would certainly kill pseudoscience. Because evidence in pseudoscience can't stand on its own without identifying and bullying dissidents into compliance or non-aggression. But you can't bully an user!
jesus christ, calm down. did you even read the links? the comments section is hilarious in the blog I linked. full of cucks.
This is actually a good idea.
It cuts emotion and personal influence/standing out of science. And getting dissected by million competent anons almost instantly is better than (((((peer review))))).
Same as unrestricted discussion on imageboards. The only thing that counts is how hard you can call someone a faggot. The rest can tits or gtfo.
but you might hurt someone's feelings
Every major field in science has always been dominated by leftist mindset, you have no idea how much they've crippled it. We could be 30 years ahead of where we are now. (((They))) have abused their position and money to prevent scientist from working, researching and publishing what they've discovered on "delicate" subjects.
They have been doing this since long before the internet was invented, i doubt anything would change unless you purge (((those))) people from the lowest position to the highest, including business men, the media and government officials.
Some choice quotes from the blog I linked, might spur some discussion:
>Outside medicine we’ve had recent examples in Economics, the inference on policy implications for austerity relied on by-hand data manipulation errors in Excel (washingtonpost.com
For some extra lolz and insight, have some lines from the original article the blogpost I like to in OP is a response to:
this bitch en.wikipedia.org
another good comment:
the industry of science does seems like a game of survivor
Considering scientists can sometimes hold in their hand the fate of millions, it's only right that they're subject to the most vicious scrutiny possible. If they can't stand the oven, then they shouldn't have been a Jew.
Everything humans touch is a tool.
It can be used for good or bad. Case and point: atomic energy.
Eliminate the (((bad))) corruption and you can achieve wonders.
...
>>>Holla Forums
Comment from the blog:
and nothing will happen to you. But if a woman penned the very same words, knives would come out of every corner. And her career would be over.
This is the cancer killing us. although I do have to wonder if its a troll.
I dunno anymore, but the amount of cuckery in science is absolutely amazing.
bamp
So, anons. Who's ready to use smug anime girls to uncuck science after we uncuck politics?
holocaust memes might be applicable in many places as well
That's a good idea. I wonder if when that time rolls around we will have in addition memes that combine both. There could also be critiques that are solid collages of the Holocaust, Pepe, anime, and other memes. Maybe some green arrows too for textual explanation. Can't wait!
Taking named responsibility for everything one says, this does normalize communication somewhat, which slowly over time can build into unspoken taboos. Anonymizing communication systems allows the conversation to break the taboos. Ideally, a communication system should have a capacity for both anonymous communication, and communication which is standardized, normalized.
This would be very good.
honestly we might want to think of organizing something sooner rather than later.
organized trolling of the science industry could pay off in ways that might exceed even politics since science is full of nu-males and basic bitches. there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't have full spectrum dominance, we should be opening up new offensives while we are hammering a weak enemy.
Funny that the Soviets outpaced Americans in almost all fields of tech then. Then again, the average Soviet scientist or engineer would probably be considered far right in the USA today.
nice dubs.
I'd love to learn russian just to be able to freely read some of their journals, especially in medicine.
Looks good, but with anything creative, you have to do it all yourself and never expect anyone to thank you and everyone to hate you. This planet right now does need star gazers and scientist, but what it needs more right now is Soldiers. Sad, but very true. Do no listen to the magic jew.
uh okay well then go shoot something for your "planet", lol
Yeah, that's how it works.
I've heard that their journal all have tons of non sequitur communist propaganda in them because all the scientists were afraid of being sent to the gulag if they weren't enthusiastic enough in their support for the state. So right in the middle of a math paper, they would have an aside about how great Khrushchev is or something like that.
no but seriously did you actually read the post, the links, or the thread? what "looks good"? being anonymous in science? why not? what does that have to do with being a star gazer? don't soldiers need scientists to make awesome new weapons to kill with?
where are you even coming from?
what about for the past 20 years? that's where most of the stuff I'm interested would be in anyway (although honestly I wonder if science there doesn't fall to similar structural problems, albeit different in flavor)
bump
The idea of peer review is nonsense.
because of the idea of peers? or the idea of reviewing itself?
...
hnng
...
Because the idea of peer review relies on there being no censorship or consensus cracking, so in this case it would be peers. I doubt there would be anyone that would suddenly have an issue with review because there is really nothing wrong with helping someone improve on their work, review becomes a problem when peers decide to flush your career down the shitter because they didn't like what you said.
if you publish anonymously, who are your peers really, besides the masses? If you do a study, release information, and allow other people to replicate it does it matter who you are or if you're being paid?
Getting paid generally tends to help to continue research and having studies tied to your name helps get paid to do research. I mean, sure you can do a meta-analysis or two but for anything substantial you need shit to work with. Publishing anonymously allows you to get away from the drawbacks of having your identity known but you also don't tend to get much of the positive either. I guess one way to get around that would be to have a unique identity to act as a middle-man but then comes the problem of consensus cracking, releasing something controversial through that identity instead of your own will protect you but it will cause the identity to lose its credibility.
Go fuck yourself newfag.
well honestly you can still have money and be anonymous, it's a little more difficult but doing anonymous studies doesn't mean you have no money to actually do work
gas yourself, retard
HNNNNNNG
...
HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG
Anonymity has resulted in a ton of low quality, second rate shitposting. Why put in much effort when you're not going to get any fame, power, money, prestige, etc from what you're doing?
Anonymous communities are not very efficient or effective.
Anonymity is somewhat of a meme these days, especially in technology, to the point where some idealists dream of a world where everything is anonymous.
you don't need to be anonymous to have second rate shit posting. hang out in a bar if you don't believe me.
bump
bump
If submitter are anonymous but reviewers are not, then the reviewers are not peers.
Do you know what would actually happen under your proposal? All manner of pozzed shit would be pumped out by "contributors" without fear of discrediting themselves, while "peer" reviewers would have their risking their lives, socially, academically, or otherwise.
This is how you know when somebody is maximum ass-blasted.
checked, and true
I'm game, but where do we start?
Maybe Holla Forums needs some sort of primer course on where anonymous scientific discourse is done. What journals/websites/researchers should have our attention?
If we identify good lolcows in science, and cause them to go running to the science media kvetching, that might do a good job of highlighting more avenues for attack.
You don't understand what peer means.
You have a naive outlook on the practical realities of social interaction.
Nice ad hominem.
You still don't understand what peer means.
Since you're not going to figure it out on your own:
In the context of peer review, the word "peer" refers to occupation.
The reviewers are peers because they are scientists of the same discipline as the person who submitted the paper, not because they are "mates", "friends", direct colleagues or even known to each other.
You can switch IPs but your habits betray you.
You have a naive outlook on the practical realities of social interaction.
And what does "peer" refer to in reference to jury duty? "Tried by a jury of peers". Can't refer to their occupation, right?
serious question as a non-native english speaker
In that case it refers to people of the same legal standing. Civilians trying civilians, rather than a jury of government anointed judges.
Thanks for the answer and sorry for the offtopic
I wasn't even thinking of us getting involved in anonymous discourse, but maybe an organized troll campaign against bad influences in science could be useful. We already troll journalists and politicians, science seems like the next step. Not just for useless trolling purposes obviously, but to put some heat on people that have no accountability. Make them aware that yes, people are watching and these people have pitchforks and aren't that polite.
I don't really see us revolutionizing scientific discourse but we could put the fear of Kek into them.
Paranoid nutter.
You're spouting figments of your imagination again. I offered no opinion about the suggestion for anonymous submissions. You're replying to something I never said, using your fevered imagination to form a conversation which never took place.
Nice redundancy, what sort of reality is there other than the practical kind? 18-24, padding with redundant adjectives does not make you more credible.
Now back to the point, someone is either a peer or they aren't, being anonymous does not change that.
The problems with the current peer review system and alternatives have already been discussed at length in academia so it's strange that you're acting like it's such a far-out idea.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Again, I have neither supported nor criticised alternatives to peer review, my only concern was and remains, highlighting your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word peer.
The word's meaning changes with the context but this answer is good:
peer has absolutely nothing to do with occupation and everything to do with what you understand about a subject.
If I'm a dentist but have passing interest in geology and make a paper on it, should my paper be judged by dentists? Or geologists? As in, people that understand the subject.
sage for double post
It has everything to do with occupation, which is why you don't get to review geology submissions as a dentist. You are not a peer of professional geologists.
I work in behavioral research. One day, our boss mentions a colleague from Israel he's met at a congress. Out of the blue, like only old people are redpilled, he dropped the jew and described how they were artificially ascribing the work of an entire department to the man. To artificially create a guru.
(and that is one of the problems, it should be purely based on knowledge but isn't.)
uh yeah you don't get to submit to the club but if you do honest to god good work on it, as a hobby or whatever - what the fuck does it matter? Some of the greatest scientists weren't in one "occupation".
behavioral research? jews? you can't leave it at that
Infant research & handicap, not exactly Tavistock.
Since you insist on being autistic, let me spell this out to you:
Two professionals with disparate levels of professional freedom can never be true peers in any meaningful sense. You can object that their qualifications on paper should be all that matters, but the universe does not heed your autistic denial of social power dynamics.
well if you don't want to share that's fine. How much of your field do you think is total bullshit? 60+%? How would you know?
you make a good point and I know this wasn't addressed to me but, how can there ever be true peers? Wouldn't it be more advantageous to have an open peer review of anonymous submitters and reviewers? Just look at the science and test it/judge it. I mean it works or it doesn't…or I guess you make endless models about how such and so might be real or have some effect but probably not really.
As it stands, there's extreme censorship in science due to political correctness and this has been talked about numerous times. Scientists instead use and submit research in packets that does not directly name any names but can be easily put together. For example, it is well accepted in mainstream science that IQ is genetic and highly inheritable.
The Chinese however do not seem to care and they're already increasingly at the forefront of genetics research.
There's also ways to say things like France's IQ is dropping due to "biological reasons". You just make it unclear what the "biological reasons" are.
bamp
Well, at least blogs, Twitter and Facebook posts are doing that much good OP.
Keep going.
peer review means reviewed by peers of the readers of the publication the article is published in you dolts
if some enlightened amateur writes an article after years of research, it will be published if the reviewers agree that their collegues will find it relevant to their field
this happened several times, this is how some became known like the mathematician Ramanujan or physicist Heaviside
B U M P … FOR SCIENCE!
*tips fedora*
...
Get a list of people who have published in high impact journals like Nature, and then later had their stuff discredited and proven wrong, but have never apologized. Troll them mercilessly until they repent.
Bumpin'
Such is life when you only live to bump…
Last bump to try and save this thread