Almost right, but consensus is part of the iterative process, but only the result should be used when referring to the science.
The whipping boy would be (((climate science))). Because people have made consensus such a large part of science (((they))) can block any research into alternatives at every level. At the same time research that will likely never produce fruit, like string theory, continue to get funding no one is allowed to write papers in climate science that doesn't fit into the "consensus".
You can see this in everything, and the current "pandemic" is the fruit of the same flawed/corrupted scientific method.
Exactly... I have said this many times, propping up a "politicized science" that has either been proven to be propped up with hoaxes or something not testable by the scientific method is slowing down scientific growth... Almost like we are in a scientific dark age, all because certain people withing mankind did not want to be held accountable to a creator and blinding others to the complexity that proves design... Funding research on these are a waste of money, or a siphon...
Peer review has been subverted and turned into a cancer.
Publish FIRST, then peer review. Don't beg your direct competitors to allow you to publish. Don't give them something to deny and then (badly) copy into their own works. Don't let them have a chance to kill your years of work over petty rivalry, or that your results aren't part of ((The Party))'s narrative.
Then again, good luck getting funding at that point.
The whole thing is a ball of corruption. tenure track, peer review, grants, other funding, peer pressure, etc. In actual science (not much political in some fields) it is great to see the arguments and fighting for what the truth is and the research that comes out of that. When you don't see that in a (((field))) then you know it is fubar.
(post is archived)