![Error. Critical Failure. Powering Off. [1200x2135 - 230KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/7OrKwr.jpg){kind=link}
Invoking “peer-review” is just hand-waving faggotry anyway.
If you based everything on “peer review” you would accept that Covid is real, vaccines are safe and effective, the earth is a ball, etc. It’s just mutual masturbation for “esteemed scientists” to keep getting paid.
Did you really slip some flat earth shit in there? LoL
What's your take on the works of Plato, Aristotle, Eratosthenes and Archimedes?
The Eratosthanes thing is not valid because, assuming he even performed the purported experiment, even according to Black Science Man it wouldn’t have proven the earth weren’t flat because there were only two data points and the same results would have been obtained if the sun were closer and smaller than it is now believed to be by mainstream science. And flat earthers don’t believe the sun is the size or distance that we have been told.
As for the other figures, I’m either not familiar enough or don’t know which specific writings you are referring to.
I don't know the original books they published, but this is a brief overview
http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~jochen/gtech201/lectures/lec6concepts/datums/determining%20the%20earths%20size.htm
I have not heard the theory include that the sun was not massive in size. That would indicate that it's not a nuclear fusion reaction spanning millions of years to me. Maybe it just a big heat lamp and we're all part of some higher dimensional experiment. Hmm
Ask them where "peer review" fits into the scientific method.
It doesn't. The question peer review, or refereeing asks is whether an article is fit to be published, based on a quick reading of a paper, essentially, "will we embarrass ourselves if we release this?" Peer review most definitely does not prove a paper correct or beyond criticism. These idiots genuinely imagine that science progresses one paper at a time, and peer review is a means of proving those papers correct. Used in the tweet above, it is just a way of derailing discussion by introducing a red herring and demanding it be refuted.
The left when asked to back up their claims invented a word for what they themselves are doing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".
To me the scientific method should include a bonus step of “repitition” meaning that the results are replicable. But I don’t think that’s what peer review actually is in the real world.
Sometimes people will be arguing some scientific point to me and say “you can prove x for yourself!” When the only way I could prove whatever it is would be to have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expensive and sensitive equipment. That’s not repeatable or observable in my mind. I’m not saying I have to be able to see or test everything in order to believe it, but I can’t think of many things worth believing in that I can’t actually observe in some way.
Behind the balls and taint
It's actually the act of standing on a peer and looking at the cargo including the vaccines boxes and going, yeah that's good stuff I approve and that is the amount of peer review the vaccine got.
Flat earth is a psyop inserted next to actual conspiracies to discredit them as schizo nonsense.
What’s the evidence of this oft-repeated claim?
(post is archived)