Eric Weinstein vs Neil dGrasse Tyson: Which is Right About Peer Review?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 дек 2024
- During the recent Joe Rogan Experience featuring Eric Weinstein and Terrence Howard, Weinstein challenged Neil deGrasse Tyson's suggestion that Howard submit his research for "peer review." He made some claims about the peer review process suggesting that some people have an unfair advantage (or "privilege," my word not his) when submitting. I wanted to know if Eric's claims held up, or if Neil's suggestion was genuine, so I invited this channel's go-to research scientist, ScioScophia to evaluate the situation!
On this channel, we talk a LOT about "research" and "peer reviewed studies" because "Educators" (so-called) love to reference "peer reviewed research" when promoting their latest education theories to schools and parents, so I thought this was relevant, and important!
Make sure to subscribe to ScioSophia at:
/ @sciosophia
SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL
Your support makes my work possible. If you appreciate this content, please consider supporting me in one of the following ways:
Join The Reason We Learn Community @WOKESCREEN : wokescreen.com...
Join The Reason We Parent - Parent Support Group: wokescreen.com...
Hire me for consulting, tutoring and public speaking: thereasonwelea...
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoff...
PayPal: paypal.me/deborahfillman
Purchase TRWL Merch: store.wokescre...
Purchase books from Heroes of Liberty with my referral link and get 10% off!
heroesoflibert....
#joerogan #ericweinstein #terrencehoward #neildegrassetyson #peerreview #mathematics #research #privilege #science #physics
The history of peer-review in scientific publishing is complex. For instance, Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned that Einstein's General Relativity (GR) was published in a peer-reviewed journal in 1915/16. This assertion goes beyond the simple timestamp you mentioned. While Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) paper in 1905 was primarily passed through by editor Max Planck to Annalen der Physik, without formal peer review, the process for GR was more intricate.
Einstein's GR was discussed extensively in academic circles, through lectures and publications, before being published. Again, Max Planck, as chief editor, played a central role in its publication. There was no modern peer-review process at that time and thus, the Tyson's reference in a reply to Howard's paper, a bit out of the scope.
Eric Weinstein correctly points out that the scientific method existed before formal peer-review, which became a part of the process later. However, the mid-period between these phases reveals the role of editors in selecting "the right ones," academics leveraging their social networks to interlink their research, and institutions competing for funding. This system, with its reliance on experts and institutions beyond public access, contributes to public skepticism, especially in a post-truth era. Even minor arrogance can become a barrier to spreading knowledge.
I think the odd thing with eric and a big reason he doesn't like the the way the system is hes one of the only people ive ever listened to that wasnt allowed to attend his own thesis defense when attending Harvard
@@matthewperry9183 wow, I had no idea!
@TheReasonWeLearn he did interview/ podcast a few month back highlighting his experience there around the time of the whole president of Harvard situation
I just wanted to tell you that I love when you have Sciosophia on! You two play very well off of each other. You're informational while still being fun to watch. 😊 Great video. 👋🏻😃
Looking forward to this one. Great topic to cover!
Peer review is hopelessly broken, replication is the only way real science is done today.
Repeatability and Reproducibility
How do you know peer review is broken today? It is as bad or good as it has been always
Deb, have you heard of John Staddon (author of "Science in an Age of Unreason")?
@@kristineopsommer no? Should I look him up? Sounds interesting
@@TheReasonWeLearn Yes, very...
I have two things to say.
Peer-review should be anonymous. No appeal to authority, no appeal to power, no titles etc. Plain review of the provided publication. Science in theory is open to everyone. But in the context of JRE, it is just a popularity game. No good. Interesting and educating thou.
Another thing. I think Dr. Tyson misinterpreted the first claim on which he based his whole review 8 years back and did not update himself. T.H. wanted to say, that because the equality does not hold, there is a loophole in the math. Other examples about 1x1=2 and cube-divide calculator trick points to the same problem with the identity principle according to T.H. So, it was useless to prove that there are myriad numbers between 0 and 1 (actually cuberoot of 4, ~1.58 is the crossing point in the plot) that are greater than x squared. All numbers that break the equation are meant to hint that math is broken as per T.H., not that there arent such numbers by the conventional math. Interesting that neither Weinstein did notice it, nor Howard did lift up the correct intention. This just shows that review is not easy even for seasoned scientists. Ppl are too hasty on debunking while they should try to understand the reading first. Better outcome could it result.
One more. Insults are really sophisticated wordings. Tyson had other one that was about the appreciation of the work by the means of art. This is very common, demargation of hard sciences and soft ones, like humanistics arts, philosophy. So it was kind of saying, wheather on purpose or sub, stay out of our science area, love your art.
@@MarkoTManninen but TH just isn't right. 1x1 does not equal 2. We all know and understand this. So why pretend that TH has a good point and a solid thesis?
Peer review is fine except where it meets politics. Climate science has been progressing a lot, but the alarmism around it may well be called a religion. No discipline can survive this which is why you have actual zealots handling the science without dispassion for an outcome.
You don't have to believe me climate gate is one such example, or just follow the money on when guys like Sir Martin Rees talks. You can rest assured that his employer likely wanted to secure some more loan access for their students to bolster enrollment. In a normal world this would be called money laundering, but this is a case of where things in academia meets politics.
T,H went wrong by Sharing is intellect with people who have no souls and or disregard God.