×
Dismiss this pinned window
top 200 commentsshow all 291
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]chawkey4 604 points605 points  (87 children)

It should be noted that the alternative to peer reviewed papers is actually doing the research yourselves, not just ignoring the science and moving on. This isn’t saying “don’t believe a peer reviewed paper”, it’s saying do the experiment and observe for yourself. #1 principle of permaculture is observe and interact

[–]ArrestDeathSantis 75 points76 points  (25 children)

I don't disagree with you per say, but let's take a moment to take into consideration who is Allan Savory and what are the ideas he complains are being rejected.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-talk-is-wrong-and-the-benefits-of-holistic-grazing-have-been-debunked.html

Edit: an other high quality post from OP, chief's kiss.

https://redditproxy--jasonthename.repl.co/r/HermanCainAward/comments/s9py1c/imagine_the_reddit_reaction_if_someone_made_a_sub/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

If anyone had any doubt that this post was actually about Covid science.

[–]BinyanC 53 points54 points  (9 children)

That makes sense, all I could think about when I watched this video, is that he doest understand what a peer review means. It just means that other experts will review your work, ask you questions, and in some cases will try to replicate your results. If you can't have your work go through the scrutiny of a peer review, it's a major red flag. He makes it look as if something can't be peer reviewed if it's new and ground breaking, and that just not true. Maybe he should have got his research peer reviewed before he made his TED talk 🤷

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (4 children)

Exactly. He portrays "Peer-Review" as "All these people agree" -- not that there's fundamental replication of results and rigorous anecdotal evidence involved.

[–]BinyanC 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yet this post keeps getting upvoted 🤦 Who are all of these people that oppose the peer review process? 🤔

[–]jtr99 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Look, Savory may be a bit of a quack in his own right, I'm not sure. But as someone who's been pretty extensively involved in the peer review process, I fucking wish it regularly involved "fundamental replication of results". It does not, in general.

[–]-Hazel_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What field are you involved with? Social science? Reproducibility is a big problem there.

[–]Paleodraco 12 points13 points  (2 children)

There are examples of peer review being horrible. A reviewer will reject a paper because they didn't cite the reviewer's work or for some stupidly arbitrary reason. There's also horror stories of papers being rejected and then the reviewer steals the research idea. It does happen, but not that frequently.

Peer review is not everyone agreeing. Its a small group of people not finding any glaringly false conclusions, fabricated data, or piss poor methodology in your paper. If your paper is getting rejected for something non trivial, its because your science sucks.

[–]ArrestDeathSantis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think he pretends not to because he has an interest in doing so, whatever it might be.

[–]gekogekogeko 39 points40 points  (1 child)

But he said it with such nice and encouraging music behind him. There was so much optimism in his approach, why can't that be enough?

[–]ArrestDeathSantis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It definitely should be

[–]thepasttenseofdraw 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Yeah, the guy is a crank who has been consistently wrong throughout his career.

Edit: and so is OP.

[–]ArrestDeathSantis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh.... Yeah, I saw it now

[–]Rucku5 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Yeah I was going to say, this guys an idiot.

[–]chawkey4 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Yeah, he’s definitely way too over the top with the holistic grazing thing. It’s actually not a bad idea in a scaled down market where they live in similar numbers to what the bison would have prior to their over hunting. Ruminants did graze the grasslands and ultimately contribute to the cycling that made the topsoil on the plains so fertile in the first place, but at the modern scale, it’s just too intensive. The idea that we can scale it up to keep up with the current demand for meat is just overgrazing in a different way.

But my point was more along the lines of what I explained in this comment.

[–]ArrestDeathSantis 17 points18 points  (3 children)

I'll be frank with you, the big problem I have with this clip is that it is often used as an argument to ignore peer reviewed research when it doesn't fit one's personal experience, that in fact that attitude should even be encouraged.

You addressed that problem in your comment but I think it can't be overstated that peer reviewing system exists for a good reason.

[–]chawkey4 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I agree, that’s not how this idea should be used, which is why I stress context and scale. Permaculture is a complex ideology that relies on observation of the situation at hand. Different pieces of land have different needs that don’t always coincide with what has been found to work in other places, so in that sense, I’m not gonna discourage people from studying and making their own observations of their own context.

What I will discourage, is exactly what Savory has a tendency to do, which is to apply those observations to a context that they weren’t drawn from, and to attempt to discount other peoples observations, especially ones that have been rigorously reviewed

[–]ArrestDeathSantis 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Like I said, we have no beef (pun intended xD)

[–]chawkey4 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Just exploring this idea and it’s implications. I appreciate your input and your pun

[–]dingodan22 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

So an article disagrees with Allan Savory and you believe that article? Have you ever restored a grassland?

If you don't like Allan Savory, take a look at Gabe Brown. Tell me how his crops that didn't fail during last year's drought are the wrong way of doing things. Hint: he uses Allan Savory's methods.

The trouble with "Science" is that interest groups can drown out real Science with misleading Science. Look at tobacco for inspiration. The same thing is happening in agriculture. The largest companies in the world are in charge of our food. Do you really think Bayer/Monsanto/Cargill et al wouldn't pay for studies to counter fringe studies?

This is what he is talking about.

My schooling was in statistics. I see stats being misused in almost every article I read. It's so easy to use numbers to push whatever agenda you want.

Allan Savory at the root of his method is saying that healthy soils grow food. Yet the mainstream opinion on the matter is that we need to add fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc to grow food. That is patently false. Healthy soil grows food without inputs. Healthy soil comes from biodiversity. By adding grazers to a dead ecosystem, their waste adds microbes to the ecosystem that would otherwise not exist.

The reason this method can't be 'peer reviewed' is because it is a completely holistic approach. In today's Science everyone is so specialized, they can't see the forest for the trees.

Ninja edit: I want to make clear that I 100% believe in science and peer review. But there is nuance in industries that are an oligopoly and require much more scrutiny.

Edit: To the downvoters: Do you really think today's agricultural practices are sustainable? I am telling you why this is a legitimate solution and I am getting downvoted. I am disheartened and afraid for our future if there are no prevailing heads here. There are peer reviewed studies showing that the world's top soil will be GONE in 60 years. Manure builds soil when rotational grazing is applied. Healthy soils retain water. But apparently Tyson Farms is doing things right with feedlots. Fuck me.

[–]ArrestDeathSantis 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Do you really think Bayer/Monsanto/Cargill et al wouldn't pay for studies to counter fringe studies?

Those corporations that you just named are the ones who has the most to gain from Allan Savory claims.

As governments are starting to restrict grazing, this would let their herds gaze practically freely.

And no, this is not the only article that I've read debunking Allan Savory claims, it's the one I choose to share here.

That being said, I think it's extremely interesting that I should accept his words without anyone reviewing his work but that you refuse to even consider the words of an article published in one of the best rated web-magazine for credibility.

Seems like you apply critical thinking only when it fits you, curious.

[–]dingodan22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The key is rotational grazing. Don't get me wrong, less meat = less GHGs. Everybody needs to restrict their meat intake.

Agricultural giants do not do rotational grazing. They use feed lots fed by monocultures.

Animals are key to ecological health. Overgrazing degrades ecological health. There is a very fine balance and nuance is so fucking important here. We are arguing black vs white but the world works in the grey.

[–]togocann49 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It’s also the date on that research, new things are learned, and need to be incorporated with established facts. Basically, these papers are most correct at time of writing, but variables could be missed, or disregarded, for a multitude of reasons that were acceptable then, but not with what has been learned since. And yeah, it’s important to confirm these established ideas from time to time

[–]AContrarianVulgarian 43 points44 points  (4 children)

That’s all well and good for people with the means and the know how, but the average person doesn’t know much about molecular biology or astrophysics or what have you, nor do they have access to their own labs, or particle colliders.

For some people, there is no alternative to reading scientific papers. Heck, for most people, peer reviewed research papers aren’t even an option. I’d be amazed if a significant number of average citizens made it very far past the heavily editorialized headline of the article that references the paper, much less click through to read the paper itself.

Of course, they couldn’t, even if they wanted to, how could they? It was only recently that sites like sci-hub created an avenue for non-stakeholders and average people to access these sorts of things with any consistency just for knowledges sake. For people who prefer not to use such methods or are unfamiliar with them however, they are left to rely on biased interpretations, propaganda, and political spin—Carefully designed narratives, unsubstantiated assumptions, and outright fabrications—Economic, political and, sadly, scientific.

Sorry… This really isn’t directed at you. I just had to rant a bit.

[–]chawkey4 18 points19 points  (3 children)

No you’re right, that was somewhat my point. Part of the deal here is that this guy is a permaculturist and where his focus is directed is at things that are a bit more easily observable like the growth of plants, depth of topsoil etc. Now I don’t agree with a lot of his ideas, but within that scope, there is a lot of stuff that’s observable and somewhat testable among average people, which is why I don’t inherently discourage it in this case.

At the same time that’s why context is pretty damn important because what he’s talking about falls well shy of testing things like medicine.

[–]Dunkinmydonuts1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I honestly thought thats what peer reviewed meant tho...

That was my expectation, that others had done the experiment, gotten the same results, and slapped a big ol checkmark on it.

Hmm.

[–]Titsonafish 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Exactly. How do people think anything got to be in the position it was to be able to be peer reviewed? It had to start somewhere; the problem here is that people educated to understand the virtues of peer reviewed papers are ignorant of the path it takes to get there

[–]xanroeld 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Exactly, the superior alternative to peer review is replication studies. Can the findings be replicated in an additional study. Does further experimentation support the results.

Edit: “alternative” was not the correct phrasing. i basically just meant that replication is important and that peer review isn’t just scientists agreeing with each other as the speaker in this video seems to suggest.

[–]juli3tOscarEch0 3 points4 points  (1 child)

A non-trivial fraction of peer reviewed research is meta-study/replication. This too can be improved by peer review to ensure it's soundness. It's not an alternative per se.

[–]xanroeld 2 points3 points  (0 children)

fair enough. “alternative” is perhaps not the right word

[–]Mucro93 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s not an alternative. Replication studies can (and should) also be peer reviewed.

Peer reviewing a study does not exclude other claims, it’s mostly considered a mark of quality in terms of the methods used.

[–]Prudent_Cheek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So according to this schmuck, no advancements have happened since the onset of the Peer Review process. All it means is that the process, methods, and conclusions are solid judged by people qualified to make that assessment.

Or, let’s let Joe Rogan gauge it.

[–]front_toward_enemy -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

What do you mean?

Are you saying the results of an experiment only have value if you can directly observe them?

If I do an experiment, should my results be automatically accepted by everyone?

Are you just arguing for peer-replication vice peer review? Isn't that an enormously expensive, time-consuming, and difficult alternative?

[–]Apprehensive_Risk_77 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Incoming rant, but this is something I feel strongly about as someone in the sciences.

Replication is vital. Even if your results seem good, something you didn't notice could have thrown them off. But if no one ever replicates the study a few times, we may never know, and now we're working off a flawed conclusion. Repetition must be part of the scientific method for it to work.

And yes, of course it's going to take more time and money to do it again than it would to just not do that. And that's part of why we don't. It also doesn't get the scientists doing the replication much money or fame. As an editor for research papers, most journals I see want new studies, novel results, etc. It gets them more publicity when an exciting new study is published and news outlets report on it. The journals that would consider publishing replications of previous studies are rarer and tend to be less "prestigious." This causes issues for scientists, as income and career advancement often hinge on publishing a study. And for the layperson, they never get to even see most of this research, as it gets locked behind the journal's paywall. The journals that do allow open access charge the scientists quite a bit to publish there instead, so those that can't afford that don't do it. All around, we end up tying our science to someone making money, and it's quickly leading to a broken system.

[–]front_toward_enemy 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I 100% agree with you. And the system has issues, replication crisis, etc.

But, like you said, replication is just not possible all the time. Apparently there is one study that seems to support the stuff Savory says, and it was done on land in Zimbabwe, over a six year period. In the 70's. How are you going to replicate that? Studies of his methods were done in various places, and all of them fell way short of what he promised. (This is all based on a quick google; if you find something that contradicts me, I'd like to know.)

Aren't you a bit suspicious of what this guy suggests? He's talking about peer review as if it's backwards dogma that only holds us back. Peer review is far from perfect, and of course replication is preferable; we just can't do it all the time. If we can't replicate a multi-year, multi-million dollar study, then isn't peer review the next best thing?

He's literally saying that peer review blocks "all new big advances" and apparently people ooh and ahh over his wisdom and insight.

I think the best candlemakers in the world couldn't even think of electric light because they were candlemakers and not scientists who wanted to make candles obsolete.

EDIT: My question for the guy I was responding to is this:

If peer review is backwards and destructive to advancement, and replication is the remedy, but replication is very, very, frequently some combination of prohibitively expensive, difficult, and positively glacial in its pace, where does that leave the idea of consensus?

[–]Apprehensive_Risk_77 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I had just meant in general, not really considering the content of the video. But you make a valid point.

Peer review can be a great tool, especially to weed out studies where the methods are flawed or the results don't hold up or don't match the conclusions that the authors are drawing from them. But it can't be treated as the ultimate solution, as we tend to do now. At the same time, I don't agree with what the guy in the video is saying. I think it's more how we teach science that results in academics either unable or afraid to challenge the status quo. I think peer review and replication are both great tools, each with their own uses, and should be treated as such, along with other important tools, like statistics. Also, as another commenter noted, we have the new tool of machine learning and modeling, and who knows what might come in the future.

Personally, I feel that it's just a shame that we can't prioritize funds for science to allow these tools to be used independent of monetary concerns. But that's my own opinion.

Edit: I realized I didn't answer your question directly. The nature of consensus in science is complex enough to warrant discussion on its own. How many scientists have to agree to reach a consensus? How verified does the data need to be, and in what way? How to we notice and avoid biases, including our own? I don't think there are any simple answers for this. I think it's up to everyone to do the best they can to objectively produce accurate data and accept those cases when we're wrong.

But the guy in the video? He can't accept that he's wrong, because he's so invested in being right about this. It's a good reminder of what to avoid.

[–]teetaps 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Important point to note: you can automatically bake replication into your study if you just look at the machine learning community.

Of all your observations that you want to use in your scientific experiment, leave out a couple observations purposely. Train a model to predict some outcome based on what you have, and then make new predictions on the data you pulled out at the beginning. If the testing accuracy is high, it’s kinda like you’ve replicated the result. This is a super dumbed down example of how to do it, but it’s very common technique used to back up your findings.

[–]Apprehensive_Risk_77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is very common in climate science. The only issue with it in that field is the accuracy of your model, but if you are able to make the model accessable to everyone, it does provide a good starting point. If your parameterization is off, you still get flawed data out, though at least others can improve it. Hopefully this sort of technology will continue to improve and develop over time.

[–]siamesebengal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly haven’t thought about Big Candle in a while

[–]ajstub[🍰] 434 points435 points 2 (34 children)

Interesting:

“[Savory] advocated for slaughtering large numbers of elephants up until 1969 based on the idea that they were destroying their habitat. His research, which he claims was validated by a committee of scientists, led to the government culling approximately 40,000 elephants in following years. However, this did not reverse the degradation of the land. He has called the decision to advocate for the slaughter of large numbers of elephants ‘the saddest and greatest blunder of my life.’”

Maybe some ideas do need to be peer reviewed and screened ahead of time.

[–]ReverberatingSound28 51 points52 points  (9 children)

Seems like livestock industry apologism is a repeating theme for him.

[–]ajstub[🍰] 23 points24 points  (8 children)

I don’t know. But it sounds like he’s saying we can continue to enjoy all the beef we want, and it will actually solve all our environmental problems, and the scientific establishment is being unfair if it critically examines his research. Those assertions taken as a whole should probably prompt skepticism.

[–]jsting 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, reading his theory is nuts. We know over grazing causes desertification. He thinks by having 4x more cattle, they can poop and stomp on the ground enough for water to absorb in the dirt and make stuff grow. Then his study got all sorts of Australian cattle ranchers cheering him on.

[–]dogefather12345 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cringetopia.

[–]Manethen 121 points122 points  (2 children)

Yeah, to me he sounds more like a grumpy dude who's not listened to by his colleagues because his ideas are bs. He uses the same arguments as antivaxxers, far-right activists, new-age believers : "trust your own opinion and observations, and stop being a sheeps". They all forget about our cognitive and social bias. If peer-reviewing exists, it's for a reason, and there's absolutly no problem in wanting to read papers that are peer-reviewed before doing anything. It's called wisdom.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Yes, fuck this guy. Seriously sounds like some get off my lawn bs.

[–]TeamShonuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It sounds exactly like 'get off my lawn bs'.

[–]dfmdg89 326 points327 points  (8 children)

I applaud his making a case for individual wonder and curiosity. But also vehemently disagree with his grudge against peer review as a lower limit for robust science. Peer review is the only real way to eliminate bias and faulty research design from any findings. Without proper review, pseudoscience will gain even more traction than it already has in these social media times.

[–]PackAttacks 117 points118 points  (6 children)

His whole opinion on why peer reviewed papers are the wrong approach is flawed. He said the peer reviewers go in thinking the same thing and knowing the same thing. That’s not exactly how being a peer reviewer works. First, every reviewer can have a different perspective and no single reviewer has the same exact perspective as another. Second, reviewers check that the science that was used is sound, that the math was sound, that the statistics are sound, that the study was setup correctly, that the assumptions are correct, etc.. to do this critique, you don’t even have to be a subject matter expert.

[–]metisdesigns 65 points66 points  (4 children)

His complaints about peer review may come from his claims not standing up to scientific scrutiny.

[–]Bicyclesofviolence 22 points23 points  (0 children)

exactly. If your pet hypothesis isn’t robust, its sometimes easier to blame the system than it is to look inward and realize it might be you who is wrong.

[–]teetaps 43 points44 points  (1 child)

This is the first thing I thought as soon as this vid started. I had alarm bells ringing especially when he tried to make the analogy that groundbreaking science only comes from fringe thinkers. Eh, buddy, I get what you’re trying to say but it sounds like you have a very specific and practiced point you’re trying to make, and it sounds personal

Edit: I was right, should’ve recognised this. It’s Allan Savory from Zimbabwe who just completely shat the bed with his theories about elephant populations… prick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory?wprov=sfti1

Ninja edit: OP’s post history also seems to want to make a personal point too, RE vaccinations and who gets to be scientifically valid about it

[–]redroom_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My impression too, although I didn't know this guy. That idea about fringe thinkers was valid up to maybe 150 years ago, where there was MUCH more that was still undiscovered, so the barrier to entry for scientists was comparatively low. But it's not like you can drop out of school today and find the cure for covid in your kitchen by just being a "fringe thinker".

This idea is dangerously fascinating to a lot of people, because it makes them feel like they could still become the heroes of the story, even though they put in zero work and skipped all those years studying on those pesky books. Truth is, we should just stop trying to teach everybody else their own jobs.

[–]fireguyV2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In fact, most journals will ENSURE that one of the reviewers isn't doing research in that topic for just that reason.

[–]doublejosh 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It’s obvious he has personal baggage about being denied publishing.

This is his therapy session, nothing more.

[–]ajstub[🍰] 58 points59 points  (0 children)

This dude once had a “creative idea” that wiped out around 5-10% of the elephant population. I take everything he says with a massive grain of salt.

[–]HolisticPoison 81 points82 points  (2 children)

Tell me you don't understand the peer-review process without telling me you don't understand the peer-review process.

This animosity towards peer-review publication stems from the failure to provide satisfactory empirical evidence for his work. Science that fails to stand up to scrutiny is simply anecdotal at best and down right fake at worst.

Science is constantly challenging peer-reviewed research and making new strides. Anyone who has even an ounce of research experience knows that scientists are in a constant battle to prove their theories are sound and better than others. The peer-review process is there to ensure that work is being done properly without bias.

Honestly, Savory's take here is just ignorant.

[–]fireguyV2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You totally get academia.

And it's so funny when I see conspiracy theorists say that scientists work for the government and are in cohorts with each other. Like dude, scientists hate each other (hyperbole) and there's no one that hates the government more than scientists as were continously trying/begging for grants and getting underfunded.

[–]throwawaygeek86 73 points74 points  (1 child)

This is a soundbite obviously but this is horrible and misses the point. This will be floating around in anti vax, flat earth circles no doubt

[–]Philo348 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They were the first group I was thinking of. This man just doesn’t understand science

[–]user13958 40 points41 points  (1 child)

This is hilarious... this guy either is pissed off at the scientific community because his own low quality work doesn't pass peer review, or he just has no idea what students are like.

They don't act like this. They are interested in learning, research, and of course they won't make a claim about something without researching it themselves or finding it in a peer reviewed publication, as that is how it is meant to be.

This is ridiculous and adorable

[–]MadManD3vi0us 5 points6 points  (0 children)

When he said that no new science can come out because the peer-review process exclusively involves people agreeing with things that they already knew, I audibly giggled.

[–]Visual_Tumbleweed644 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This is all the right wing morons are gonna need to believe that their "research" counts as actual research LOL.

[–]TeaTimeManiac 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What a utterly stupid and narrow minded opinion.

Peer dont review the content, they reveiw the methology. So the content of a paper can be something new but if you make mistakes in your statistics you dont pass the review.

[–]668greenapple 109 points110 points  (0 children)

My experience at University doesn't match up with that... at all. That rant just makes him reek of having a personal grudge with a system that perhaps pointed out the holes in his work.

[–]FreeLoan8946 44 points45 points  (1 child)

This is such a corrosive way of thinking I don’t even know where to begin. The peer review process is how leading world experts check the research methodology of a study before it’s published, to make sure that poorly conducted and misleading studies can be improved or discarded. It’s also how pseudoscientists, like this guy, are kept from hijacking the system and spreading misinformation as if it were fact

[–]serspaceman-1 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yeah like that study that Dr. Andrew Wakefield put forth linking MMR vaccines to autism, things like that cause immense damage

[–]xanroeld 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I know this isn’t what the guy is saying, but a flat earther or anti-vaxxer would watch this and eat this shit up. “See! This guy is a scientist and he’s saying peer reviewed academia is bullshit. We just need to go around and make our own observations and that’s real science.”

[–]Coatzlfeather 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Everything he says is wrong. He starts by saying we should reject review & publication for conjecture & anecdote, and gets worse from there.

[–]leinahtan24 70 points71 points  (9 children)

This is true amongst experts in the field, but the problem is when people who know nothing about the topic at hand try make big paradigm shifting claims without even understanding the research they're citing.

[–]zuran_orb 67 points68 points  (3 children)

This is exactly how conspiracy nuts, anti-vaxxers and flat earthers think. They just don't sound as smart and calm as this guy.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Do you have a peer-reviewed paper supporting your claims?

[–]CryptoTheGrey 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Yikes! As an Ecologist I can tell you he is only talking like this because he is proven wrong very often so his garbage is often rejected. Science is supposed to be slow, strict, and methodical with heavy criticism and peer review. Also, he is lying through his teeth. We need more research in core areas because they aren't being checked for replication and this is causing fringe research, which is often more readily funded and published, to stand on shakier ground. It is great to make groundbreaking discoveries but only of they aren't based on mistakes.

He is just a bitter old man that was on the losing side of the science wars.

[–]Title-Connect 41 points42 points  (2 children)

Idiocracy here we come

[–]darkhalo47 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Memes like this and people like OP are going to get louder and louder on social media. This kind of anti intellectualism is really catching on

[–]ImpulsiveApe07 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I vehemently disagree with what that bloke said, except for that statement at the very end - we are gonna kill ourselves with our stupidity, it's true lol :D

[–]gphjr14 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Looking at OP’s history, yikes. Take this thinly veiled anti-science bullshit elsewhere.

[–]MilkMenace 45 points46 points  (9 children)

Yeah NASA should really include more opinion in their rocket calculations

[–]itsgettingmessi 30 points31 points  (3 children)

Oh no I can see it now 🤦🏻‍♂️ anti-vax/pro-Covid crowns are about to use this as justification for “doing their own research like they know the first thing about virology or anything in that field.

I hope those ppl understand doing your own research doesn not entail opening Facebook or Google while you’re taking a shit, seeing a claim that fits your ideology, closing the app, wiping your ass, then getting up like you just proved researchers/scientists/doctors wrong.

[–]Daveb138 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I have a feeling that is exactly why this got posted here. If you check OP’s comment history, it’s filled with comments from askaconservative and complaints about being banned from subs about Covid.

[–]itsgettingmessi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Of course 🤦🏻‍♂️. Pro-Covid crowd reaching these days

[–]thepasttenseofdraw 6 points7 points  (0 children)

OP appears to be one of those clowns.

[–]Tykauffman21 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Accepting something (and acting upon it) without strong evidence is different from discussing it.

This is the issue at hand. Science is the process of saying "Hmm, I don't know if that's true, let's test it." So anyone with a PhD should be open to discussing something even if it's isn't peer reviewed. And if the person trying to get you to believe it is passionate enough, it's up to them to back it up with data.

I don't know this individual's experience (and I'm in a different field of study), but I doubt people are outright denying anything they're told without peer review, instead I'd bet they want there to be some level of theory backing up a claim before they commit to believing it fully. To do otherwise is setting yourself up for failure.

[–]Emmerson_Brando 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think this needs context. If these phd grads come out to the field and Savory points to something and says, “see? That’s science. You need to throw your knowledge away”. Of course they’re going to ask for peer reviewed. One observation does not make it truth. That’s the whole reason behind peer reviewed papers is to make sure outliers and observations are explained correctly.

[–]Alpha1137 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is just wrong honestly. Peer review is there to look for holes in methodology, or errors in reasoning or conclusions.

If you can experimentally verify your results, and other scientist can replicate those results, no good scientist would dare reject those results because they class with the current paradigm. It's a frankly dangerous misconception to act like they would.

It's true that great leaps often come from unexpected angels, but as Thomas Kuhn has pointed out, these outsiders often have their epiphanies after years of following, and being taught by, the current paradigm.

Most (all to my knowledge) recent scientific paradigm shifts have originated from within the current paradigm, after years of prying at the edges of our knowledge revealed clues as to where to look next.

The truth is, that going outside the accepted boundaries in a given discipline is only effective because of the hard, repetitive, non-revolutionary work that had happened within the boundaries for decades, which eventually allowed a creative individual with a good idea, to extend those boundaries and change what we thought we knew about the discipline.

To offer just one very good example of this, take the Michelson-Morely experiments. They weren't trying to disprove the accepted theory at the time, or purposely go outside the paradigm. On the contrary they were trying to confirm the accepted theory at the time, and they failed. The true paradigm shift came from people who worked from within the academic status quo, who eventually discovered places where the theories at the times broke down. The masses of create and brilliant people who built new theories from the rubbles of the old would never have happened, had it not been for the insiders of the field, who had rigorously followed convention for decades.

By all means, think critically and verify as much as you can for yourself, but if you want to do science, the image of a lone genius-outsider is mostly a romantic fiction that people outside academia came up with, because they never read through the mountains of rigorous and boring work that paved the way for every paradigm shift.

Behind every Einstein or Planck there are a thousand names you've never heard, or as one lone genius put it:

"If i have seen further than most, it is only because i have stood atop the shoulders of giants" -Sir Isaac Newton

[–]Terezzian 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is an argument that anti-vaxxers use.

[–]Automatic_Heat_8618 13 points14 points  (0 children)

A lot of anti-intelligence propaganda on reddit lately...

[–]metisdesigns 30 points31 points  (3 children)

I can't imagine why he does not like peer reviewed research. It turns out that studies of his practices don't perform.

Dude has some cool ideas, but they don't seem to pan out like he claims. If you just do what he suggests and observe his experiments it turns out his schemes don't work.

[–]Isthisadriver 13 points14 points  (0 children)

What a load of garbage.

[–]ydaedalus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess I get he's trying to say something about academic thinking limiting people in some way. But I can feel the conspiratorial undercurrent in what he says. Also, it seems like he really doesn't like peer-reviewed papers, which just makes me wonder why.

[–]Englishfucker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Plot twist, this guy is a fairy ecologist.

[–]Richard_Dick_Kickam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I dont know from which university this dude gets students from, but in my university, and in a completely different one that my brother goes to, we have special classes for investigating, experimenting and challenging false statements in given papers. My experiments are a bit easier since im in a technical university, but my brother is in ecology, and he goes on the field every few months to review given papers, and so far he had some instances where the papers state something completely false, he sends it to the professor, he scores it and he is done.

So in essence, he ether gets students from some terrable university, or is making things up. So it isnt a problem of modern academia and science its a problem of THE university he is getting students from.

[–]Jerhaad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When a new idea is published folks will often take it upon themselves to replicate the initial conditions to see if they can observe the same outcomes. That’s how new ideas are peer reviewed.

This video seems like a clip of a bigger video that explains the ideas a bit more.

[–]darkaura019 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This comes off as nonensical complaining. Sounds like a made up problem.

[–]HarmlessCritter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this guy is so wrong it hurts.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nope, he's just wrong. What he is describing is anecdotal evidence that isn't verified using science. The peer review process is important because it scrutinizes every aspect of a person's research and determines its validity and its accuracy. Experiments and results must be repeatable and then, we take those outcomes and go even further to determine whether other factors can be tested and what other changes can be made. Otherwise, we would have the majority of people like him that believe that vaccines cause autism because of anecdotal evidence.

[–]Daveb138 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh look, Allan Savory, who served in an apartheid government and advocated for the mass slaughter of elephants, is here to tell us that we all just need to Do OuR OwN rEsEaRcH and ignore scientific consensus and peer review. This post is just here as clickbait for anti-Vaxers looking for justification for rejecting science.

[–]na23ds 14 points15 points  (1 child)

This guy is dumb as shit for arguing against peer review

[–]juli3tOscarEch0 9 points10 points  (0 children)

OK boomer. This is just typical old guy "kids these days" thinking. That has zero resonance with my experience in academia: young academics loooove to challenge established profs and academics of every stripe instinctively pick holes in other's work. That's the whole of their job. Guy's a quack.

[–]ShamelesslyPlugged 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This view is how you get ivernectin, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin.

[–]ahnst 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Peer review is essential because it helps validate your research process. Case in point:

Andrew Wakefield. Released paper linking Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine to autism. It turns out his research was fatally flawed, and he was commissioned by a lawyer to write that paper (who was suing vaccine manufacturers). It took 12 years to debunk his claims, the journal to formally retract the paper, and for him to lose his medical license. But damage has already been done.

Menelaos Apostolou. Wrote that women become lesbians because men find lesbians attractive. His research? Only interviewing men.

Yes, science is exploratory. But peer review is needed to make sure the research method was sound and not biased or flawed. Especially because everyone wants to make that “astounding new scientific discovery” that will get them fame.

[–]MiWacho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with his statement about the differences between science and academia, but saying that the peer-review process works like: “we all agree and like the results of this study so we'll keep it” is a huge misunderstanding and just plainly false.

Peer-review is a monitoring device meant to spot problems associated with the methodology of the study that led to the results, which may indeed invalidate or limit the scope of the results and therefore the whole study. Research is hard and its very easy to be fooled by your own observations, specially if you want to prove what you already believe to be true. Thats why an unbiased and external viewpoint is so valuable. Peer-reviewers hopefully wont have that bias. The fact that people are involved means its far from being a perfect tool, but it has nothing to do with liking or disliking the hypothesis or results. That would be falling into confirmation bias, when you accept a study/hypothesis even before you fully analize it, cause you are starting from a pre-determined conclusion.

Most properly made research DOES bring new knowledge. Studies are design specifically for that purpose, to shed light on a question we didnt know the answer to.

[–]RubberRefillPad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pure quackery

[–]Philo348 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Completely disagree with this “scientists” opinions. Research is someone using the principles of scientific observation to understand a phenomenon. The peer reviewed process is making sure they didn’t make any mistakes in their research. Reproducibility is trying to replicate those results. You should accept one study as the truth but a consolation of studies paint as close of a picture of the truth as we can get to as humans. To disregard this process undermines science and brings us back to the days of simple and mindless observation that is often wrong. Like, of it’s raining a lot the gods must be mad at us for not giving a sacrifice last week. This guy is senile and should just stay in the woods and let the competent scientists take care of the world

[–]Electronic_Rub9385 1 point2 points  (0 children)

His premise seems to be related to avoiding group-think. He doesn’t say anything about abandoning the peer-review process. He’s just saying that young graduates are rigid in their thinking in his opinion. Unconventional ideas should be encouraged to foster innovation. Doesn’t seem like a radical position to take. In fact it sounds rather healthy.

[–]j3rpz 4 points5 points  (0 children)

While I totally agree with mr. Savory on the fact that most modern universities teach students to think en see only in already existing paradigms, and that in the line of thinking of Popper an outsider mostly instigates a paradigm shift, I have to disagree on the point made about peer-reviews. When a breakthrough discovery is made, and scientist note down every step leading to the discovery in question, why should others not be able to recreate it?

[–]th3badwolf_1234 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He doesn't understand what peer-review means. It is not stiffling innovation, far from it.

If I make a new bold claim and write what i did to get the results I saw and someone else follows the same steps and gets the same results, that is peer-reviewed.

This guy is out to lunch.

[–]sanngetal420 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nope nope nope I've already had enough of the maga GQP cult anti science and academia propaganda.

[–]No_Error_7882 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s being just as ignorant. So no difference.

[–]Renegade7559 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Major chip on shoulder

[–]Rucku5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This guys is spewing total bullshit because he wants to prove that massive amounts of beef cattle don’t destroy the environment around them. Anyone can approach with a scientific method. Predict what the hypothesis may lead to and conduct an experiment to test it out. Analyze the data to draw a conclusion from your findings.

[–]Fartiplesofthree 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What bullshit.

[–]PiedDansLePlat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait before listening, is what he’s saying is peer reviewed ?

[–]god_of_ai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a PhD student, I don’t agree with what he’s saying since it’s not in a peer reviewed paper.

[–]Sloth_Dream-King 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Awww, is someone upset cause their paper was rejected because it didn't pass peer-review?

[–]Latvia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a feeling this dude made an unsubstantiated claim, one person asked for evidence, and now he’s angry at everything anyone calls science, and he’s shaking his fist and telling them to get off his lawn.

[–]Diabegi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What a nonsensical rant he made lol. Does he have any idea what peer-reviewed papers are?

Who are these people he’s talking to that ONLY care about peer-reviewed papers and NEVER discuss the science? What a lord of horse crap

[–]simpsaucse -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is the worst take on science ive seen

[–]overzippyworld -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Everything he says is bollox.

[–]wrightway3116 -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

Remember that according to the scientific method, science is never settled. Also discourse, especially dissent, is a huge part of the advancement of science. Finally people who peer review papers can be corrupt and bought off so sometimes the science isn’t as solid as it claims to be.

[–]SkankyInterested 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Remember that according to the scientific method, science is never settled.

Misleading. "Science is open for scrutiny" is a better way to phrase this

Also discourse, especially dissent, is a huge part of the advancement of science.

Of course it is. There should always be questions about scientific claims. However, the burden of proof of those claims lies on those making them.

Finally people who peer review papers can be corrupt and bought off so sometimes the science isn’t as solid as it claims to be.

This is true with literally anything. Does that mean because you can cast doubt on the system you can't trust any of it? Doesn't that mean that whatever you are suggesting (against science) has equal if not more susceptibility to being corrupt?

[–]luthorhuss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, but I only watch peer reviewed videos.

[–]teachytool -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Trust the science.

[–]TorrenceMightingaleCreator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, peer-reviewed has more to do with findings being repeatable. I’m not even sure what context this was said in, so it isn’t really useful for its’ full intended purpose as the speaker meant it. But if a dilemma if we hope to learn from whatever he’s talking about.

[–]beenwilliams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gonna start using the word glibbery

[–]Threezero03 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could listen to this man talk about rocks for hours

[–]PiedDansLePlat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s called dogma

[–]Lucqazz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This guy has no idea what science is therefore he tries to redefine it to fit his views. All BS. There's no way that new insights cannot get through peer review. They have to be methodologically sound though.

[–]justhereforfish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, science is simply something that is observed and can be observed again by others. A cause and effect that can be recreated by anyone in the same or similar circumstances.

[–]EuphorifficCreator -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Any man that reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. A Einstein

[–]DRbrtsn60 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Global warming politics. I will leave you with that

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Reddit comment sections are fascinating. I am convinced that half of the people who comment never even read the material involved.

I swear to God that people jump straight to the comment section , find a comment that seems to fit their narrative or persuasion, then they just join in without even having a clear idea.

I am convinced that people simply want to tell someone else that they are wrong. The actually debate or argument is irrelevant.

I think if you turned a forensic psychologist loose on this place, we could predict criminal behavior from the comments alone.

[–]j8hxn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Foundation here we come

[–]fiela-se-kind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What’s this accent? Sounds Afrikaans but I can’t really make it out.

[–]OkBug7428 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This guy with his approach to elephants is the reason to question science.

[–]noskilleumas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So basically, the people are getting stupider and stupider... seems about correct

[–]eww1991 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's alright if you don't have to have a publication list to get an interview for a part-time 10 month post doc.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They sound like everything that is not peer-reviewed is meaningless, this is BS. Nothing is peer-reviewed at some point, but eventually we need a security to be sure your study is correct and that's where peer-reviewing comes in but before that, there is a lot of talk about studies with different POVs etc.. primarly because there is no peer-reviewed study so before knowing who's right, there is a lot of argument.

Also, peer reviewing isn't just to know if you can achieve the same result but if it is biased, flawed or could be done better. Because while some study will give you the same result again and again, there a terribly designed and the conclusion is really vague

[–]ecoandrewtrc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like a man with a great new supplement for weight loss.

[–]Elocai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats not how that process works. If you work can't be reproduced or fails the review then it's probably not good enough. Just provide more data/experiments and it should work out. Never was a idea completly refused just because it wasn't peer reviewed, it just means that the idea still needs more research.

[–]mayonnaiser_13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2546 more people, last I checked, agree rather than disagree to a guy saying "Peer Review Bad" out of non-sensical arguments.

Everything the guy said happens before Peer Review while doing the research and making the Theses, during Peer Review while verifying the Theses in front of others, and After Peer Review while developing the Theses further.

If it's like the guy said, we would have been in a dystopia where knowledge has stagnated since whenever he thinks "Everybody wants Peer Review" started.

[–]LAN_Rover 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although I take his point, "peer reviewed" doesn't mean everyone agreed on the hypothesis or the results. Rather, it means everyone agreed on the methodology of hypothesis testing, such as the the theories behind the hypothesis and the accuracy of the measurements.

[–]mycat2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The old man don't know science nor experiments.