If its peer reviewed then it should go through the experimental setup, the data and accompanying math. They can be evaluated by anyone with enough basic knowledge with math usually being the limiting factor. For example there was this study about animal intelligence that the criteria was if they could recognize themselves in a mirror. Birds and dolphins made the cut but not dogs. My complaint was it was biased to animals where vision was their more primary sense. Now im not an expert in the field but I can still find fault in that way.
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
13 points (100.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35834 readers
1037 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Though, that's not peer review. What you're describing is reproducibility. And that's the very minimum to qualify as science. If it doesn't describe the experiment well enough so an expert can follow it... It's not even proper science.
Peer review means, several expert in that domain already took some time to go through it and point out flaws, comment on the methodology and gave a recommendation to either publish it or fix mistakes. It's not the ability to do it, but that it actually already happened. And it has to be other researchers from the same field.
And there is even another possible step after that, if an independent other research group decides to reproduce the experiment and confirm and verify the results.
I know what peer review is, its just that peer reviewed things also tend to be scientific studies. I mean I know there are studies of studies and such.
There are different standards in different fields of knowledge. Medical science is different than journalism, which is different from history, which is different from public safety.
In general, a given field has sources that publish information with the highest standard of credibility. In many fields, these are peer-reviewed journals. They may be published by large universities (Harvard Law Review, Oxford Review of Economic Policy), by government bodies (e.g. Smithsonian Magazine, NIHR), by professional organizations (eg. JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine), or operate independently (e.g. The Lancet, Nature).
I don't fully believe anything I can't test and verify myself. Thank fuck NASA left things on the moon you can ping to prove they went there and it's easy to prove the planet isn't flat, otherwise I'd be in trouble.
...Does NASA have something on the web that lets people ping the Moon, by any chance?
Sorta...
We left a bunch of retro-reflectors up there, if you got really good aim and a sensitive detector, you can bounce lasers off the moon. If you science hard enough you can probably pull it off.
I don't think so. You need some special equipment that isn't too difficult to get.
I'm not checking things for peer review, but a lot of bullshit can be filtered out by a simple Google search. If Aunt Brenda posts a major event on Facebook, but it's not on any news site, she probably fell for a lie.
It's peer reviewed if it has the name of a peer-reviewed journal on it. If it's on arxiv (a pre-print server) it's not. (Or not yet, or published on several platforms/journals.)
It’s peer reviewed if it has the name of a peer-reviewed journal on it.
Where do journals indicate that they are?
A lot of them will have a front matter, a Wikipedia article. Be cited a lot. And you'll find them in a university library. You might even have access to a library's catalogue without being a student or member. Being peer-reviewed will be in the description.
And the bogus "journals" are kind of well-known. I think you'll find information with a simple Google search.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals
"peer-reviewed" is always within the first sentences if you click on something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Biomedical_journals is a good guide for Biomed
Media literacy crash course https://youtube.com/watch?v=sPwJ0obJya0&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtM6jSpzb5gMNsx9kdmqBfmY&index=1&pp=iAQB
The short answer is you don't. Even in philosophy, a leading model of "truth" is something like "a statement is true if it's true". We humans are doomed to be confused and unsure.
Credibility is earned by being consistently credible. A source that posts misleading or false articles can be assumed to not be credible, and I don't trust them just like I don't trust people who say stuff that ends up being not credible.
With newer information, concensus between difference sources us a good indicator as well.
What I am far more likely to use to dismiss something is checking out the purpose of the group. If they have a website and their description sounds like a weasel pretending to be a benevolent protector of a hen house then I just ignore them. Anything that sounds pie in the sky, like revolutionizing or disrupting an established industry is probably another Theranos and easily dismissed. If they say anything that sounds like conservative doublespeak, they get ignored.
It seems to be a pretty reliable system even if the occasional thing that is too good to be true slips in because I want it to be true. But having low expectations and recognizing potential being different from the results helpas a lot with being pleasantly surprised when things turn out better than they sounded.
If we can agree that all "news" sites slant to the right or the left. Then you should check out the story at a few of both leaning sites.
The main point is to be able to handle uncertainties in a normal basis, the greyness of reality, despite the temptation of blacks and whites of our minds.
For sure it costs a lot. The consideration of the superposition of possible truths and the weight of potential biases is a huge burden without granted full coverage, but allows you to accumulate a landscape of plausibility of things: yes, is not 100% precise and is still built by personal prejudices but, with a systematic acceptance of new bits of information regardless of how comfortable they are, it can grow a mostly reliable understanding of reality with a variable amount of temporary uncertainty on some facts… and you can still convert greys into quasi-b&w once they reach a decent amount of independent evidences, you now, to free a bit your RAM.
PS: Peer review is neither 100% perfect, is just more solid.
Ok, so, OBVIOUSLY, you know absolutely zero There's not even a such thing as 'consensual ass spankings' so I don't even know why you brought it up.
If OP wants more oreos in his cereal? Fine, so be it. But that doesn't change the fact that you fuckin suck at Diddy Kong Racing.
I swear man.