Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

And who is to define bad science? People who, by their own words, were not able to read scientific papers because they are "difficult to understand"? I am not saying that the specific language used in scientific literature is an advantage, but also doesn't constitute a problem in itself. Unless you are able to read those papers and point out where the "bad science" is, this is just a vacuous statement.

Also, pointing at failure points in the peer review process is ridiculous. This is not religion where you need to uphold every word. Science is made with lots of ideas that, looked from far ahead, are incorrect. "How did that ever cleared the review process"? Well those reviews only cover the minimum necessary for something to be published, it is not a guarantee that the contents are correct. It is the social process of science that takes care of that.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: