When he talks about the industrial revolution I agree. However I am going to play the devils advocate for a minute and say what liberals will say.
“But what about all the child labor and tycoon caused suffering? Isn’t that what the industrial revolution gave us?”
I’m quite surprised that no liberal has stopped by to bring that up since its their biggest argument against what they perceived as a liaise fare system. And my response would be that we are talking about technological progress.
I don’t know; the process of peer review is not my strong point but I kinda trust the man to have an accurate idea of how it works seeing as he has authored 80 peer reviewed research papers in the fields of biology and economics.
Peer review is, in application, little more than a form of censorship. Standards are openly made higher for anyone whose findings are contrary to conventional wisdom (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof), while conventional conclusions are given a pass. Some ideas are, in fact, dismissed on their face from peer review, regardless of the support they include.
The first rounds of peer review are without doubt informal, and the peers reviewing likely do know the originator of the hypothesis. All of that happens before publishing, tho… once you submit your ideas to a journal, the 2 or 3 or 5, or whatever, peers are chosen by the journal. THEN, once u r published, EVERY expert in your field has the ability to review/test/prove wrong your hypothesis, whether they are friends, enemies, or completely neutral.
When he talks about the industrial revolution I agree. However I am going to play the devils advocate for a minute and say what liberals will say.
“But what about all the child labor and tycoon caused suffering? Isn’t that what the industrial revolution gave us?”
I’m quite surprised that no liberal has stopped by to bring that up since its their biggest argument against what they perceived as a liaise fare system. And my response would be that we are talking about technological progress.
I don’t know; the process of peer review is not my strong point but I kinda trust the man to have an accurate idea of how it works seeing as he has authored 80 peer reviewed research papers in the fields of biology and economics.
so i guess by these arguements patent laws would be unecessary?
Peer review is, in application, little more than a form of censorship. Standards are openly made higher for anyone whose findings are contrary to conventional wisdom (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof), while conventional conclusions are given a pass. Some ideas are, in fact, dismissed on their face from peer review, regardless of the support they include.
What he said about peer review is way off.
The first rounds of peer review are without doubt informal, and the peers reviewing likely do know the originator of the hypothesis. All of that happens before publishing, tho… once you submit your ideas to a journal, the 2 or 3 or 5, or whatever, peers are chosen by the journal. THEN, once u r published, EVERY expert in your field has the ability to review/test/prove wrong your hypothesis, whether they are friends, enemies, or completely neutral.