#science #asknostr #physics

Is the system or peerreviews maby unnecessary? Since good science will eventually go through the filter of time successfully and bas science will get lost some day.?

Source:
https://www.theseedsofscience.pub/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

"Why did peer review seem so reasonable in the first place?

I think we had the wrong model of how science works. We treated science like it’s a weak-link problem where progress depends on the quality of our worst work. If you believe in weak-link science, you think it’s very important to stamp out untrue ideas—ideally, prevent them from being published in the first place. You don’t mind if you whack a few good ideas in the process, because it’s so important to bury the bad stuff.

But science is a strong-link problem: progress depends on the quality of our best work. Better ideas don’t always triumph immediately, but they do triumph eventually, because they’re more useful. You can’t land on the moon using Aristotle’s physics, you can’t turn mud into frogs using spontaneous generation, and you can’t build bombs out of phlogiston. Newton’s laws of physics stuck around; his recipe for the Philosopher’s Stone didn’t. We didn’t need a scientific establishment to smother the wrong ideas. We needed it to let new ideas challenge old ones, and time did the rest." 

 The problem with science today is that it's funded by the money printer 

 I would say every publicated science effort can only help advancing. I can not beleave that you could publish a paper that will bring scientific efforts back in time. So I would say every investment is good.