Imagine suggesting they should've had their papers approved by their competitors as a requirement to publish.
>>16881787So hvckin trveI'm smart butt lazy and my mommy said im a smart boyif it wasnt for (((peer review))) I would be a famous physicist by nowLuckily we have genius like Eric Winestein to save us
>>16881787Completely unrelated to science, The con artist Chaloner peer reviews newtons work simply to slander his name to protect his counterfeiting scheme as Newtons position at the royal mint endangers it.
nobody peer reviews me shit
>>16881787Technically Newton has been peer reviewed for the last 300 years.
>>16881787Lemire used to make interesting blogposts that were popular on HN. But I just recently learned he is yapping BS nonstop on twitter, like Jon Blow-level of retardation.
>>16881787Except they did. It wasn't exactly the formalized system that it is today but the fact that we can find countless examples of their contemporaries critiquing their work means they were, indeed, reviewing it.
>Nobody peer reviewed Einstein or Newton Wrong. Early in the history of General Relativity Einstein was convinced gravitational waves weren't physical. Others in the field disagreed. Einstein and Rosen submitted a manuscript which they claimed proved GWs weren't real. But the reviewer pointed out their mistake, and was not published in that journal. And obviously they were deeply wrong as GWs do exist.
>>16881787They are literally peer-reviewed every single day, Frog.You simply are not one of their peers, so you would not know this.
>>16881833Thats not peer review. Peer review would have prevented Newton from publishing his findings because it did not meet the current known science of the time. Same with Galelio where he defied peer review and published his finding anyway and was put to death
>>16881787peer review was added to stop the next newton and einstein
that's unironically true though. the vast majority of scientific discovery happened before the modern journal system
>>16882133meant it's true what the OP suggests about requirements to publish. obv great scientists were reviewed by peers in a more decentralized fashion
>>16881833thats public review libtard
>>16882144When (YOU) do it, yes, it's a review by a random public normie. You are not their peer.
>>16882157Peer review, or what being a peer means in that context, does not mean what you think it means in your delusional overly idealistic head canon, academic.
>>16882194>when i use a word it means exactly what i want it to mean>nothing less and nothing moreThanks, Humpty. Once again, you are entirely useless.
>>16882316>academic talking about usefulnessYou are way past your station, academic.
>>16882484>an maker is talking, thinker >u best listen upThe train is late, again.
>>16882157i am their peer though. my nigga newton and I used to run the streets.
>>16881787einstein was peer reviewed. people went out of their way to test special relativity just years after it was published
we talking about fig newtons?
>>16881787newton did whatever he wanted because he was son of a preachereinstein had to publish in a science journal,
journals, peer reviews are mechanisms of filtering out the garbage. at times when there were very few notable scientists, this was not needed. it was possible to read all the relevant research without filters
>>16881956Damn I didn't think about it that way
>>16883494You faggots got real close during the plague. Spent some time at his rural cottage?
>>16881787ACTUALLY Einstein had a meltdown because of a negative review from Physical Review and refused to send any more papers there.
>>16883998he corrected his mistake
Peer review means at least couple of people would read your shitty paper
>>16883817>peer reviewed>went out of their way to test special relativity just years after it was publishedPeer Review is just a guy in the field reading and spellchecking your paper before publishing it. It does not mean "replication" or "empirical testing." What do you think people are going to do? Spend their grant money they have for Y to replicate the experiment you made on X which is fairly unrelated on Y before approving the paper for publication? Absolutely not.
>>16884148>come up with novel theory>peer reviewer rejects it because he thinks it's an elementary mistake
>>16884027Your mom doesn't count, Anon.Literally and figuratively.
>>16884148This.Good luck getting the data before publication to even verify the analysis.I've asked. Doesn't work.
Peer review, consensus itself, has become such a fucking monster that people like Einstein or Feynman wouldn’t be allowed to get anywhere in present day.
>>16884160>Peer review, consensus itself, has become such a fucking monster that people like EinsteinDont bullshit. It all depends who you are and who you know. Lewontins 1972 paper had no peer review either. He was besties with the publisher of the rag it was printed in.
>>16881956>Peer review would have prevented Newton from publishing his findings because it did not meet the current known science of the time.That's not how peer review works.>Same with Galelio where he defied peer review and published his finding anyway and was put to deathThat's not even remotely what happened.
>>16881956>Peer review would have prevented Newton from publishing his findings because it did not meet the current known science of the time.No, it did prevent him from publishing all of his theories in reputable journals and through his university's publishing system, ensuring only the theories and principles that could stand the test of time were published by the university he worked for since he was not only into calculus and things that have been widely adopted over time, but also into a bunch of religious and occult bullshit that was debunked in his day and serves as laughable trivia in the current year.
>>16882144No it is public review when random members of the public are reviewing, but it is peer review when the people at his accreditation and expertise levels in his university and fraternity systems were reviewing it before it was widely released to the public.
>>16883879>at times when there were very few notable scientistsThere were plenty of notable scientists, but history chose the winners and you only see them as noteworthy in retrospect.
>>16881787einstein was peer reviewed in a journal he submitted, reviewer pointed out his math was wrong, einstein vowed to never publish to that journal againthis is why einstein gets peer review immunity
>>16881787This is untrue. They WERE peer reviewed, it's just the systematic process for peer review was different in their generations. It wasn't a bunch of busybody makeworkers poring over printouts reproducing results in highly specific circumstances. It was more symposiums and discussions among ACTUAL "peers" to establish the consensus and verification of their hypotheses. They were "peer reviewed" by presenting their ideas, and their peers saying "holy shit, you're right."
>>16881787But Einstein definitely reviewed Poincaré LOL.
>>16881787Yes they.Their contemporaries had every right to read and call bullshit on their work.
