Current Events > Joe Rogan interview about academic peer review being biased and innaccurate

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqU_JMTzd4" data-time="

tl;dr, dudes made fake studies that had conclusions the academics WANTED to believe.

Since they wanted to believe the conclusion, they actually published the articles and gave it exemplary academic credibility.

The academia it refers to is sociology related fields.
---

Aren't you a young earth derptionist?

Remember that time an academic journal was published linking vaccines to autism?

Fun times (not really)
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Aren't you a young earth derptionist?

Poisoning the well right from the start are we?
---

inb4 people attack the people instead of the content
---

Very_Unreliable posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Aren't you a young earth derptionist?

Poisoning the well right from the start are we?

More like noticing the irony/hypocrisy of TC wanting to believe this because it would put a dent in the wall that is preventing his religious nonsense from being considered science.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Aren't you a young earth derptionist?

Poisoning the well right from the start are we?

More like noticing the irony/hypocrisy of TC wanting to believe this because it would put a dent in the wall that is preventing his religious nonsense from being considered science.

an attitude like this is why dialog between both sides is at an all time low.
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Aren't you a young earth derptionist?

Poisoning the well right from the start are we?

More like noticing the irony/hypocrisy of TC wanting to believe this because it would put a dent in the wall that is preventing his religious nonsense from being considered science.

You're being dishonest; I'm sure doesn't want his religion to become science, and if what you say is true he probably rejects some scientific premises. Which he is allowed in fact to do and honestly you're not edgey or cool or interesting for lambasting him for it, in fact it makes you a bad person actually..
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Very_Unreliable posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Aren't you a young earth derptionist?

Poisoning the well right from the start are we?

More like noticing the irony/hypocrisy of TC wanting to believe this because it would put a dent in the wall that is preventing his religious nonsense from being considered science.

Either you mixed me up with another user or you think it is ok to make up lies.
---

I watched this last night they made a paper how men should be treated like dogs to train them and it got published. They exposed acadamia for the bullshit brainwashing it is.

Hulkasaurusrex posted...

I watched this last night they made a paper how men should be treated like dogs to train them and it got published. They exposed acadamia for the bullshit brainwashing it is.

It should be note that this is not the whole of academia but the part of it dealing with gender studies and stuff like that.

They didn't make physics papers for instance.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Hulkasaurusrex posted...

I watched this last night they made a paper how men should be treated like dogs to train them and it got published. They exposed acadamia for the bullshit brainwashing it is.

It should be note that this is not the whole of academia but the part of it dealing with gender studies and stuff like that.

They didn't make physics papers for instance.

Yes sorry that is correct they even make sure to make that distinction in the video.

That was just a clip.

Here is whole podcast.

They talk about more stuff. It is pretty interesting assuming it is all true ofc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg" data-time="
---

Science is a liar sometimes
---

X-Pac_Heat posted...

Science is a liar sometimes

I think the point is more that the social "sciences" atm are not science.

Some people probably already expected it, but this shows how ridiculous it is.

It could be that this happens in other fields, but that is not what the video showcases.
---

Even publishing science papers I will tell you peer review is not the prestigious thing it is made out to be. I know most of the people who would end up peer reviewing my paper. And that's not unusual. People in your own sub-field become peer reviewers because people outside it have trouble understanding the methods used by people in your sub-field. This naturally leads to bias as you become a somewhat tight-knit community over time.
---

I imagine the usual suspects are either gonna troll and deflect or avoid this topic all together
---

Drama!
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

I think the point is more that the social "sciences" atm are not science.

this.

i listened to the whole podcast yesterday, its great; and it shows that those teachings are bullshit.

the most important point those guys brought up through the podcast was that the students spouting this shit are in-a-way victims as well. they are taught that this is real science- factual, studied, when it's not. so, they go out in public and social media with this feeling of righteousness because their "learned professors" taught them.
---

Isn't this shit also found in non-social sciences? Like this has been a thing discussed for years
---

Wow

White privilege is like Original Sin

that is, actually a very interesting point
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Isn't this shit also found in non-social sciences? Like this has been a thing discussed for years

I have heard that before, but that is not talked about in the video at least.
This is purely about social sciences.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Isn't this shit also found in non-social sciences? Like this has been a thing discussed for years

I have heard that before, but that is not talked about in the video at least.
This is purely about social sciences.

Gee I wonder why they'd single those out
---

Anyways, if anyone was wondering, I did some basic Google searches and no, this shit ain't new.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12038911
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/123/9/1964/282957
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16418467
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Isn't this shit also found in non-social sciences? Like this has been a thing discussed for years

I have heard that before, but that is not talked about in the video at least.
This is purely about social sciences.

Gee I wonder why they'd single those out

Same. I'm a social scientist too. Crap gets published in other fields too.
---

You need to quit using Joe Rogan as an authority on anything.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

You need to quit using Joe Rogan as an authority on anything.

He didn't.
---

@KiwiTerraRizing posted...

You need to quit using Joe Rogan as an authority on anything.

Joe Rogan wasn't the authority.

Do you understand what an interview is?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

@KiwiTerraRizing posted...

You need to quit using Joe Rogan as an authority on anything.

Joe Rogan wasn't the authority.

Do you understand what an interview is?

No because he's a fool who is angry that the interview goes against the only discipline that is basically an intellectual laundering scheme for socialist ideas.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

You need to quit using Joe Rogan as an authority on anything.

So I can disregard Neil Degrasse Tyson since he has been on JRE multiple times?
---

furb posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Isn't this shit also found in non-social sciences? Like this has been a thing discussed for years

I have heard that before, but that is not talked about in the video at least.
This is purely about social sciences.

Gee I wonder why they'd single those out

Same. I'm a social scientist too. Crap gets published in other fields too.

As a social scientist, what do you make of these two guys and their publishing attempts?

Do you think they are trolls or doing a service pointing this out?
---

the problems with this undertaking have been brought up numerous times

I wonder why some people still seem to be taking it at face value

it's almost as though they just want an excuse to view social sciences as illegitimate
---

averagejoel posted...

the problems with this undertaking have been brought up numerous times

I wonder why some people still seem to be taking it at face value

it's almost as though they just want an excuse to view social sciences as illegitimate

So you are saying that if I take this at face value I need to read the literature? Is that correct?

Kinda interesting since that idea that the literature is gospel is what they discuss.

You would be better served to make an actual argument, than to suggest that everyone knows why this is bad, because of some literature that likely most people actually don't know anything about or have read.

I would be interested to see the failing of this. Problems is, you don't seem to be offering to educate me but want to say I should have known better. Is that correct?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqU_JMTzd4" data-time="

tl;dr, dudes made fake studies that had conclusions the academics WANTED to believe.

Since they wanted to believe the conclusion, they actually published the articles and gave it exemplary academic credibility.

The academia it refers to is sociology related fields.

That's not how peer review works, that's the exact opposite of how peer review works.
---

creativerealms posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqU_JMTzd4" data-time="

tl;dr, dudes made fake studies that had conclusions the academics WANTED to believe.

Since they wanted to believe the conclusion, they actually published the articles and gave it exemplary academic credibility.

The academia it refers to is sociology related fields.

That's not how peer review works, that's the exact opposite of how peer review works.

That is now how an argument works.

You quoted a 22 minute clip and said "that is now how x works".

If you want to make an argument against something said in the video, you should summarize what that point is and explain why it is wrong.

Saying "look at this 22 mins, it is all wrong" is a nonsense post. Which makes me wonder the credibility of your assertion when you don't know how to make a coherent argument.

I am open to the idea that they are wrong, lying or making things look worse than it is. If you can prove it, go ahead. But I am not going to believe it is wrong because you said so.
---

creativerealms posted...

That's not how peer review works, that's the exact opposite of how peer review works.

I peer review for a journal (not in the social sciences), sometimes that is exactly how it works. We don't get paid to do this and are human, not like we're incapable of making mistakes or being biased.
---

I watched that yesterday. It was an interesting watch regarding how social activists in academia are trying to use the superficial trappings of science to give themselves ammunition for enacting the social change they want.
---

Wow this part about ideas being connected to your identity is really good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg" data-time="&start=5187
---

great episode of JRE.

If you actually needed to hear / see this to realise that social sciences are biased nonsense, you probably weren't that interested in whether or not they had any truth to them in the first place.
---

TiamatLover posted...

If you actually needed to hear / see this to realise that social sciences are biased nonsense, you probably weren't that interested in whether or not they had any truth to them in the first place.

I like sociology and pyschology in college. I learned about the milgram experiment and things like that.

White privilege wasn't discussed but we did talk about an experiment where people rated aggressiveness by race and similar things like that.

I wouldn't say it is all biased nonsense.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

That is now how an argument works.

You quoted a 22 minute clip and said "that is now how x works".

If you want to make an argument against something said in the video, you should summarize what that point is and explain why it is wrong.

Saying "look at this 22 mins, it is all wrong"

I mean that might not be what you want to hear but it's in fact all wrong. Peer reviews are explicitly instructed not to reject articles merely because they disagree with the research or conclusion. There was a great deal of objection regarding the fake papers but they were admitted anyway.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

That is now how an argument works.

You quoted a 22 minute clip and said "that is now how x works".

If you want to make an argument against something said in the video, you should summarize what that point is and explain why it is wrong.

Saying "look at this 22 mins, it is all wrong"

I mean that might not be what you want to hear but it's in fact all wrong. Peer reviews are explicitly instructed not to reject articles merely because they disagree with the research or conclusion. There was a great deal of objection regarding the fake papers but they were admitted anyway.

I have no problem hearing that. Surely you understand the difference between your post and his do you not?

You actually explained why you believe it is wrong rather than just saying "nope".

Now, this part is interesting:

There was a great deal of objection regarding the fake papers but they were admitted anyway.

I will try to find to find out if this is true or not on my own but if you wouldn't mind, do you have a link to support this?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

will try to find to find out if this is true or not on my own but if you wouldn't mind, do you have a link to support this?

Yes I have the link on a different forum, give me a few minutes to drum it up
---

Is anybody actually surprised that fake studies that conform to an inherent bias could get published so readily?

darkphoenix181 posted...

I think the point is more that the social "sciences" atm are not science.

Well, duh?
---

They do mention getting some objection to their papers. For example, one with a fictional white female lesbian who was attacking whiteness was objected to because the fictional author was white. Or because they didn't problematize white and male allyship enough.
---

Esrac posted...

They do mention getting some objection to their papers. For example, one with a fictional white female lesbian who was attacking whiteness was objected to because the fictional author was white. Or because they didn't problematize white and male allyship enough.

Yes, they said some of them didn't get published for various reasons.
---

@darkphoenix181

Here is some detailed reading for you to look at.

The hoax, at best, demonstrates that the peer review / pay-to-read journal academia industry has problems in general, but doesn't really do anything to debunk gender studies as a whole.

https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/an-embarrassing-moment-for-the-skeptical-movement/

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753?cid=wcontentgrid_hp_6

Anyway you can see that several papers were sent back to "revise and resubmit" which indicates they were read, determined to be shit, but like good scholars wanted to try to help this trio put together something of a little value. Of course since that's not what they were trying to do, that didn't really work out for anyone involved.

The trio in question also misrepresented how important the journals that they submitted to are and neglected to mention that their highly ideological field has a different standard and contribution level than others which also still get subjected to hoaxes, even physics journals.

Overall the people being fooled the most right now are the ones who think this hoax demonstrates anything other than that they are assholes that cheated a vulnerable system.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

@darkphoenix181

Here is some detailed reading for you to look at.

The hoax, at best, demonstrates that the peer review / pay-to-read journal academia industry has problems in general, but doesn't really do anything to debunk gender studies as a whole.

https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/an-embarrassing-moment-for-the-skeptical-movement/

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753?cid=wcontentgrid_hp_6

Anyway you can see that several papers were sent back to "revise and resubmit" which indicates they were read, determined to be shit, but like good scholars wanted to try to help this trio put together something of a little value. Of course since that's not what they were trying to do, that didn't really work out for anyone involved.

The trio in question also misrepresented how important the journals that they submitted to are and neglected to mention that their highly ideological field has a different standard and contribution level than others which also still get subjected to hoaxes, even physics journals.

Overall the people being fooled the most right now are the ones who think this hoax demonstrates anything other than that they are assholes that cheated a vulnerable system.

I don't think those links say what you think they say.

For example, the first one isn't about these 20 hoax papers. It's about a different hoax paper submitted at an earlier date.

The second is a series of varying responses to the hoaxes. I read a few of them and didn't see much of anything regarding objection to the papers. They're responses to the hoaxes after the fact.

Do you have something more specific to point to?

I wouldn't expect them to be entirely unbiased about it, but the authors said in that interview that the objections they did get were typically for not being extreme enough.

Also, if you wanted to point out that several of the papers were subject to "revise and resubmit", why not just link to their article where they themselves detail which papers were accepted, rejected, and sent back for revision?
---

The best take away is that you should always be wary, especially when there are very few related studies/reports to corroborate the supposed data.