Well, that explains science then, eh?

Peer review is a mechanism for oppressing non-hegemonic thinking

Yep, the Murphmeister.

26 thoughts on “Well, that explains science then, eh?”

  1. Tim

    I did notice this – priceless. May even top ‘the books are wrong’ and ‘If you cannot use google I am not acting as your personal search engine’…

  2. Well it’s certainly what the sceptics of man made climate change would say.

    I don’t know why you’re bothered, anything that is peer reviewed and you disagree with is always met with derision, and the idiots here just bleat

  3. Of course it’s a conservative mechanism. That’s the bloody point. A feature not a bug on average in the long run.

  4. While it is true that peer review maintains hegemonic thinking, the problem for the Murphmeister is that his “thinking” is just wrong. His lamentable inability to understand basic accounting, tax and economics, or his even more incompetent recent forays into law, are what hinders academic respectability. He’s a moron who thinks he’s a messiah. What is quite disturbing is how many morons believe in him.

  5. “I have never known anyone who could look round an Apple store and have any doubt at all where they are”

    This is at best the psychologist’s fallacy, or more likely just another indication of the arrogance of the man, ” I can’t imagine it, so it can’t be possible”

  6. It is. That might be a good thing, or it might be a bad thing. But it is what it is. It is the very point of choosing peer review as a system.

  7. abacab

    You are guilty as charged – albeit also a genius for setting the trap in the first place – sure enough, he blundered right in……

  8. bloke (not) in spain

    Arnald, if your referring to the climate change debate, in relation to peer review, much of the argument is about the lack of peer review. Because many of the researchers have not published their data sets or methodology would enable comprehensive peer review. .

  9. I’m agnostic on peer review; neither something to be venerated or sneered at. A lot depends on who the peers are, their own track record of honest enquiry, etc.

  10. Arnald’s so cute when he gets like that.

    Like he’d know the difference between a dependent variable and an independent variable. Or the difference between a linear and a non-linear mathematic model. Or the difference between a static and a dynamic mathematical model.

    Probably isn’t familiar with the term “underdetermination”, either.

    But he’s got climate science and climate change all figured out…

  11. Peer review (or more commonly, pal review) has largely descended into what would be a joke if the consequences (see anthropogenic global warming) of the scams weren’t so disastrous.
    One of the few places where true peer review takes place is arXiv. Anything published there gets a serious going over by real heavyweights.

  12. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. and this must be 630. He’s right. peer review is a dumb idea. How about making everything available so an audit can be done. I seriously doubt that Murphy would be a fan, but then neither would the average AGW grant-seeker. The whole point is that it only counts as science or fact (at least for the moment) if no one can tear it down.

    That’s the point

  13. For me it depends on who the peers are and what the relationship with the author is. I suppose there is little to lose for scientists engaging in the peer-review circle-jerk of climate change whereby they sign off on each others’ work and all of them benefit from the increased grants, etc.

    I have found a good way to judge history books by looking to see which of their peers utilise this book as reference material later on. If a historian is willing to put his neck on the line by referencing a fact or figure from another book, then the book in question has pretty much been reviewed and accepted by a peer. And when you read the bibliography of history books, the same names appear (depending on the subject, of course). You’ll not that the crap churned out by Fisk, Pilger, and Chomsky does not get used as source material by genuine historians.

  14. People are oppressed, non-hegemonic thinking is suppressed.

    I would say that’s a Freudian slip, given that he’s in favour of it.

  15. A big part of the problem of peer review is the academic ranking system. Ever since quality of academics became measurable based on publications in top tier (or tiered) journals, this made articles in desirable (high tier) journals valuable. Previously good articles were published because they were good. Now, being part of the “in-crowd” is far more valuable and has facilitated the creation of cliques.

    The problem with measurement is that it tends to pervert the measure…

  16. Given the breadth, depth and quality of his fields of knowledge, and his convincing and authoritative refutations of argument in conflict with his own, is it not about time that Murphy was considered for a Nobel Prize in something?

  17. “Respectfully there are those who have called for me to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics, which I simply do not and never would remotely agree with.

    Candidly, my failure to be awarded the Prize is further evidence of the neo-liberal hegemony’s capture of the subject and the global conspiracy to silence me.

    I am not Google. Please refer to section 17b of the comments policy. Note that I have never referred to section 17b of the comments policy.

    Respectfully you are a troll. I am Richard Murphy. I am not and have never claimed to be Richard Murphy.”

  18. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I long ago formulated the opinion that anyone who uses the word ‘hegemonic’ un-ironically should be worked over with a sock full of snooker balls. I don’t see any reason to change my mind.

  19. @bloke – add to that “rentier”, “monopolist” and many other marxoid buzzwords that have no place in the 21st century.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *