"Much of what we read, online and elsewhere, is incorrect.
That’s life.
It calls this process fact-checking, but its fact-checkers don’t know what they’re talking about.
...Ideas exist independently of whether or not they’ve been published somewhere.
They exist even if people dismiss them as a six-page document.
Peter Ratcliffe, one of three individuals who shared this year’s Nobel Prize in Medicine, had his research rejected because a reviewer didn’t think his findings were sufficiently significant.
Was his Nobel-quality research wrong just because Nature chose not to publish it?
Of course not.
...In other words: PEER REVIEW IS NOT A GUARANTEE.
Not of credibility.
And not of accuracy.
Fact-checkers who say otherwise are profoundly misleading the public..."
Read all!
No comments:
Post a Comment