Next time you hear «It's not Peer-Reviewed» as a «dismissal» then RECOGNISE:
1. That is a Logical-Fallacy called: Appeal-to-Authority
How? Quoting from https://ghaffar.substack.com/p/the-peer-review-fallacy/
«Certain academics today use peer-reviewed studies in the same way theologians in the past would use scripture, as a means of shutting down rational debate and narrowing the breadth of public discourse. If the peer-reviewed study says X, it must be true, especially if it has been blind peer-reviewed and published by a prestigious outlet, or so the all too familiar argument goes.»
And there is also yet another nuance about the «Peer-Review» Process:
2. The words «independent» AND «unbiased» are *important* for _genuine_ «Peer-Review»
- Without being both independent and unbiased, the whole Peer-Review «argument» becomes naught more than mere «Appeal-to-Authority» (like quoting from some Statute as Ultimate-Truth; like quoting from some «Scripture» for Ultimate-Truth; like quoting from any religious-book as Ultimate-Truth; the same criticism about «fairy tales» can also be said of today's «sciences» that refer to anything else that is non-mterialist to be a «pseudo-science» despite materialism itself being pseudo-scientific)
https://ss.quantum-note.com/statistics/Bayesian-Statistical-Reasoning.GEM-A3(030TL01m04d)01.png
https://ss.quantum-note.com/statistics/Statistical-Analyses.GEM-A3(030TL01m14d)01.png
https://ss.quantum-note.com/statistics/Statistical-Analyses.GEM-A3(030TL01m14d)02.png
https://apd-1.quantum-note.com/Analyses/conspiracy-theory-weaponization-v2.html
Time-Stamp: 030TL02m12d.T14:41Z