Culture

End All Formal Science Journals & Papers

Time to return to the beginning. End formal science papers and let scientists talk freely amongst themselves.

Here’s why.

Heard about the formal peer-reviewed paper “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases” by Suzanna Diaz & J. Michael Bailey in the Archives of Sexual Behavior?

It was canceled.

Or, in science speak, retracted. Because why? Not because of any gross error. Because “activists” (i.e. true believers) hated it.

Rapid onset gender dysphoria is the kind of madness that for instance strikes classrooms full of girls, who, under the tutelage of a purple-haired “educator”, or even on their own, suddenly all “discover” they are boys.

Article says “Parents reported that they had often felt pressured by clinicians to affirm their AYA [adolescents and young adults] child’s new gender and support their transition. According to the parents, AYA children’s mental health deteriorated considerably after social transition.”

Which is no surprise to any sane person. But truth is not a beloved entity in our Regime. So the paper had to go.

Even more amusing is that “Suzanna Diaz” is a fake name. Imagine. A scholar so frightened of other academics she, or he, had to use a nom de guerre. (There is no typo here.)

You can read all about the cancelling elsewhere. Which is one among many.

Now you and I, dear reader, have looked at hundreds of papers over the years, nearly all bad. Most with mistakes so egregious even Kamala Harris would blush at them. All of them committing scientific sins far in excess in any found in the Rapid Gender Madness paper. None of them have been retracted.

Indeed the opposite has been true. Those atrocious papers were used to forward the Regime line, in one way or another. Or to tout lousy theory, false ideas, wild over-certainties, and insane preposterousities.

All of these papers are held up, waved frenetically in our faces by hersterics and rulers who chant “Research shows we must trust The Science!”

End it. Formal publishing is not just useless, it’s downright harmful. And there is no need of it.

Science began with highly intelligent men writing letters to each other, and showing the copies around. A fine practice.

It kept the noise to a minimum. Formal publishing is now almost entirely noise. There are more than 8 million papers published a year now, a number going up and up and up. Nobody reads them. Why should they? They are almost all useless. Nearly all exist because, and only because, academics must publish or perish. Must.

If we eliminated formal publications, much of this persiflage would dry up, and our best and brightest would be able to concentrate on their own work, and not be harassed with “peer review” requests.

The only people who have respect for peer review are those who have never experienced it. As I always say, there is no surer enforcer of banal tepid watery content than peer review. Nothing better ensconces error and mandates Consensus. I cannot say it better than Alan Savory, who recognized peer review is academia and not science.

The hell with academia. We care about science, the search for truth about the world. Academia is no longer the best method to conduct this search. Academia is now more akin to journalism, which is the propagation of the party line.

What’s needed for intellectual progress, the late-great David Stove correctly told us, is leisure and a library. That leisure was available to the Founders. It is not so much available today, or is, but it is not cherished. We do have libraries, but they are crammed full of journals which are never read. Nor should be.

Do you know how much it costs a library to stock, in paper or electronic form, those journals? I’d tell you, but you might have a seizure. The sums are vast. Money pissed away. Money better spent on books.

Of course, you could subscribe yourself personally to these journals, each costing hundreds a year. But that’s asinine, since you’d never read any but a few of the papers. Which are anyway scattered across journals. And who is going to subscribe to a dozen or two journals? So you might buy individual copies of papers you want. But each ten- or twelve-page paper is ridiculously expensive.

Why do they cost anyway? Scientists do the writing, giving it free to the journals, who then charge for it. Scientists sign away their copyright to a publisher who squeeze scientists (through their employers) to read what they wrote! It’s even more bizarre when you consider the papers were almost all funded on the public dime. Academic journal publishing is a brilliantly evil system.

There is no longer any need for publishers. Dump them.

We now have places like the arxivs and their ilk. More should be encouraged. Scientists can write whatever they want, upload their work onto any of many systems, and anybody who wants can read the papers. True, these sites require maintenance fees, but their costs are orders of magnitude less than journals. (I put my work here on the blog, which is always free for readers.)

Enterprising editors can still cobble together their own newsletters or magazines of what they think is the best writing, paying their writers in some way.

Scientists, knowing their work would disappear in a flood of flotsam and jetsam could, like the Founders, communicate directly with each other, and can ignore the fluff. That happens now to a great extent in physics, with arxiv.

Nobody loses in this system. Except vampiric publishers.

Because of scientism, we have all become inveterate quantifiers. That’s why we have teenage-girl-inspired metrics like “h-indexes”, which track popularity. Yes. If you’ve never heard of these, they are exactly like counting “likes” on social media. You want to experience true cringe? Then listen to academics compare their paper metrics. Pathetic.

But the cry will naturally arise, “Now we’ve eliminated journals, how can we reward and rate how good scientists are?”

Sigh.

That call is the spirit of academia. Which must be crushed, extinguished, hounded from polite company. It is that spirit that canceled the Gender Insanity paper. Which, because it’s still there and can be read by all, is nothing more than a scarlet letter. Which exists only for midwits to snort at and congratulate themselves over. You read that retracted paper? How dare you.

End it all.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.

Categories: Culture

18 replies »

  1. Agree 100%.

    Those few people I know who really work at some form of science share their results among tight peer groups with similar specialities and interests using e-means (email, “dark” web servers for scary stuff, archive servers, discord-style stuff). To them journals matter only for tenure and/or grant applications.

  2. ”End formal science papers and let scientists talk freely amongst themselves.

    Scienizdat.

  3. The writing’s on the wall:
    Soon we’ll all be growing plants & chasing chickens again.
    The ‘science’ of climate change is the mass popular delusion that demands the dissolution
    of the modern world. All planned: prepare accordingly for even greater concentrations
    of wealth & the attendant skullduggery this portends.

    “Fertilizer Reckoning for the Mathematically Challenged”
    https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.02/Fert_Math-0326.html
    (stock up)

  4. Don’t put off that chainsaw purchase you’ve been dreaming about.
    Get a horse!

  5. Ha–you should see the journals in business areas like managemen. Looking at these will make you scream. For reasons unclear–journals in business are rated by a group of b school deans in australia and/or to your point on journalism–the top journals in business are deemed such by the Financial Times.

  6. Peer Reviewed,
    Fact Checked:

    Nothing but in-group vetting by the far left.

  7. As I remarked before, it’s all fake and gay. Academia is largely to keep the unemployed and mostly unemployable out of trouble. It’s an alternative to the Victorian asylums. I remarked elsewhere that China, supposedly, has the dual problem of large numbers of coffin dodgers and a lack of working age population to support them – the demographic crisis bought on by the One Child Policy… and yet, according to numerous contemporary articles their is a youth unemployment crisis in China. Meanwhile Japan, apparently with a mostly senile population, is an economic powerhouse. It’s a mad, mad world.

  8. Agree with everything except a few rather misogynistic remarks. Peer-review is all about being popular and being paid. As politics becomes increasingly dominated by fools and supported by underhand corporate and Far Right eco-fascists, this is what happens to culture and academia.

  9. OK

    – a bit of background first: The author (me) has spent over 30 years involved in the commercial research of thermodynamics, mostly of gases, and mostly related to industrial processes.

    Here’s a statement that may come as a surprise, or shock, to those who don’t get around much in the real world:

    Much of academic research is crap.

    It is my experience that academics are usually obsessed with funding, tenure and ‘prestige’ – and they rarely produce good quality research.

    I have worked extensively with academic ‘researchers’ – and their contributions were almost always poorly thought out, poorly reported and insubstantial for the time and money invested in said research.

    On several large-scale (multi-year) research programmes I contributed to, or indeed managed, it was a condition of the source of funding that it would be split equally between the academic and commercial research organisations involved in the overall project (usually two/three of each).

    In EVERY case (around 10) that I was involved in – despite receiving 50% of the funding, the academic research establishments (usually universities) produced less than 25% of the final reported research.

    How this state of affairs was allowed to continue by the financier is beyond me.

    Feel free to disagree – but that is my experience.

    IMHO if you want research conducted properly do NOT rely on academic institutions – nor on people with the job title ‘Professor’. The latter are almost certain to be blinkered muppets.

  10. Well said. I would just add that “peer-review” is often not. ie the editor exercises a “filtering” role. I am also somewhat concerned about the “preprint servers” that have the look and feel of populist publishing but may also be subject to scientific big brother.

  11. The re-establishment of a scientific culture (of shared value in the uncovering of truth (& significance) has to find air to breath and funding amidst a corporately invested technologism that cares not for truth but for priority weaponisation and marketisation of any new thought, discovery or movement of endeavour.
    I see it in simple as the Herod complex. or Big Brother’s boot. Invested self-illusion operates our defences against its disclosure. Thus the corporate or collective block to true discovery and transformation is no less in an emotional reactivity into narrative-driven identity set by fear, guilting and a sense of self-lack seeking to mask as a self-validation externally.

    However I do hold that we arrive at our starting place to know it for the first time.

Leave a Reply

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