No information can be trusted. One has to either hallucinate truth, or go by one's own judgment and bullshit meter... which itself might be a hallucination. —Lloyd
You often see “news” that makes statements like “peer reviewed paper”, and “not yet peer reviewed”.
Check your premises.
- Peer review impedes science and debate by rejecting papers outside the narrative.
- Peer review is a buddy system, not a random process.
- Who wants their paper reviewed by someone with opposing views?
- Maybe some bad math gets caught, maybe not. Maybe idiotic models get caught, maybe not. History shows often “not”. Faked data? Happens all the time.
- A peer-reviewed paper may be more about whether it is interesting, or supports the narrative, who’s involved, etc.
- Real peer review with a high level of skepticism (aka science), and formulating serious criticisms would be very time consuming. And offensive to many narratives.
- Approving a controversial paper could be career-ending in some areas, eg climate change, genetics vs intelligence, etc.
Finally, an editor who publishes a paper that questions cash cow industries (eg climate change “science”) will be summarily fired.