Are Blogs better than peer reviewed journals?

>sucking a chinks tiny dick so hard

That's some ubercuck shit right there

>listening to reason is ubercuck shit

I dunno man, the political posts with stuff I agree about in them are pretty good

plenty of eminent real scientists and mathematicians have blogs tho. (eg tao's blog which was linked).

It's okay to deeply respect incredibly gifted people, especially when they've accomplished quite a lot in maths and have a deep body of work. Terrance Tao cares about education, which really is rare among extraordinarily gifted mathematicians. He legit cares about your understanding of the world, even if you think he's a "chink cuck."

So you just defer to the opinions of people more intelligent than you? Intelligent people can be, and often are, wrong.

I guess it depends on who's writing the blog.

lol

...

That's because "intelligence" isn't correlated with "being right". What you should be looking for is *rationality*:
mitpress.mit.edu/books/rationality-quotient

nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/the-difference-between-rationality-and-intelligence.html

>it's better when they affirm my opinion

Let's bet this new test is either useless or highly correlated with IQ.

Tao is a mathematician, and he should stick to it.

>scientific journals are based on opinions not experiments and the results that were obtained

Maybe you should read more journals because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also back to /pol/ pablo

It depends. Is the blog unbiased and does it use trustworthy sources? Then you can probably at least consider maybe trusting it.

It depends. The 'fraud' sciences - Climate Science, Nutrition, Medical Science, and Geology - are all better understood by bloggers. Anthony Watts for example knows more about the earths Paleoclimate history that anyone with a paper published in Nature Climate Change. If the scientists are corrupt so will their journals also be corrupt. Blogs are never corrupt because blogs dont' make money. Also sciences like nutrition and climate science don't need expensive grant money. Studying nutrition just involves eating and studying the climate just involves going outside, so there is no reason these scientists should receive large grants. So you know they are doing it to line their pockets.

>1. Open data, code, and materials
Depends on the blog, this is in no way a requirement. Also many authors in peer reviewed Journals publish this as supplementary material as well. And you can always ask if you are interested, most people love to talk about their work.
>2. Open peer review
Literally the same as when a paper gets published, people can give feedback and an erratum follows. Only that for a Journal, an initial peer review is mandatory, while review of a blog requires post publication feedback by people who find it.

The rest is similar. Journals started as a way to facilitate properly monitored publication, and while the system is in desperate need of an overhaul, trying to rebuild the same thing with blogs is just reinventing the wheel.

>blogs don't make money
Ever heard of ad revenues?

>medical science
>fake science

Literally the only science that can be verified by anyone across the planet because the effects are visible on patients all around the world..

Is Veeky Forums becoming /pol/ now?

>>/kys/

Links? I'm always interested in intelligent people's political opinions.

Rationality isn't associated with being right either you ubertard.

It was perfectly rational to believe in Aether. After all, something can't travel through nothing, why should light? Turns out light can do that, and no matter how rational you are you wouldn't be able to predict that.

People really need to learn how to admit they don't know things.

holy shit i went to high school with her

Nice rebuttal there poltard

Did she atleast have big tits

she was nice and smart.

>So you just defer to the opinions of people more intelligent than you?
Classic brainlet black and white thinking.

>His opinion is different than mine, therefore he is retarded in this one respect
Or maybe you're just retarded in all respects? I wonder which is more likely?

>doesn't know how peer-review works

>implying you're ever guaranteed to be completely right about anything
rational people would be more likely to admit that they're wrong faster, and quickly move on to a new model, that's why they're significantly more *likely* to be """right""" than just high IQ people, dumbfuck.

>brainlet1 suggests disagreement causes brainlet2 to call others retarded
>brainlet2 disagrees, and calls brainlet1 retarded
Hmmm...

Then read this
americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/11/western-elite-chinese-perspective/

It's a view of the western elite from a chinese perspective, some guy who went to Cambridge and then worked in Finance in the US. These are the only interesting political posts, when you have people from vastly different cultures give you a critique of your accepted system.

For example he writes an interesting part about being taught 'microaggressions' and feelings in his university courses. The courses made him think he wasn't cut out for any socializing job for fear he would hurt some idiot's feelings unintentionally so he went into finance instead.

>In Communism the future is certain, only the past is unknown.

Otherwise political commentary is indeed garbage

>ignores request for Terry Tao blog
>links to opinion piece by a "foreigner" that literally cites a Goldman Sachs book, and spouts the same tired randomness garbage as Nassim Taleb

user, surely you can't be srs

Here's the blog you're looking for:
terrytao.wordpress.com

Nice Bait

In other words, brainlet2 is acting exactly as brainlet1 predicted?

Depends on who's writing the blog.

you just know she got triggered by some article about gender and needed to read a blogpost that agreed with her to feel better

>good team of editors and reviewers who weed out the trash beforehand.
If by trash you mean stuff like negative results and replications.

>ding ding ding!