Well if scrutiny didn’t do any good then why do we have peer review in science?
a) scientists are slightly better than average in caring for accuracy b) there is a contradictory evidence whether peer-reviews improve publication quality
It’s just obvious that rational criticism generally does improve argumentative standards.
Eh… “obvious” is not a good criterion for either impartiality or accuracy.
a) scientists are slightly better than average in caring for accuracy
b) there is a contradictory evidence whether peer-reviews improve publication quality
Eh… “obvious” is not a good criterion for either impartiality or accuracy.