I do consider LessWrong regulars my peers so feedback I receive from them is literally peer review but that isn’t the main point.
I’m asking about your general principles. Peer review is a method with the intent of preventing low quality papers to be published.
The karma system is also a method that does the same. Both go different about achieving that goal. Neither is perfect.
The argument that the process can be used to supress true arguments that are unwelcome to people in the field applies to peer review more strongly then it does apply to LessWrong karma votes. On LessWrong if I want to say something very unpopular I get people to engage publically with my ideas even so I’m downvoted and you don’t get the same with academic peer review.
An upvote can be made by anybody.
While anybody can make an upvote on LessWrong the amount an upvote counts is different from person to person. There’s also alignment karma which does require expertise to be allowed into the alignment forum.
For one a peer review should be made by a peer, a professional in your field that knows about the topic.
That means in many cases not someone who knows something about statistics and that’s how you end up with the same basic error of not understanding how statistical significance ends up in 50% of neuroscience papers who could make the error. Statisticians who actually understand the errors don’t get chosen for peer review to check for correctness because that’s not what peer review is about.
Whether or not a paper follows the quality standards that a journal publically supports also has little effect on whether a paper passes peer review as the interaction which the CORSORT standards shows.
The dynamic of being a popularity contest is a core feature of academic peer review these days.
So because peer review is not that good a voting system can also be not that good?
I fail to see your point arguing about a voting system creating censorship and thus it should be considered to be removed or at least changed from what is used nowadays in every forum.
Your arguments just outline that the peer review system in scientific communities is not ideal and also imposes censorship.
And still, it is by far better than a voting system in a forum. Sure in papers you might not have the perfect peer to find every error but in a voting system on a forum, you do not need to have any legitimation, qualification, or reasoning to cast your vote.
If 50% of studies by professionals have so many errors, how good is a rating by random people online?
Wrong or harmful content should be removed or labeled but voting is not good for that.
you do not need to have any legitimation, qualification, or reasoning to cast your vote.
While that’s true that new users can vote, the vote of a new user (so no legitimation) counts very little compared to a strong vote by an established member (who has legitimation by having posted content that LessWrong members have found valuable in the past). I do think there’s an argument for not allowing new users to cast votes.
how good is a rating by random people online?
LessWrong is not made up of random people. If we wouldn’t have voting then it’s likely that more people who aren’t posting according to the quality standards that the existing members on LessWrong have would write posts and the quality of LessWrong would go down as a result.
you on purpose ignore the point that you do not know who votes.
you assume and hope that everybody is nice and votes based on objective reasoning only
you also ignore that I say that there should be another system or a changed voting system to ensure quality.
I say that you do not know what random people vote and your argument that they probably vote good is completely flawed.
And for the karma system that has some really bad implications too. Somebody with more Karma has even more power to censor. You just shift it away from new visitors to older visitors.
How is it decided who is a good visitor and who is not? It is based on votes. It is a loop that does not work.
If my argument is that votes do not work then you can not argue against it with a system that uses votes as its basis.
If my argument is that votes do not work then you can not argue against it with a system that uses votes as its basis.
If you say things that are false then I point it out that you say things that are false. To make a good argument you actually have to base it on true foundations.
A system that uses karma as legitimation just isn’t a system that doesn’t have a concept of legitimation even if you don’t like how the legitimation is setup.
you on purpose ignore the point that you do not know who votes.
With blind peer review I also don’t know who votes whether my paper gets accepted. In both cases I have a broad idea.
With blind peer review I also don’t know who votes whether my paper gets accepted. In both cases I have a broad idea.
again with the “peer review is not good so voting can be bad too”
I already made a statement. Voting based on a random group of people that can vote without giving any reasoning does not result in objective voting. And this in return censors content.
Now you try to say that this is not that much of a problem because people who are “good” have more influence on the vote. But how is it decided who is good and should have more influence? By them getting votes. It is a circle.
How do you imagine countering the argument that people in a forum are strangers, unknown to you with the power to vote however they desire without having to reason or explain their vote?
Sure you can say that it is not that big of a problem in your opinion but that does not change the truth of my statement.
And even still, a peer review is not an upvote or downvote. You can not break down a peer review to the level of a downvote or upvote.
What do you even try to argue? You try to argue that my statement is wrong because If my argument is correct I would also have to be against peer reviews? And being against peer reviews is not correct?
This just drips with argumentum ad populum. “look at this guy, he must be against peer reviews, everybody does peer reviews so he is wrong”
What do you even try to argue? You try to argue that my statement is wrong because If my argument is correct I would also have to be against peer reviews? And being against peer reviews is not correct?
I’m asking you about what you believe to be true. Working on understanding what the other person believes is a key aspect of having productive conversations that go towards truth. It’s necessary to finding cruxes. It’s one of those rationalist things that you unfortunately don’t find by people who care about debating.
so you compare peer review to upvotes?
A peer review usually includes a peer giving a review. A review is not the same as an upvote.
For one a peer review should be made by a peer, a professional in your field that knows about the topic. An upvote can be made by anybody.
A review includes feedback, revisions, and reasoning why parts of the content are wrong. An upvote does not include this.
I do consider LessWrong regulars my peers so feedback I receive from them is literally peer review but that isn’t the main point.
I’m asking about your general principles. Peer review is a method with the intent of preventing low quality papers to be published.
The karma system is also a method that does the same. Both go different about achieving that goal. Neither is perfect.
The argument that the process can be used to supress true arguments that are unwelcome to people in the field applies to peer review more strongly then it does apply to LessWrong karma votes. On LessWrong if I want to say something very unpopular I get people to engage publically with my ideas even so I’m downvoted and you don’t get the same with academic peer review.
While anybody can make an upvote on LessWrong the amount an upvote counts is different from person to person. There’s also alignment karma which does require expertise to be allowed into the alignment forum.
That means in many cases not someone who knows something about statistics and that’s how you end up with the same basic error of not understanding how statistical significance ends up in 50% of neuroscience papers who could make the error. Statisticians who actually understand the errors don’t get chosen for peer review to check for correctness because that’s not what peer review is about.
Whether or not a paper follows the quality standards that a journal publically supports also has little effect on whether a paper passes peer review as the interaction which the CORSORT standards shows.
The dynamic of being a popularity contest is a core feature of academic peer review these days.
So because peer review is not that good a voting system can also be not that good?
I fail to see your point arguing about a voting system creating censorship and thus it should be considered to be removed or at least changed from what is used nowadays in every forum.
Your arguments just outline that the peer review system in scientific communities is not ideal and also imposes censorship.
And still, it is by far better than a voting system in a forum. Sure in papers you might not have the perfect peer to find every error but in a voting system on a forum, you do not need to have any legitimation, qualification, or reasoning to cast your vote.
If 50% of studies by professionals have so many errors, how good is a rating by random people online?
Wrong or harmful content should be removed or labeled but voting is not good for that.
While that’s true that new users can vote, the vote of a new user (so no legitimation) counts very little compared to a strong vote by an established member (who has legitimation by having posted content that LessWrong members have found valuable in the past). I do think there’s an argument for not allowing new users to cast votes.
LessWrong is not made up of random people. If we wouldn’t have voting then it’s likely that more people who aren’t posting according to the quality standards that the existing members on LessWrong have would write posts and the quality of LessWrong would go down as a result.
you on purpose ignore the point that you do not know who votes.
you assume and hope that everybody is nice and votes based on objective reasoning only
you also ignore that I say that there should be another system or a changed voting system to ensure quality.
I say that you do not know what random people vote and your argument that they probably vote good is completely flawed.
And for the karma system that has some really bad implications too. Somebody with more Karma has even more power to censor.
You just shift it away from new visitors to older visitors.
How is it decided who is a good visitor and who is not? It is based on votes. It is a loop that does not work.
If my argument is that votes do not work then you can not argue against it with a system that uses votes as its basis.
If you say things that are false then I point it out that you say things that are false. To make a good argument you actually have to base it on true foundations.
A system that uses karma as legitimation just isn’t a system that doesn’t have a concept of legitimation even if you don’t like how the legitimation is setup.
With blind peer review I also don’t know who votes whether my paper gets accepted. In both cases I have a broad idea.
again with the “peer review is not good so voting can be bad too”
I already made a statement. Voting based on a random group of people that can vote without giving any reasoning does not result in objective voting. And this in return censors content.
Now you try to say that this is not that much of a problem because people who are “good” have more influence on the vote. But how is it decided who is good and should have more influence? By them getting votes. It is a circle.
How do you imagine countering the argument that people in a forum are strangers, unknown to you with the power to vote however they desire without having to reason or explain their vote?
Sure you can say that it is not that big of a problem in your opinion but that does not change the truth of my statement.
And even still, a peer review is not an upvote or downvote. You can not break down a peer review to the level of a downvote or upvote.
What do you even try to argue? You try to argue that my statement is wrong because If my argument is correct I would also have to be against peer reviews? And being against peer reviews is not correct?
This just drips with argumentum ad populum. “look at this guy, he must be against peer reviews, everybody does peer reviews so he is wrong”
I’m asking you about what you believe to be true. Working on understanding what the other person believes is a key aspect of having productive conversations that go towards truth. It’s necessary to finding cruxes. It’s one of those rationalist things that you unfortunately don’t find by people who care about debating.
I already replied to that. Peer review is not ideal but far better than a voting system as it is implemented in forums.
Both bring censorship.
Voting should be changed because censorship is damaging to objective discussion.
Should voting be removed with no replacement to ensure quality and order in a forum? no. and I have never claimed that.