Steven Crowder exposes leftwing academia and peer reviewed studies.

https://www.theblaze.com/shows/louder-with-crowder/outrageous-undercover-operation-infiltrates-fat-studies-conference

Here is a YouTube video that explains how they did it as well

Basically for those who don't want to watch. He submitted a paper about being fat phobic in the Trump era. It was originally meant to be a troll job and a joke. However the experts invited him to show up to a conference and wanted to label his paper as a peer reviewed study. This unfortunately proves what I thought about many peer reviewed pieces. They get published as long as they fit the narrative.

There are certain posters on this bored that use them as the holy grail for citation. Unfortunately it appears most are just trash.

What are your thoughts? Is this just a crazy exception? Or do you think it represents a greater problem?

Do you know what Peer Review means? It means REPEATING THE STUDY. This is not how the narrator uses the term, and he is being disingenuous with how he uses it.

So are you, actually.

Why do you let yourself get fooled by this nonsense? lol

I just wonder how far down the Youtube Hole one has to dig to get these videos. Does he go searching or are they, somehow even worse, on his suggestions?

There's the old saying: you are the company you keep.

The most amusing is that he probably thinks this charade is a legitimate indictment of the scientific community and peer review process. It's astounding how easily manipulated many people are.

@br0kenrabbit: he is being 100% honest. It gives the study credibility " or at least it's supposed to". He just showed you how easy it is to receive that credibility.

The peer-review processsubjects an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field

It's astounding how blind you are. He literally shows you an example right to your face and you just cover your eyes as if it's not happening!

Something like this should be talked about. The fact you have to go down a rabbit hole as you say, to find it is a problem.

What should be talked about his how the facts are so distorted in the video, obviously so, and yet people like you shine laser pointers at it going "LOOK LOOOK WHAT WE FOUND!"

Again, the whole video is predicated upon people like yourself not understanding what a PEER REVIEW is. Asking to review an article is NOT a PEER REVIEW, and anyone who thinks it is, is seriously missing some vital information.

Worse than that, it's based on dishonesty, lies, and manipulation of the process.

That's why I said:

If people actually had enough education to know what this is and what that is, these kinds of videos would never gain traction. They rely on not just ignorance, but misdirection and yes dishonesty.

The guy who made it knows his audience.

What facts exactly? You didn't even know the definition of peer reviewed. I literally posted it for you " verbatim". So explain to me what your issue? They showed you the " medical experts" on their panel. That in itself should be cringe enough. It should have never been submitted or accepted for a " PEER review" it was a troll job.

This reminds me of James Lindsay's grievance studies where his hoax papers were published and actually praised by reviewers. lol

First off you don't submit a peer review to a conference. Secondly, a review isn't an editing discussion; you ascertain how the data was acquired and DUPLICATED IT. If you can duplicate the data using the same criteria (with controls) then you publish for FURTHER REVIEW which will study the methods used to acquire your data and determine the falsifiability of the method itself without concern for the data collected by said method.

This is what, 6th, 7th grade stuff?

Why even bother anymore? It's clear you're not talking to someone who cares or even understands. ha ha

I am in complete disbelief.

Does Steven Crowder now know HOW these stuff are peer reviewed? Something being peer reviewed doesnt mean it is accepted. Highly regarded scientific journals, the ones that we tend to accept, have an acceptance rate of around 8%. That number is not low because 92% disagree with a narrative, it is 8% because the criteria is brutally difficult to pass.

Completely misleading video.

This guy and James O'Keefe should compete to see who can embarrass themselves the most to cherry pick these terrible Right Wing shitposts.

Neither of you do either apparently. First of all he never submitted it to be peer reviewed. He submitted it as a joke. Dr. Rothbulm submitted it for peer review. He had no intentions to be peer reviewed.

Perhaps every doctor in that field should stay clear and just stfu. They couldn't spot an obvious troll and met him with rave reviews.

No he didn't. He invited to dude to present it.

Edit: Actually, he invited him to REVIEW A MANUSCRIPT. So it sounds like the Good DR. wants input on his (the Doctors) work, not vice-versa.

One word: Cold Fusion.

He invited him to peer reviewe a paper on fat studies. The Doctor is considering the troll an expert. How is this not concerning to you?

He gave off a presentation that was a troll job and they all came away impressed. You see no issue with this?

With this thread's opening premise being blown out of the water. Let's at least have a somewhat useful discussion of this. It is obvious there is a blatant misunderstanding of what the academic processes are and how peer review works. As Steven Crowder proudly displays.

Anyone have any ideas on how to improve scientific literacy among the general population? I would argue that scientific literacy is important, because as it is right now, we are getting so many preprints which people take as facts, and alternative medicine is gaining a lot of spread and reach unfortunately, because of stuff like this.

Read BrokenRabbit's posts again, he explains how the peer review process works, what it entails, and why Steven Crowder completely misinterprets the Peer Review process. This isn't the gotcha Steven Crowder was hoping for.

No he wasn't. Mute the narrator and read what is actually presented: Screenshot from your video:

That is not peer review, and he's not even talking about the dude's paper. He (the Doctor) wants his (fake fat person) feedback on his (the Doctor's) own work.

First things first you've got to get rid of that hokey pokey magic sky daddy stuff. If you can't do that, there's no use going any further.

It's pretty bad actually and I'm amazed( actually no I'm not) on how you ignore this. They seem quite impressed with Troll and an actual doctor invited him to peer review a paper on fat studies. He was also asked to present at a conference.

You see no issue with that?

Except that is not what happened.

Watch the video again, and actually read what is linked. What is linked doesnt say what is narrated.

@br0kenrabbit said:

@silentchief said:

@br0kenrabbit said:

@silentchief said:

Dr. Rothbulm submitted it for peer review.

No he didn't. He invited to dude to present it.

Edit: Actually, he invited him to REVIEW A MANUSCRIPT. So it sounds like the Good DR. wants input on his (the Doctors) work, not vice-versa.

He invited him to peer reviewe a paper on fat studies. The Doctor is considering the troll an expert. How is this not concerning to you?

No he wasn't. Mute the narrator and read what is actually presented: Screenshot from your video:

That is not peer review, and he's not even talking about the dude's paper. He (the Doctor) wants his (fake fat person) feedback on his (the Doctor's) own work.

Sorry the doctor is actually a She. It looks like she wants the troll( Steven Crowder) to review a manuscript on fat studies.

Correct?

There are many religious people that study and believe in science. You needed express your disdain, that's what bigots do.

It looks like the doctor considers Steven Crowder a peer.... that's pretty bad bro, sorry.

And the experts asked him to present at a conference while writing rave reviews. That is also 100% true and cringe inducing.

When you live among militant Christians, who want evolution removed from schools, God in schools, God in courts, God in law and God in your bedroom, it's easy to select those people as the most dangerous target. It's not just about the belief, its about their intent to enforce said belief in all avenues of public discourse.

I mean, grass roots organizations raised thousands to get IN GOD WE TRUST signs put up over the courthouse entrances. This is the people I live among.

http://oakridge.wbir.com/news/news/47198-god-we-trust-appear-anderson-co-courthouse

So basically he just provides further evidence to what most of us have already known. That the woke crowd are completely full of shit.

The only person mentioning PEER REVIEW was the narrator. IN truth, everything you see was in relation to the one single conference they were about to have.

Seriously, mute the video and read the shit on screen your own self.

Correct. But a peer review this does not make. He's just asking the dude to look over it and give his impression.

She is considering a troll an expert. You don't see an issue in this?

Where is the word 'expert'? Are you just inserting that? Cause all I see is 'hey take a look at this.'

Please inform.

Asking someone for input doesn't make it peer review.

Again, there is a REASON we pointed out this video made it abundantly clear Steven Crowder (who has had a history of misinterpreting scientific writings) does not understand what peer review is.

Yea it's still pretty bad though. I read the reviews by the experts and they were impressed. And he was invited by a doctor to review a manuscript.

A legitimate doctor on any field should be able to spot a troll a mile away.

The goalposts are now in another state

What reviews? Surely you're not talking about the snippets in the video because they don't line up with what you are saying here, so where is the extra information coming from? Screenshots? Links? Anything?

If you want to understand how brutal and in-depth peer reviewing is, I offered COLD FUSION above and you should really look into that fiasco. You'll learn a lot about the process, and it's not even comparable to what's going on here.

This was an organization for a conference. I've been invited to speak at conferences, and I've asked people to look over my presentation before doing so. That doesn't mean I was submitting my presentation for peer review, and that doesn't mean those who look over it for me are experts. It just means I'm asking someone to go over it, maybe they'll find a mistake or misstatement or typo that I missed.

That's all this is.

Not sure what state you live in, or your personal experience but generalizing groups is not the way to go. That's how hate spreads. Peace out.

I live in Tennessee. I have also lived in: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, Ontario (Canada) and even St. Louis.

These people don't change. Ergo, it's not the people, it's the message.

You do realize that you dont have to ask fellow experts for what they were doing there, asking for some input. Hell when I was a student, a professor asked me to read his work and for some input. I am by no means an expert, I got no Ph.D. But this, just like with stephen crowder's stuff, was not peer review or anything like that, or asking them to provide peer review to their stuff. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and you seemed to have moved far from your original argument.

Basically for those who don't want to watch. He submitted a paper about being fat phobic in the Trump era. It was originally meant to be a troll job and a joke. However the experts invited him to show up to a conference and wanted to label his paper as a peer reviewed study. This unfortunately proves what I thought about many peer reviewed pieces. They get published as long as they fit the narrative.

The peer review process is far from flawless. But it remains THE best system we have for obtaining accurate information as they do the best job filtering out human flaws and biases. And will probably remain the best system, for anything that doesnt have the privilege of being able to utilize proof.

My guess is the studies that go into fat and gender studies are probably not as intense as Cold Fusion. But since they pass off their studies as fact they should be. I don't think he posted this to smear the entire scientific community, I certainly didn't. But we do have certain studies and doctors who have received PH'Ds in bullshit.

Do you think a scientist on COLD FUSION would invite a troll to review his work or any work? Would you do that? This is a little more then a doctor inviting a troll to check for typos.

It's the people. Isn't like that here, Pennsylvania. I also lived in Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, California, Missouri, Boston, and spent time in Maryland. Never had any problem anywhere I lived.

Steven Crowder? Really?

Might as well link a source to Milo and Alex Jones, too. Get some Tucker Carlson in there for good measure.

The far right nutjobs basically make fun of themselves when they do stuff like this. Sort of takes the fun out of it.

@Maroxad: You do realize that you dont have to ask fellow experts for what they were doing there, asking for some input. Hell when I was a student, a professor asked me to read his work and for some input. I am by no means an expert, I got no Ph.D. But this, just like with stephen crowder's stuff, was not peer review or anything like that, or asking them to provide peer review to their stuff. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and you seemed to have moved far from your original argument.

Err nor really. I mean there is some since of confidence in the system that something can be peer reviewed and not accepted. However this doesn't seem to be the case in things like gender and fat studies.

He should have never been invited to a conference once they read his paper. They should have laughed him out of the room once they saw his presentation. And the other experts speaking at the conference were just as bad.. the problem is they weren't trolls they were serious.

You have spent the entire time defending this. I mean you could argue it isn't quite as bad as it seems in terms of peer reviewed work but the fact they gave him this much credence is a concern.

A complete joke is what it is.

What do you think the probability of said doctor just BCC'ing everyone contributing and asking them to review her article?

A Coldfeet Crowder youtube video (🤣🤣🤣🤣) does not invalidate peer reviewed citation.

Such a notion is beyond bizarre.

Yeah it's unbelievable really.

Coldfeet Crowder got schooled really hard on Covid and Climate Change by a few scientists, so I suspect that gave him an idea to try and invalidate peer reviewed studies. And boy did he fail.