Yeah....nah
...”hiding behind a process of “peer review” by friendly fellow woo-woo aficionados to exclude debate and criticism from outsiders and pantomime adversarial assessment is just woo on top of woo. it generates the appearance of fact checking but is really its antithesis. only the guild gets to decide what can be approved and spoken of and these bodies exist to defend ideology and careers, not to pursue truths and paradigm shifts
“and this is why the future will continue to be incredibly unkind to the siloed orthodoxies of self-anointed expertdom.
“because the future is interdisciplinary.
“the future lies in cross-pollination, not in protecting the genetic purity of the fragile hothouse flowers of academia.
“and that means the future is ours.
“the speed with which the crowd sourced public health and epidemiology movement coalesced out of 20 different disciplines finding and building off of one another was nothing short of dazzling.
“it was inspiring.
“this field made more progress in 2 years than in the prior 50.
“a whole new underpinning in reality was generated for a debased antiquated discipline in nothing flat.
“and credibility has shifted drastically.
“we dropped the woo-woo and learned what worked for real.
“now imagine what this can do in every other discipline.
“and how bright that future could be.
“and THAT is why we must be absolutists about reclaiming the public square and the freewheeling and adversarial discourse of progress.
“collaborative media must be defended as an agora open to ALL ideas.”
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/why-public-health-experts-never-want?s=r
why public health “experts” never want to fight “the amateurs”
Lots of broad brush statements.
Unable to find any evidence of this claim:
“ this field made more progress in 2 years than in the prior 50.”
Based on what measure?
His article sounds nice but it’s one person’s opinion without the benefit of a lot of data underpinning is claims.