Means a lot more than a comment on Hacker News.

your comment has been peer-reviewed.

it was found to be subjective and unsupported.

Peer review raises the bar, but that bar is quite low, and not high enough to ensure anything like scientific truth.

I will leave it here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/19/stanford-pre...

I guess someone "peer reviewed" all his papers

This is a bad faith and ignorant take. As with anything at the edge of our knowledge, it’s not bulletproof, but peer review certainly does mean plenty. It is one of the most rigorous standards we have for the validity of observation and theories.

I think reproducibility is the gold standard. It’s hard to call peer review as practiced today “rigorous” when it comes to discerning truth.

Is it? If I'm not mistaken this is exactly what journal editors, and reviewers, claim each and every time a new scandal blows up.

Yes, a comment on a website that just says “no” is way more truthy and should be taken at face value. Anything published and peer reviewed can just be assumed to be false.

Great call. Thanks for really bringing up the level of discourse.