NDT “Peer Review”

Howard’s statement about Jim Crow treatment

“I think because the truth was such a simple thing, the truth about beryllium, the truth about how the periodic table works, the truth about our problems in mathematics, and it’s always been the identity principle, that, um, the Jim Crow Laws of Mathematics that says that white people sitting in front of the bus only because they’re white, not because of any other reason, which messed up the South and it’s messed up the math for, for eons. The moment they allow the identity property to [?] all things get right, you know, and allow the number one to behave like every other number that comes from it —”

NDT offers Howard Peer Review, urges Howard to submit to professional Peer Reviewed journals, warns against JRE

“I spent a lot of time on it and I thought out of respect for him what I should do is give him my most informed critical analysis that I can. In my field we call that a “peer review.” You come up with an idea, you present it either at a conference or you first write it up and you send it to your colleagues. It is their duty to alert you of things about your ideas that are either misguided, or wrong, or there’s an mis—the calculation doesn’t work out, or the logic doesn’t comport. That’s their job. Not all ideas will turn out to be correct. Most won’t be.”

“Sir Arthur Eddington, an astrophysicist, provided the first experimental evidence for Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which, by the way, was published in a peer-reviewed journal— crazy idea. The platform to be accepted for the ideas is not social media, it is not Joe Rogan, it is not my podcast. It is research journals, where attention can be given on a level that, at the end of the day, offers no higher respect for your energy and intellect than by declaring that what’s in it is either right or wrong, or worthy of publication or not.”

Note: NDT typically less constructive to even PhD-level challenges to most any establishment consensus

Cosmos AMA (August, 2013)

Note: NDT also appears unaware of actual history of “Peer Review” in Science