(this in response to yet another tired thread full of “but the findings of so-and-so have not been peer-reviewed!“)
I think I understand it now…it’s like a new religion…instead of the Pastafarians, we now have the… Peeritarians!
Those people can be recognized by their preferred way to communicate with anybody they disagree with:
“Have your thoughts/proposals/findings/obvious-observations-nobody-in-their-right-mind-could-deny been peer-reviewed?“
Sadly, there is no way to convince them to ask or say anything else.
If anything has not been peer-reviewed, Peeritarians will deny its very possibility of existence. Worse, if anything has been peer-reviewed it is then taken as their new dogma…because Peeritarians are characterized by being impervious to critical thinking upon reading peer-reviewed material.
Only hope is, the peer-review system will eventually publish something completely contradictory, thereby convincing to good Peeritarian to change his/her mind.
In order to preserve their remaining sanity, everybody is strongly encouraged not to engage Peeritarians in discussions about hurricanes and global warming, or health and global warming, areas where there are peer-reviewed articles demonstrating pretty much everything and its opposite.