"Show me a peer reviewed study that backs up your claims." -Every half-wit on the internet
This is a common argument from tards that basically don't want to believe something has any basis in science, which they pretend is an important part of their life; it's not. But what they also don't realize is the peer review process is a load of bullshit at times, so read away, it's probably not scientific. Let's briefly look at it.
It's basically like saying, I'm smart, here's my paper that other smart people have looked at and agree with. Problem is, and they've done a study on it, is that the peer review process is greatly flawed. One of the most important parts of the paper standing up to scrutiny is replication. The paper tells these scientists what they did, how they did it, what happened. Another scientist should be able to do the same exact thing and get very similar results.
But then someone called them out on it a few years ago. Nature, one of the top science journals, apparently had a bunch of papers with results and methodology that didn't hold up. In fact, 47 of 53 papers on cancer had results that couldn't be reproduced. 88.679%; SCIENCE!!!!D10TS. So what's that mean? That the majority of scientist were either wrong or lied about cancer.
Why this matters? Well, some studies take like an hour to reproduce, so instead of relying on someone who potentially could have lied, just do it yourself and question them why you can't reproduce the results. Papers aren't exactly the best source of knowledge, even though they claim to be. Maybe the cancer study is the worst offender, or maybe it was one someone thought important enough to look into. Regardless, when you cite a paper and it's what you're basing your argument on, then you yourself should be held accountable for if it holds up to scrutiny or not. So whenever anyone gives you the above quote, simply fire back with the peer reviewed, academic study I've cited below.
