This short clip is so interesting to me because it validates much of what Iain McGilchrist has said about the modern world and the dominance of the left hemisphere.
Now many would disagree with this sentiment, as do many in the comments on Twitter, but I think there is much substance to what Savory is saying here. Admittedly, his experience seems to be extreme, he’s a controversial figure in ecology, but I don’t think his comments are completely unsubstantiated. This reliance on the abstract over the subjective real world is the preference of the left hemisphere. There is more trust in what is written down on paper than what is observed before the very eyes. To live in a map of the world rather than the world itself. Validation of reality isn’t coming from reality itself but a re-presentation of reality as a decontextualised, disassembled, analysis of the parts (a total abstraction), that agrees with what is already known. This is the left hemisphere world we find ourselves in.
Now that is not to say the peer-review process has merit - yes it does - and I’ve been involved in that process as both a reviewer and an author. But, it can be detrimental at the same time when original (and maybe closer representations of reality) have to be revised, and revised again, to closer approximate what was already known (by the reviewers) before it is deemed worthy of publication. I’m not talking about corrections in statistical method or other technical issues that would improve a paper. I’m talking about some of what we are seeing now with Covid where the core of the findings depart from the ‘correct’ narrative. It’s not always about being careful, thorough, and ‘correct’, it can be as much about politics and the nature of the left hemisphere (an unwillingness to depart from what is already known).
When it comes to ‘science’ today, I think this short clip and observation by Allan Savory says a lot about our take on reality. Total reliance by health officials on highly curated figures, papers, articles, reports, all served to them through a screen or on paper, relatively abstracted from the context (the embodied reality of what is going on ‘out there’) is a problem. Their rhetoric would make you think we are all about to die, when the lived reality is starkly different. Just as Savory says, you show them something in the real world and they won’t believe it unless it’s backed up by a peer-reviewed paper (an abstraction). “Look, these people recover from the virus quickly with early intervention with A, B & C…”, “I don’t believe it! A and B are very dangerous, it’s in this peer reviewed paper!”
Don't believe your lying eyes, ears and brain. There's so much pressure to appease in every industry, everything original falls through the cracks at the feet of the gatekeepers. Just getting something approved for peer review is challenging if it doesn't grovel to the approved narrative. If it offends one reviewer it's done.
Great points
I saw this, too. It made me shudder how we live in a peer-reviewed reality.
Don't believe your lying eyes, ears and brain. There's so much pressure to appease in every industry, everything original falls through the cracks at the feet of the gatekeepers. Just getting something approved for peer review is challenging if it doesn't grovel to the approved narrative. If it offends one reviewer it's done.
Peer Reviewed just means that others of like mind agree with the methods and conclusions.
Things that have been Peer Reviewed in the past:
The decision to invade Iraq
Bloodletting
Eugenics
Racism
"Holy" wars
And more, much more.
What makes more sense is Non Peer Reviewed.
Indeed, HEAVY Sigh!