In science, review means editing; peer review means power mongering.

Science supposedly switched from review to peer review several years ago, when nonscientists took over the global warming issue.

Peer review determining truth in science would be similar to a truth commission in politics or social media, which no one tolerates.

Scientists do not prove; they produce evidence. It takes a lot of study to evaluate that evidence; and it's a never-ending process. It's not something imposed upon scientists. No one is going to tell real scientists what to believe about science. It's not part of the scientific processes.

Yet know-nothing journalists claim published science is peer reviewed and therefore truth and proof. They are know-nothings, because they impose nihilism onto society and do not allow criticism while having no knowledge of the science involved.

Journalists are supposed to convey rather than impose, which means the propagandists know nothing of journalism either.

Nonscientists who promote causes claim peer review is the test of truth in science. There is no test of truth in science. Truth evolves, and science always needs to be questioned.

Review is a recent phenomenon in science. It started as an assist for editors who were getting overwhelmed by complexities during the 1960s. The purpose was to check for proper methods and presentation and make recommendations, not to determine truth. Gradually, the practice became common-place but not totally required.

Of course, power mongers in science soon exploited the review process to enhance their power; but there is never any admission that they do so, which means the power mongering corruption within science is unrelated to the truthism of so-called peer review by nonscientist.

Serious criticism is not allowed in science because of the large amount of fraud and errors that are rationalized. But suppression of criticism is not the same thing as creating a truth process. Truth can never be arbitrated and be truth.

Truth is the communicated representation of unified reality. Unified reality is all reality aligned upon the objective realities of the universe. There is only one, large unified reality; and all conflicts with it can only be miniscule by comparison.

That means truth cannot take the form of discrete units to be tested. It means truth can only be produced as small sections of a larger whole.

And it means truth always evolves toward improved representation of elements of unified reality, just as biology evolves toward increased complexity.

It also means there are no boundaries around truth. Each representation of truth covers a different area of objective reality. Just as no two paintings can be the same, no two representations of truth will represent the exact same objective realities.

The point is, arbitrating truth defies the characteristics of truth in many ways. Truth can only evolve; it cannot be defined, limited and stabilized as imposers of truth try to do.

Truth is explained, not proven. The process is called rationality. That means explaining claims. Explanations will always align upon or reflect upon the objective realities of the universe. Trying to do otherwise is always futility.

For that reason, corrupters omit explanations rather than trying to produce false explanations. Rationalizing will sometimes replace explanations; but the methodology is corrupt and invalid.

Scientists and nonscientists have the same responsibilities in producing rationality to solve problems by determining truth and producing knowledge. The difference is the degree of abstractness in extending knowledge into unknown areas through measured evidence.

To reduce that process to "fact checking" is contempt for proper methods of producing truth through rationality. Fact checking strips explanations from the process. No explanations, no rationality and no truth. That means fact checking is a railroad job by corrupters, not a source of truth.

Addendum

Climate change due to greenhouse gases is "peer reviewed," as is all of physics, while there hasn't been an iota of correct physics in the past 180 years. That's why the word "review" belongs in the background and seldom mentioned in science, let alone the mainstream media.

Terminology always drifts, particularly when vague and confusing such as "gaslighting." Gaslighting was a variation on poltergeist; but now it means leading people astray.

So when know-nothings started using the term "peer review" as their test of truth, it evolved into a representation of official science with the implication of unquestionable fact. Power mongering scientists loved it so much that they made it a part of scientific jargon.

The result is that now there is a new test of truth in science—whether it is peer reviewed. And as always, there is an adaptation of terminology to objective reality. It now means real science differs from fake science and peer review tells the difference. Real science might be wrong, but it is only real science if peer reviewed.

What that really means is that mongering power in science acquired a new sanctification which skips over the complexities of criticism and gets on with the mongering of power. It changes the purpose of science from evaluation with required criticism at every point to standard, run-of-the-mill propaganda for solidifying the power structures and immunizing them from rationality.