The more I read about the history of science, the more I am convinced that scientific critique is not there to benefit the target but everyone else and the science. Criticizing someone’s work just to see if they’ll take it is ridiculous. Proper critique is work that builds new >

knowledge. Not the word exchange btw scientists. Many scientists have made contributions by pursuing their vision with relentless rigor, not by being right. It matters not the least for scientific progress whether an individual scientist “takes criticism” or changes their mind. >

Science will progress if others do something more. We sometimes focus on the wrong things altogether. “She does not take criticism” is hardly a useful/meaningful judgment for scientific progress. We gotta stop focusing on individuals so much & think abt how the big picture works.

And that is my 112th reason why I don’t believe in peer review as practiced today.