aves us from doing the numbers on every single step of the process but it allows us to be driving the right direction so we can hope to find the truth at the end of the equation that's why for example we right we i mean there's lots of other reasons for us but one of the reasons we have peer review is because peer review is to make sure that the community of experts who have somehow trained their probability judgments will right agree that right the alternative theories we're in competition with are the plausible ones the confounds we controlled for the plausible ones and the implications we derived are the plausible ones that's the whole point of peer review is it perfect no it's like democracy it's the best system it's the best system next to all the rest there's nothing better to replace it with because we peer review is our way of acknowledging the indispensability the irremovability of plausibility judgments in the scientific process i want to do away with with one potential objection that's going to that could be posed at any point but but now's a good time as ever which is an objection which i think has a lot of vogue and purchase today where any sort of pursuit after the truth or the or the correct inference from from the data is going to be fundamentally um constructed by the socioeconomic or agendas or political whatever is going on and there is no and even relying on something like plausibility through peer review is fundamentally flawed and there is no access to the truth in that regard it's sort of a very very i'm i might be strawman a little but i don't know that's fine that's fine i think that's i think that's fair uh so i mean first of all i point people to berman's work uh berman's work burman b-e-r-m-a-n who work on uh uh platonism and the objects of science where he basically argues that science depends on on on inferential generalization and i i won't repeat the argument in depth here but the basic idea is if you if you take a nominalist stance um i'll do both parts there's an epistemological