I pointed out to someone in Facebook that the news article he linked had a flawed analysis of the study it discussed. In the following discussion a friend of his made this interesting statement (translated from Finnish):
[My name], studies have been published forever. Scientific community evaluates them in one way or other. Nowadays peer review has entered the humanities not least because it is part of the scoring and funding system.
Issues about society and for example history are luckily still published as just books. Peer review is not always a superior apparatus. In my opinion [it] fits better to natural sciences due to their exact nature.
I started this particular discussion trying to keep it very limited and have no energy to lengthy and involved debates. Sigh. Now if I want to make my point clear I have to first establish the necessity of peer review for someone who is apparently a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Edit: Fuck. I wonder why I always pick up my grammatical errors after only after posting despite using the preview.