/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9174501]

> This misrepresentation of science is a direct descendant of the reaction, in the Romantic movement, against the birth of science and empiricism more than 200 years ago; it's exactly the same paranoid fantasy as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, only not as well written. We say descendant, but of course, the humanities haven't really moved forward at all, except to invent cultural relativism, which exists largely as a pooh-pooh reaction against science. And humanities graduates in the media, who suspect themselves to be intellectuals, desperately need to reinforce the idea that science is nonsense: because they've denied themselves access to the most significant developments in the history of western thought for 200 years, and secretly, deep down, they're angry with themselves over that.

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/08/badscience.research

[Anonymous No.9174544]

>>9174501
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
>The replication crisis (or replicability crisis) refers to a methodological crisis in science in which scientists have found that the results of many scientific experiments are difficult or impossible to replicate on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.[1] While the crisis has long-standing roots, the phrase was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem.

[Anonymous No.9174558]

>>9174501
>actually believing the "science vs. philosophy" meme

[Anonymous No.9174593]

>>9174501
>That's what I'd have said three years ago. But now I'm on the inside, I can add a slightly different element to the story.
Do you even read your own sources, frogshit?