/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15977200
Checked

This discussion boils down to:
>picrel

>>15858997
>people never read studies
>always trusted experts
>coof comes
>people actually start to read papers
>60% papers are methodolical flawed
>30% of papers are reviews and meta studies of flawed heterogene shitty other studies
>only 10% respect methods and materials
>yet their "conclusions" are not spectacular, but truthful, hence do not get attention
>most "science" that is put into the spotlight, is meme pseudo science
>because it "astronomy" and "evolutionary biology" is literally "observe and make up some plausible sounding explainations"
>no experiments, no scientific method
>only look and make up shit
>which is ok
>but it is pushed as "the truth" and "fact" and if you do not believe in a "plausible" sounding "hypothesis" you get called a heretic, even though plausability does not equate to proof or fact.

>>15227146
>If you're incapable of thinking independently then you're just an NPC
I can think independently and see that """science""" uses just memes and a sasquepedelian prosa to bombard people with buzzwords.

>Then you don't understand science at all. Nothing is ever proven in empirical science. Proofs are for mathematics and logic, not physical sciences. Instead there are only degrees of evidence.

Yes you are right, degrees of evidence, and a lot of disproofs.
Thats what science is about.
The SCIENTIFIC method is almost never used in most fields.
Meaning:
>you observe a natural phenomenon
>you have a dependent variable (the phenomenon) and a independent variable (the presumed cause of the phenomenon which you can manipulate)
>you have a hypothesis about the independent variable to be the cause of the phenomenon
>you conduct a experiment in which you change the variable, to demonstrate its influence or even cause of the phenomenon
>you conduct a valid control experiment under the same conditions without changing the variable in any or negligent way
>the results of the experiment can now be interpreted
>either the X causes Y or X does not cause Y (which is the null hypothesis)
>a theory arises
>a scientific experiment must be falsifiable and therefore repeatable
>meaning, there must be a chance of reproducing the experiment
>and maybe getting a different result
>never repeated experiments are not considered "good"
>methodology is everything

Pseudoscience:
> observe phenomenon
> doing statistics which is also observing
> inventing the cause
> interpretation is everything
Muh science

>>15167825
It is a pop science channel.
Not even science.
it's a comic channel that presents hypothetical complexes in a scientifically appearing setting.
> scientifically appearing setting means comic of test tubes and lab coat wearing birds and globohomo styled humans

This is science fiction pop science.
Based on nothing.
With no sources except their funding stakeholders.
> Muh hypothetical scenario of Universe explodes
> Muh two black holes colliding
> Muh meme Gene editing turns you into Captain america
> Muh was "thanos actually the good guy ethics"

All memes and Comic enhanced science fiction.
It is a infantile comic "edutainment" bullshit.
It is infantile and the target audience is infantile redditors who are "yawn" and "yuck!" posters, of which every datapoint from which they constructed their worldview is solely evaluated on it's popularity or labeling as "tranding".

>>15138275
>>15138277
>>15138340

This shit is obsolete. And overkill.
Their premise is not even working nor scientific.
> they claim a virus is cause of the disease

They never establish once the causality between disease and the particle they claim is the cause.

Nor do they find it in a natural environment.

The SCIENTIFIC method is almost never used in most fields.
Meaning:
> you observe a natural phenomeon
> you have a dependent variable (the phenomenon) and a independent variable (the presumed cause of the phenomenon which you can manipulate and isolate)
At this step they already fail.
> you have a hypothesis about the independent variable to be the cause of the phenonon
> you conduct a experiment in which you change the variable, to demonstrate its influence or even cause of the phenomenon
> you conduct a valid control experiment under the same conditions without changing the variable in any or negligent way
> the results of the experiment can now be interpreted
> either the X causes Y or X does not cause Y (which is the null hypothesis)
> a theory arises
> a scientific experiment must be falsifiable and therefore repeatable
> meaning, there must be a chance of reproducing the experiment
> and maybe getting a different result
> never repeated experiments are not considered "good"
> methology is everything

The claime is: A virus is cause for a Disease.
Do the experiment should be
> this isolated particle from sick host
> causes the same exact disease if I insert it into a seperate host.

There is nothing scientific about virology.
They use Buzzwords and expensive equipment.
But their methods are esotheric

>>15118282
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/
Nice abstract retard...
Full article:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v2.full-text
> This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

> Methods:
"We considered three age cohorts: 12-17 years old to match US myocarditis data following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and 12-15 and 16-19 years old to align with common age groupings for vaccination policy and an Israeli report of especially high risk in males age 16-19 following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination."

> Exclusions:
"Patients were excluded for any prior cardiovascular condition, or if they received an mRNA vaccine prior to diagnosis of myocarditis."

" Patients with a lone COVID-19 diagnosis and a proximal (±3 days) negative COVID test but no positive test within 14 days following COVID-19 diagnosis were also excluded"

> Estimations because of lacking data:
"While cases of myocarditis are expected to result in interaction with the health care system, there will be many missed COVID-19 cases that will not be detected in the HCO’s electronic health records. We sought to estimate the proportion of missed COVID-19 cases."
[...]
"The missed COVID-19 cases can be broken down into three categories: not tested and no physician contact; tested outside the TriNetX system but no physician contact; and tested and received care outside the TriNetX system. We assumed this last group would have clinical courses [...] Based on these assumptions, we adjusted the number of myocarditis cases to reflect the missed cases arising from patients tested"

> Results:
For the 12-17-year-old male cohort, 6,846 patients met the study criteria (Table 2). There were 6 (0.09%) cases of myocarditis overall. [...]
Two patients were hospitalized, one and three days after the index date. There were no reported deaths.

>>14771940
>What does the duration have to do?

why didn't they look just 7 days?
If time doen't matter.


> time does matter becaause out of 42k people only 170 got a positive test.

So during a 74 days they had only 0,4% of test subjects infected in total.
This is a insignificant number in the context of a pandamic and also a disease in which you cannot predict when it hits.

If they would vaccinate people and after the 7 days of "immunization" would manually infect all them with a cultured virus, so it's 100% sure they all have exposure then ok.

But this thing has the whole uncertainty of:
> are the subjects even exposed?

This shit does not say anyting its way to uncertain and inaccurate.
> In the vaccine group, 8/18,198 got Covid-19 infection (not death) = 0.044%
This is the EER (Experimental Event Rate)

> In the Control (placebo) group, 162/18,325 got covid-19 infection (not death ) = 0.884%
This is the CER (Control Event Rate)

> ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction) = CER – EER = 0.884% – 0.044% = 0.84% = 0.84/100 = 0.0084
> RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) = ARR divided by CER or 0.84% divided by 0.884% = 0.95

>As this formula involves division, the percentage signs cancel out. 0.95 is the same as 95% which is what the Pfizer study reports for “efficacy.” An “efficacy” of 95% gives the impression that one is 95% less likely to catch Covid-19 if one is vaccinated with Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. However,

> the ARR or Absolute Risk Reduction, which is 0.0084 or 0.84%, is actually less than 1%

>Another way of understanding the ARR is by calculating the number needed to treat, or the NNT. The NNT in this case would be the number of people who would need to be vaccinated to prevent ONE case of Covid-19 infection (not death, since the study did not measure death) Here is the calculation:

> NNT = 1/ARR = 1 divided by 0.84% = 1/0.0084 = 119 people.

>Note how 1/119 is also less than 1%

>>14764169
It always was disproven.

The SCIENTIFIC method is almost never used.
Meaning:
> you observe a natural phenomenon
> you have a dependent variable (the phenomeon) and a independent variable (the presumed cause of the phenomenon which you can manipulate)
> you have a hypothesis about the independent variable to be the cause of the phenomenon
> you conduct a experiment in which you change the variable
> you cunduct a valid control experiment under the same conditions without changing the variable in any or negligent way (eg because of experimental interference)
> the results of the experiment can now be interpreted
> either the X causes Y or X does not cause Y (which is the null hypothesis)
> a theory arises
> a scientific experiment must be falsifiable and therefore repeatable
> meaning, there must be a chance of reproducing the experiment
> and maybe getting a different result
> never repeated experiments are not considered "good"
> methology is everything

Explain to me how the "proved" the Big bang in the first place?
Which experiment did they conduct?
Which phenomenon did the "manipulate"? The big bang itself ?
How do they know what to observe if the event/phenomenon happened when nobody was there to observe?

There is nothing scientific outside the low earth orbit.
Its just looking at lights and interpreting shit.