/sci/ - Science & Math

Does anyone else find the concept of scientific referencing a bit laughable?

Lets say you open up a random scientific article. The author says something and then puts a funny superscript or perhaps brackets, followed by a number, e.g. [3]. At the end of the paper there is a list of these funny numbers along with some relevant information like "authors", "publishing journal" and "title. This is supposed to build "science" even though your research itself already proves if your stuff works.

>reader of this article will absolutely not read the [3] but just move past this funny superscript. He wouldn't have access to [3] anyway, because it is paywalled, dates back to the 1920s, or the paper doesn't explicitly say in which part it says so
>author of the article himself probably only skimmed [3] and doesn't have any deeper understanding of it, and he probably only put [3] in there to build his own ego
>[3] probably only mentions something similar to what was referenced, but it is CERTAINLY not the entire topic of that paper, and most of the times not the original inventor of the statement
>even if [3] happens to mention that statement, [3] relies on 50-100 other references. Reader and author never read through these 50-100 other references
>supposedly everyone does their job and does some READING... but nobody will in the history of the universe try to replicate the results of any of these papers. Most of the results were made by one person in USA in 1974 or in some gigantic Institute of China
>it is never explicitly mentioned if [3] is the only and first paper that says this, or if others post different results
>the references like [3] are referenced over and over again, even though they probably already has been generalized or expanded by further research/literature
>it is very important who the author of the papers, and from which university/institute, and who is the publishing journal. but professors just throw their name on 80 papers a year

>>15855551
Guess what

Something, anything, cannot exist without both nothing and everything (or infinity, which can only be a deity) first existing, 0 * ∞ = 1. Discuss.

They should make a board for miscellaneous Soft Sciences.
Like econ, psych, sociology. Call it /ss/ maybe?

>>12591889
No

>>12590388
Not in shitpost land you ape monkey nigger

>>12543773
>it has zero value
>literally trading for $39,000 USD today
ngmi
nocoiners are retarded

>>12485960
already did

>>12458827
already had

>>12309515
>Depression probably isn't real either
Yes.

>>12173858
>yet another rape thread
/sci/ becoming more and more based as the days go by

Does anyone have a good resource for learning summation arithmetic? Some stuff on sequences and series too would be good too. I’ve always struggled with it and the texts I’m reading aren’t a complete treatment of the subject

>>11687543
Everything equals zero

PSYCHOLOGY IS LEGITIMATE SCIENCE
GEOLOGY IS LEGITIMATE SCIENCE
ENGINEERS AND LIBERAL ARTS STUDENTS ARE CHADS

>>11485041
Any youtube video and audio books
https://vocaroo.com/kaXm2GR6sFV

>it’s super lung aids
>there is no immunity
>you will always get reinfected
>it causes permanent lung damage
I dare one of you niggers to give a source for ANY of these