/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8215674

Cold medicines alleviate the symptoms of the cold virus, essentially by suppressing immune responses such as fever, inflammation and mucous production.

They make the cold more bearable while actually impairing your ability to fight it off; therefore, cold medicines actually prolong recovery times.

>Learn2science

>>8215681

Said what?

>>8212871

I'm refuting that very sentiment.

>>8212877
>>8212954

Anon, read the thread:

>>8212143

>I'm arguing against unscientific philosophy being passed off as science.

This entire thread is dedicated to the promotion of science over unfalsifiable philosophy.

>>8213073

This is just golden.

Anon, your source contradicts your statements.

Even the url alone contradicts your statements:

>study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong

Let’s look at what the article went on to say, after your snipets:

>But an in-depth examination of the data by Daniel Gilbert, the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard, Gary King, the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, Stephen Pettigrew, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Government at Harvard, and Timothy Wilson, the Sherrell J. Aston Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, has revealed that the OSC made some serious mistakes that make its pessimistic conclusion completely unwarranted.

>The methods of many of the replication studies turn out to be remarkably different from the originals and, according to the four researchers, these “infidelities” had two important consequences.

>First, the methods introduced statistical error into the data, which led the OSC to significantly underestimate how many of their replications should have failed by chance alone. When this error is taken into account, the number of failures in their data is no greater than one would expect if all 100 of the original findings had been true.

>Second, Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson discovered that the low-fidelity studies were four times more likely to fail than were the high-fidelity studies, suggesting that when replicators strayed from the original methods of conducting research, they caused their own studies to fail.

Wow, anon; not only can you not read the thread, but apparently you can't even read your own sources.

>>8210785

>electritions

>>8185240
>expansion isotropic to better than 0.001%
>not uniform