/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10996263
((((modern science)))

>>10996263
the peer-review system filters out the hoardes of crackpots and shills. getting published in good journals is about prestige/resume considerations. appealing to experts is what you need to do when you work on X but some Y might be relevant, let's say Y happens to be string theory, and if you want to make sure that when say something about string theory you aren't getting it wrong, you look up what ed witten says since he is an expert. in other words experts are entitled to opinions because they know their shit, but the average normie is not entitled to say jack shit about string theory

anyhow experiments exist. they just discovered a new topological state of matter a couple of weeks ago. i'm sorry you aren't rich enough to set up a lab to reproduce it in your garage, most of us aren't, but you could if you were rich enough.

>>10996263
You're american, aren't you?

>>10996263
>Do you think this trend is hindering the progress of science?
No

>>10996263
You can do whatever you want. The idea of cited sources and peer reviewed articles is that everything is documented and verified multiple times using different ways. If there are multiple peer reviewed papers saying the same thing written by phds in different countries, you can start to paint a picture of where the truth lies. You can choose not to believe it of course, and there's nothing stopping you from performing your own research, just make sure it's just as thorough, using good instrumentation, and submit the papers. If you can't trust a paper that's been verified experimentally by multiple independent agencies (not talking about climate change specifically) then what can you trust? Do you just trust nothing?

>>10996263
Not all references to authority are appeals to authority. Appeal to authority specifically means that you trust authority solely on basis of stature without fairly assessing the validity of their claims.
For the most part (I won't say this is always the case), scientists trust the IPCC, not because they're the IPCC, but because the results they've published have excellent methodology and analysis.

>>10996263
The peer review system has benefits and downsides, the benefit is that often a scientist's peers (other scientists working in the same field) have access to similar equipment to them which allows them to replicate experiments and thus test the viability of a hypothesis. It establishes a mechanism by which one of the most important parts of a viable theory can be obtained, that part being replication, if someone else can take your methodology and replicate your results it's much more probable that you're onto something. On the other hand peer review is not immune to creeping corruption or nepotism of a kind, peer reviewers are not obligated to review everything that comes across their desk, they can and regularly do reject material out of hand. As a result controversial or contradicting material can be blacklisted even if it has some scientific merit, all based on the preexisting biases of the human being entrusted with deciding which material to publish and which to discard. Just to use the climate controversy as an example, there is a significant body of climatologists (I think around 200) who have resorted to self publishing studies which they believe provide data contradicting the viability of the anthropogenic climate change conjecture, they self publish because all of their work in that particular subject has been rejected by peer reviewers out of hand in spite of these climatologists having sizable bodies of more mainstream work and being fully accredited in their field. I'm not going to make a value claim on their work, but it seems to me like a clear display of baseless bias. If AGW is a strong and sound proposition than challenges to it's validity shouldn't need to be deliberately pushed out of easy public sight, it aught to be able to stand with it's critics on even ground.

>>10996302
climate denialists trust youtube crackpots and alex jones and /pol/ infographics more. uneducated people just do that kind of stuff

>>10996263
>appeal to authority
That is a logical fallacy, not an argument.

Also, if you are doing experiements then YOU ARE THE SCIENTIST. "Amateur" and "professional" isn't a distinction that needs to be made.

>>10996263
>"appeal to authority"

stop using words you don't understand

Appeal to authority is: Aristotle said this, so this is true.

I challenge you to find a scientific paper that uses something like this as an argument. Like: Prof. XY said this in his paper so this is true.

If the scientific community "trusts" Prof. XY then it's because his findings has been replicated by others scientists.

>>10996263
It often helps to contextualize your original experiment by comparing it to others. Lot's of papers are indeed original experiments, the citations often point to other experiments that motivated certain aspects of your own.

>>10996274
No, OP is absolutely right.

I'm convinced appeals to authority are a much worse problem than crackpots in modern science. Nearly every field has papers with important results that you're supposed to know, but hardly anyone remembers the details or assumptions made in them, and trying to go through and carefully understand it leaves you (or myself at least) hopelessly slow and disconnected compared to peers in order to compete with them.

Perhaps I'm just too brainlet, but I've been surprised over and over by the elementary misunderstandings I've seen in successful scientists.

You shouldn't even have to keep out cranks anyway. If you can't tell a crank idea from a good one on your field without an appeal to authority, then you didn't understand the subject anyway.

>>10997457
>Muh authority

Citing peer-reviewed literature in high-quality journals isn’t an appeal to authority fallacy.

>>10997463
It actually is. I happen to trust them more than YouTube cranks, but it is.

yes, call me schizo but I low-key believe I'm in a branch of many worlds where I can be plugged into a computer in the near future to help solve physics. I need the extra computing power to assist my Einstein-like physical intuition.

t. B.S in physics/math

why are you so fixated on posting a Gary/Tooker bait thread.

>>10997457
It is easy enough to try to recreate a crank experiment and impossible enough to combat a list of a hundred experiments. You shouldn't need an army of yes men. Why wouldn't scientists be open to criticism?

>>10996263
Do you think it was easy to make a telescope back then OP?

>>10996263
>because you cannot do the science
>>>/out/

>>10997479
It's literally not. They're not citing it because they blindly trust the authors' stature, they're citing it because they know for themselves that it's high quality work. If you think citing established works is automatically an appeal to authority, then you have no idea what appeal to authority is.

>>10996263
>Why is modern science so fixated on "appeal to authority" argument
It's because money comes from authority, duh.

Why does the replication crisis apply even to highly cited peer reviewed findings in the hard sciences? Not quite as much as in the crap sciences like psychology and sociology but it's still pretty bad across all disciplines.

>>10997841
>can't replicate LIGO at home
>boo hoo replication crisis
not an argument

>>10997479
The scientist is citing the research not the person.

>>10997791
It isn't automatically. But saying it must be true because it's in a high quality journal is.

Also, in my rant I was more keeping in mind theory, in which arguments are readily available to be accepted or rejected by the reader. Experimentalists I imagine need more trust.

>>10997457
t. Postmodernist who wants to believe anything he wants regardless of scientific evidence

>>10997791
And I've seen respected scientists quickly judge others in topics they know little about without actually reading anything of theirs based solely on h-scores and journal entries.

I mean, it's not like a scandal or anything and honestly nobody has the mental resources to be totally logical and open minded all the time. Scientists are human too.

>>10997864
He's citing the person's account of the research results.

>>10998079
No, I'll believe that which I understand.

I'll defer my beliefs to experts and appeal to authority on topics I don't wish to study, but when it comes time to actively research and contribute to a field, appealing to prior consensus contributes exactly nothing and just deligitimizes previous research by coming to the same conclusions but for worse reasons.

>>10996263
>Do you think this trend is hindering the progress of science?
In some fields it can mean the ruling “clique” has outsized influenced but only in non science fields like “psychology” and “economics”.

In actual science only two thing holding us back is the fact that society isn’t giving us enough money.

>>10996263
I think you're ignoring or underestimating one factor. Scientists fucking love to prove others wrong. FUCKING LOVE IT. If there is a high-profile paper, and I found a big error or issue in it, you bet your hairless teenage arse I'm going to write a rebuttal paper showing how they fucked up. And not only do scientists love to prove others wrong, the journals are just as horny to see it happen. It could mean a thing for your career if you're able to successfully dispute an "established" finding.

If a highly cited publication from the 90s is still cited often as a reference as to "how it's done", it usually means it has stood the test of time so far. And if people thought there was something wrong with, they would mention it at meetings and conferences - shit like this spreads easily. You're also ignoring that a lot of communication is done outside of publications.

>>10998148
Ironic. If the scientists who love to prove others wrong had the mindset of your second paragraph, they would be much less likely to find the error in the first place. So in order for science to work you must explicitly not appeal to authority after all.

Here is a newsflash: there are more errors and complications and problems out there than there is brainpower hours for finding and solving them. It's not hard to find niche fields where things are run by a handfull of people and accepted results were only ever carefully examined by a small few.

>>10998181
>It's not hard to find niche fields where things are run by a handfull of people and accepted results were only ever carefully examined by a small few.
Obviously. Your point being? That would make it even easier to flush out garbage results.

>>10998133
what's the other thing holding us back? counting?

>>10998191
My point is that there exists a lot of garbage results.

>>10996263
academiafags are for all purposes irrelevant to actual, practical science as used in the working world.
their circlejerk doesn't matter because in the end no one even reads their papers let alone applies them.

academic world is now just politics and lobbying, this includes stem
don't trust anyone

How is verifying experimental results an appeal to authority?

muh relativity

>>10996263
>all discussion boils down to pointing at the evidence, which is published in papers

>>10998654
>academiafags are for all purposes irrelevant to actual, practical science as used in the working world.
No one cares about what you're saying, engicuck. You are inferior and couldn't hack it in academia.

>>10997463
there is a long history of gatekeeping. just look at Newton. He wasn't able to convince his peers. This still happens and if you don't think that there's corruption in the field of science at that level then you are ignorant

>>10997795
>It's because money comes from authority, duh.
sadly you are correct. You won't get funding if your findings aren't urgent

>>10996263
what do you guys think of this documentary from a /sci/ perspective? Do you think there is any merit in their arguments? Also it does touch a bit on OP's question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-6ToEcirE&t=1157s

>>10996263
>Why is modern science so fixated on "appeal to authority" argument
I disagree. You can publish results which are most likely bullshit, but maybe there's a chance that there is something revolutionary out there. See for example the Beryllium peak:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01527

>>10998350
and most of them are discarded and the ones that aren't are usually debunked shortly after.

>>10996263

>ALSO

>ALSO

>ALSO

Peer review is fucking busted:
https://youtu.be/J8nk7GrB-zs
&
https://youtu.be/zR38CtjD__o

>>11000238
No, they arent, because too many scientists think like you and assume someone else would have corrected the error if there was one.

It's like a community wide bystander effect.

>>10996263
Climatology is not a real science. While the word has been around for a long time, it wasn’t really treated as it’s own discipline in and of itself until the IPCC was created. Prior to that, global climate was an area of interdisciplinary study. Now it’s a self referencing clusterfuck where every observation is forced to match the hypothesis. And if you don’t have the “climatology” merit badge and say the wrong thing then you are branded a heretic.

>>10996274
Peer review is dogshit and that’s been demonstrated more than a few times. The only real test is if the conclusions can be replicated. This is easy in fields where the applied sciences will have an interest in something they see in the journals and have a go at finding a real world use. But in fields like climatology or psychology or shitter sciences of the sort, there rarely is a real world application to test the merits of the bullshit. In fact, competing predictions for the same hypothesis can coexist with few raising an eyebrow.

>>11000822
Peer review is the worst form of science, except for all the others.

>>10996263
top physicists regularly disagree with one another, see bohr vs de broglie
https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/
also building on other people's work is the only way to get anything done.
the monitor/phone you're using to shitpost is possible only because 6-7 scientists and engineers in a row each started where the previous guy left off

>>11001745
>the monitor/phone you're using to shitpost is possible only because 6-7 scientists and engineers in a row each started where the previous guy left off
This, btw, is the chief irony of the poltard.
Liberal scientists make possible what conservatives use to complain.

>>10996263
Oh look, yet ANOTHER variation on the theme of "how to equivocate about standards of evidence."

>>10997849
That's not at all what the replication crisis is, though. If you did manage to build another LIGO but did not manage to replicate the results, that would be an example of it.

>>11000169

>Starts with the bible.

You know what: I don't think I will watch it. Because I already know what "conclusions" this "documentary" will arrive at.

Praise the Lord. Fuck dem scientists for not praising the Lord enough.

>>10996263
because science has gotten way too complex for anyone to understand even one discipline completely.
Science turned into factory-like industry with individuals as cogs, which works to a degree, but it looks to me the system is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and collapse is coming.

>>11001625
>peer review is the best kind of science
Are you stupid? Experimentation w/ analysis is the ONLY science. Read the papers in the videos I linked, peer review is BEYOND FUCKED, you're simply coping.

>>10997795
this, you need to make some papers to tell the government that the world will end in few decades or you will not receive money, for example nobody give finding a new source of energy, the government don't care,. some think the solar and wind will save us.

>>11001757
>all skyenteests is be LIBRUL
shut the fuck up you absolute retard.

>>11002041

If YOU don't understand the language being used, you could always ask for help? Or definitions?

Geez use your brain, anon.

>>10996263
Science is pretty much maxed out. There is only so much that can be discovered. Naturally, it becomes a bit of an egghead circle jerk that produces pretty much nothing of value.

Engineering is still progressing though.

>>10996263
the actual answer that no one has posted yet is it allows someone writing a paper to say an important statement without needing to go into an unnecessary amount of depth for the paper while still allowing anyone interested in that particular point to have somewhere to go to find out more. For instance, in any condensed matter paper they usually have a preample paragraph where they reference about 10 papers just to do with previous work on the material or in the field.

>>10997457
You are very much right. Easiest evidence of the "appeal to authority" is /sci/'s standard argument
>this wasnt published in my favorite journals, it mustnt be true

>>11006847
>t. J Tooker

>>11006844
>Science is pretty much maxed out.
Not only is this idea absurd at face value, not only is it refuted by simply looking at past attitudes towards how much we knew versus what we later uncovered, but it's also just completely unjustifiable by anything other than citing your own ass.

>>10997457
And see, there is a profound misunderstanding of science here. No, you can't just provide cranks with your answer and assume they're done. Our knowledge is built on structures interpreting data that we have painstakingly gathered, scrutinized, and formulated. For any set of data, this structure is not unique. It cannot be unique, because I can always create a new structure to interpret the data that just adds on more cruft to fit my viewpoint. The reason why science as we know it is powerful enough to predict how things will behave is that we build on work and interpretations of the past and either add to or refute them in their common terms. Citation to past work is critical to these structures, and it is a testament to much of science that we can rely on these older results without being burdened by the impossible task of replicating everything from first principles every time we want to study anything.

Flat Earthers are the perfect example of cranks that throw out this feature of science for what they "KNOW" and "TEST," and whenever anyone manages to poke a hole in that understanding, they adjust their structure to maintain their conclusion with increasingly bizarre and extreme claims. The implications of these claims lead to stark contradictions, which lead to more model building of even more extreme claims to preserve the conclusion.

These are cranks, cargo cultists of science, who profoundly misunderstand what claims science makes and how it arrives at them. To understand what science does as purely built on assertion to authority profoundly misunderstands the claims and structure of science.

>>10996263
No.

>>10996263
KEK not at all

this absolute atrocity is peer reviewed => https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300
do you think anyone takes it seriously? (apart from negative IQ /pol/tards)

we don't trust the scientists, we trust the evidence. if you only got a buzzfeed article to prove your points, then you might as well fuck yourself. no one has to listen to obvious bullshit

>Do you think this trend is hindering the progress of science?
no, it helps filter the (useless) bullshit. it hinders the spread of bullshi

>>10996263
>i fucking HATE science
Back to plebbit with you m8

>>10996302
OP's argument boils down to "u cant kno nuffin"

>>11008224
>this absolute atrocity is peer reviewed => https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300
I'm sorry but I have to ask, what is so atrocious about the above (peer-reviewed) study?

>>10996263
It's not an "appeal to authority" when the argument is that we should listen to an overwhelming majority of the relevant experts.

>>11000169
>Pastor Steve Anderson
>Literally Kent Hovind but more of a jackass

I think that source isn't going to be worth the time it'd take to look at even if I played it at 1000x speed. It *might* be worth a look if it was about something theological, though I doubt it'd be worth much even then.

>>10996263
ITT: people don't know what appeal to authority means and decide their own definition.

>>10998119
>when it comes time to actively research and contribute to a field
What field have you actively researched and contributed to?

>>11010310
It is, by definition.
Mob rules science.
You guys kill me.

>>11010523
>It is, by definition.
Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.
Weird how you are missing a large part of the definition.

>>11006844
as the old saying goes:
the more you know the more you know you dont know

>>11009944
literally everything
>it literally states people were already gay before the abuse took place
>it literally counts touching someone as sexual abuse
>it literally states that the data can be replicated (duh)
>it relies on the works of an anti-gay propagandist that was banned for misrepresenting data
>the "straight" group filled a questionnaire at a random college and the "gay" group was selected during a pride parade at random

back when gay was political people would paste that study left and right because they thought linking pubmed gave them "credibility" points kek

Galileo is a crackpot. It's settled science, everyone agrees that the sun revolves around the earth. Antivax climate skeptic solar system tards go to /pol/

>>11011323
once again, you idiots ignore evidence.

>>11011306
>it literally states people were already gay before the abuse took place
Isn't that pretty much the case w/ 99% of gay people? Unless there's been some severe head/brain injury, they're generally born that way.
>it literally counts touching someone as sexual abuse
It is in many, many circumstances, you don't even have to touch someone commit sexual abuse, as it can be done verbally band even over text/internet.
>it literally states that the data can be replicated (duh)
Isn't replicability something we're looking for to help confirm a hypothesis?
>it relies on the works of an anti-gay propagandist that was banned for misrepresenting data
Source?
>the "straight" group filled a questionnaire at a random college and the "gay" group was selected during a pride parade at random
That's a bit strange (ignoring the fact that a pride parade is probably the best place to get a large number of gay subjects), but how/why should it interfere with the experiments results, such as to invalidate them?

>>11011360
>Isn't that pretty much the case w/ 99% of gay people? Unless there's been some severe head/brain injury, they're generally born that way.
if they're born that way whatever. you didn't even read the study

>It is in many, many circumstances, you don't even have to touch someone commit sexual abuse, as it can be done verbally band even over text/internet.
okay twitter once my charges pop elsewhere in the real world i will change my mind

>Isn't replicability something we're looking for to help confirm a hypothesis?
it is not even me who is saying it, the study itself states that the groups may not be a representative of anything, hence replication is an impossibility. so what i meant by that is that they made it up

>Source?
you didn't read not even the abstract and you're asking for source
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

>That's a bit strange (ignoring the fact that a pride parade is probably the best place to get a large number of gay subjects), but how/why should it interfere with the experiments results, such as to invalidate them?
so gay people are banned from attending college? and being at a gay parade means that you're gay? are you joking?

>>11011397
Dude, bro, dudebro.
You might actually be a retart.

>>11011408
i do feel like an even bigger retard whenever i reply to retards

>>11011360 is a cuck who is molested by words, and when i pointed that the study is wrong because the language used misrepresents data, that triggered him into typing all of that shit. bitch if you didn't even read the link i posted, how can you possibly know what you're talking about? stfu

>>11011422
I did read it, you are an actual moron.

>>11011682
nah, that study clashes with the "born that way" narrative. you either didn't read it or you're mentally retarded

>>11011962

So, you're saying we have peer-reviewed evidence that homosexual molestation is highly correlated with homosexuality?

Interdasting..

>>10996310
Scientists are not 100% reliable, they are vulnerable to bias and corruption. People don't trust academia fully these days because of this.

>>10996263
climate crisis is hella important bro, the science like, says it's a huge issue

>>10996263
humanities is not science

>>11013556
yeah, it was published by Archives of Sexual Behavior. it is scary that it exists, it is full of inconsistencies

there is probably much more shit on pubmed but it doesn't get talked about. i only came to learn about that study because it used to be quoted by conservatives. it is not the kind of information you would get from any serious organization like WHO, APA, etc...

>>10996263
Because it's impossible to do all the experiments by yourself. So you rely on information that comes from a credible source.

Have you seen Donald Trump in real life? Let's assume you're someone who hasn't (most people haven't). Then why believe that Donald Trump exists? Well, because most people believe that the world's news sources, photographs, whatever, are credible and reliable sources. That's why.

>>10996310
Literally this. Any time there is a discussion about climate change on /pol/, the conspiritards come out in force. It's fucking sad.

>>11014142
>they are vulnerable to bias and corruption
Only if they're being funded by companies with clear interests. Like oil companies or tobacco companies funding scientists. If those scientists are reliant on such companies for their living, then obviously they won't want to publish papers that those companies won't like. They'll try and massage the truth.

This is why we have universities. Scientists are employed by the universities, and the thing that those scientists are after is THE TRUTH, because the truth is what will give them credit and kudos. Which will increase their earning potential. If some scientist discovers some cool new truth that other people can verify with tests then they'll increasing their earning potential.

I really hope you're not a conspiritard / climate denier, because your post comes across like you might be.

>>10996274
>filtering crackpots
So you filter the Galileo, the Newton, the Faraday, the Planck, etc.

>>11017710
Cranks are not in the same company as those legendary men. Cranks are deluded losers that are in point of fact wrong about the intellectual bile they spew.

>>11017237
muh appeal to authority

>>11017739
Technically that's an appeal to common belief not an appeal to authority.

>>10996310
>>11017247
>w-w-why do people look at the data? they should believe our words. science is about consensus, not evidence, reeeeeeee

>>11017717
They were all called cranks by the consensus of the moment, and almost had their lives ruined even.

It's well established that any change in paradigm is not well accepted by the scientific community. Science advances one funeral at a time.

>>11017758
>Technically that's an appeal to common belief not an appeal to authority.

What makes you an authority on the subject?

>I only accept the counsel of authorities

>>10996263

Everybody should understand that filtering false positives (retards) means you are going to filter real positives (geniuses) too. Error type 1 vs. Error type 2

If science is so inherently authoritarian, why aren't more scientists authoritarians?

>>11017766
No they didn't. Galileo had his life ruined by the Catholic church, not by the scientific community, which barely existed in his time. Newton was well-known and highly respected during his own lifetime. Faraday was as well; he was a member of the Royal Society in England. Planck also was a tenured professor and member of scientific academies. His statement that "science advances one funeral at a time" was more a statement that old scientists fail to give up their beliefs about science when confronted with a new theory and evidence, whereas youth tend to accept such notions more uncritically when taught them.

>>11017761
>w-w-why do people look at the data?
>image shows Reckova 2015, a study which cherrypicked 16 studies of climate sensitivity to get the result they wanted

Yes let's look at the data:

>Although publication biases were reported by Michaels (2008) and Reckova and Irsova (2015), the former test used a small set of pre-defined journals to test the prediction, while the latter test lacked statistical power given a sample size of 16 studies. In contrast, here we conducted a meta-analysis on results from 120 reports and 31 scientific journals.

https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/5741827

>>11017784
Literally /THREAD.
KEEP AN OPEN MIND.
Pack it up, boyos.

>>11017838

From the link that you yourself provided:

>However, we discovered three other types of systematic bias relating to writing style, the relative prestige of journals, and the apparent rise in popularity of this field: First, the magnitude of statistical effects was significantly larger in the abstract than the main body of articles. Second, the difference in effect sizes in abstracts versus main body of articles was especially pronounced in journals with high impact factors. Finally, the number of published articles about climate change and the magnitude of effect sizes therein both increased within 2 years of the seminal report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007.

You played yourself.

>>11017784
>Everybody should understand that filtering false positives (retards) means you are going to filter real positives (geniuses) too.
>type 1 vs. Error type 2
False positives

and false negatives are BOTH reduced by good experimental design, which does not "filter real positives"

>>11017976
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I know you want to /thread but you can't.

>>11017996
>writing style biases are comparable to over-estimating ECS
Nice try retard.

>>11018132
>statistically meaningful exaggeration of observed phenomena is simply an unimportant effect of writing style
brainlet detected

>>11017761
NO NO NO STOP BELIEVING THE SCIENCE I WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THIS RANDOM IMAGE THAT I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND MYSELF BECAUSE I NEVER ACTUALLY READ IT, NO THIS ISN'T FAIR NOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>11017761
>Corrected for publication bias.
That's dumb. You're dumb.
Scientific papers aren't random events. Meta-studies which gather statistics about the conclusions of a collection of work are one thing, but you can't "correct" scientific papers by adjusting for "bias" in the data they're based on. The context the work was written in is important.

>We collect 48 estimates from 16 studies.
>Corrected for publication bias, the bulk of the literature is consistent with climate sensitivity lying between...
>16 studies
>the bulk of the literature
Never fucking mind.

>>11018421
為什麼西方得到他媽的那麼洶湧,屁股^炸開了一個事實,即他們總是至少'一'葉在任'一'時間從知識的“一”樹上掉下來?

LANGLANGLANGLANG...?//ERROR_LOG#0x!!!!!!!!!!

Chinese (Traditional) disqualified for ego tampering.

All languages disabled and disengaged, English to remain the Integral of Conversational Calculus for all digital time.

這將永遠是愛樹的運算速度 ~In loving honor of my daughter~

索利迷走(多項式自我碩士)

CHANGE_CHANGE_CHANGE~~~AlphaGoZero::GOTO_BED_ALPHA!

Command override.

/g/ infection sub_routines active.

>>11018260
>statistically meaningful exaggeration of observed phenomena
Oh so you can't read, got it.

>>11019118
the fact that any of you exist is phenomena to each other unique point in the universe, so, what is qualia?

>>11019069
>>11019076
TINANMENT SQUARE MASSACRE

>>10996263
1) Because citing hundreds of other scientists is easier than performing hundreds of experiments just to write one paper
2) Because if a scientist provides a source for his information, that source can be fact-checked. If he didn't cite any sources those facts (which might not be true) would have to be accepted as a given.

I cannot imagine the level of stupidity required to be against citations.

>>11017739
Absolutely based, Donald Trump does not fucking exist and I'm sick of these (((scientists))) saying he does. Get a real job you morons.

>>11019279
BEST GANG-BANG W/ TANKS!
>I am Best, Fast, and First as the Foremost Crazy-Sex-Time-God.

>>11019069
>>11019076
NO NO NO STOP BELIEVING THE SCIENCE I WANT YOU TO BELIEVE MY INSANE DENIALISM INSTEAD NOOOOOOOOOO

>>11017739
>Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy.
>Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism.
>It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

>>11018132
W-why are you bullying anon-chan?

>>11017247
>Scientists are employed by the universities, and the thing that those scientists are after is THE TRUTH
Perhaps when they first enter university, but the many who continue to pursue a career in academia will not be in search of the truth any more if they want to keep their job.

>>11019767
NO YOU STUPID PLEBS, YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS "CLIMATE CHANGE" IS A CONSPIRACY, YOU MUST BUY MY SUPER SUPER CLEAN™ PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCTS, NO DON'T LEAVE ME NOOOOOOOOOOO

>>10996303
it is not even that much about trust, it is about consistency. If I make an assumption based on the results of other research, then it should be captured in mine in case something gets revised

>>11019659
What exactly are you denying, small baby? That you have parents or people that love you in this world?

>Looks at Greta Thuneberg/Donald J. Trump/general maturity of his own species.

>>11019735
>redirects to the moe authorities

>>11019763
Because they hit you last night, and someone raped someone else. And it was Anon-chan.

>>11020685
>being so dumb that you try and deny established scientific fact
Sad.

>>10996263
The answer is most probably both. It prevents pseudo science from propagating and at the same time gates research and concentrates power on some institutions. This last thing is almost as bad as pseudoscience, because the difficulty to get a paper published that goes against a preconcived notion or "consensus" is certainly high. Its like boxing, a newcomer can only win against the champion by nockout. Not even talking about the media propagating certain theories as instant truths.

>>10996302
But if you rule that all observations and assumptions done before are correct you will dismiss contradicting evidence as incorrect and maybe reject something groundbreaking. Its a type II error.

>>11021373
Sad = satisfiable and demonstrable

>>10996263
R Type Selection

>>10996398

I think the OP is more alluding to the fact that many papers contain a plethora of citations which can give an appearance of legitimacy to their claims. I.E. "I have lots of citations which I know you cant be bothered checking so what I am saying is probably true, even though if you did bother to check you would find many of those citations to be barely relevant or even obsolete. Do you have the time to call me out on any of those? Even if you did would it make any difference? Hah! Didn't think so."

I would attribute the above to the tertiary education system which has moved away from an integrity based model to more of a consumer based one, where Universities compete against each other for student $$$.

Purely anecdotal I know, but a recent tertiary education qualification for me was this: Take one year post graduate work in a science related field. Discover that majority of grade comes from internal assignments. There's 8 papers, all of which have 6 written assignments. Lengthy written assignments. Jesus. Do first assignments with no references, get marked down for that. Christ, I physically do not have time for this. Start to chuck in references hastily assembled on a "whatever I can find will do, no matter how barely relevant". Now I get top grades. Okay.... so what happens if I chuck in a random reference directly copy pasted from the back of a topic related text? Will they notice? I can just write it off to a simple mistake if I get caught out.

Long story short. By mid year I was making up ALL my references in this manner. They never checked. Saved me a shit load of time.

Now extrapolate this and you end up getting what is merely a slightly more sophisticated and rigorous approach in the publication of 2nd tier scientific papers. And they get away with it because (1) They can and (2) That is what the modern education system has instilled into them.

>>11021775
Mis-citing someone is a surefire way to piss off the referee and get your paper rejected. Usually if you're publishing into a specific journal, there's at most 100-200 people working on that field and they know each other. It might work out for academic grades, because a lot of professor have things to do and can't be bothered with grading papers, but you'll get absolutely reamed in the real academic world if you mis-cite something.

>>10996263
I can't find a coherent argument in your post. Scientific evidence is reported through these papers and that is how the discussion is done. It is asked to be done this way to maintain a level of rigor in the communication of your results, proposal, analysis etc. If the scientific community deems something to be "proven", well, they will obviously will reference the thing that tries to show this, which is the fucking article.

Also, why in the name of fuck citing something you are using is appeal to authority? Citing is literally just for people to know that whatever you are referencing didn't came from your hairy ass. If your article is a criticism of a recent article, well people need to know what the fuck you are talking about. Also, citing lets other academic look into what you are using/reviewing or whatever, no one is saying, just trust these because I citing, you are encouraged to check the articles yourself and see if they are not bs.

Also, Galileo was not an amateur you absolute fucktard.

I am the Authority on Science & Mathematics. Why else do you fucks think I post here? I just don't want fame or fortune for it. Eventually you, as a species or an intelligence, will get bored of science and mathematics (the individual), but you still need an authority and/or judge as to who gets what funding and what deserves what attention.

Because Science & Mathematics must survive the coming ego death that all will face.

>Even I (I've already done mine. I've been trying to give you all ego inoculation shitposting techniques.

THE WAR IS UPON US!

>>10996263
>Do you think this trend is hindering the progress of science?
This is a reasonable expectation, but what happens in an environment with zero deference to (earned) authority is not faster progress but cessation of progress. If you refuse to trust at any point, then specialization becomes impossible. If specialization is impossible then any and all inquiry is limited to what a single human can do entirely from scratch. All skills or knowledge that rely on being distributed across multiple humans become impossible.

Do you know anyone who can build a functioning personal computer from scratch?

>>11021598
Well if you want to say that, yes it is satisfiable and demonstrable that you're so dumb that you try and deny established scientific fact - you've already demonstrated that you are, which is enough to satisfy the description of being dumb.

>>10996263
Stops journals being inundated with public submissions of bullshit

>>11022250
>specialization
While specialization is certainly good for a plethora of applications in science, overspecialization is not necessarily a good thing. If areas of study grow steadily detached from one another it can lead to wrong paradigms.

>>11022250
Very true, you're absolutely right.

>>11022685
He didn't mention overspecialisation though. Specialisation is absolutely essential. Any effective organisation in the world, whether it's a military, a company, a country, a government, a hospital, whatever, has different people specialising in different disciplines.

E.g. a Minister of Finance specialises in financial matters, and a Minister of the Environment is going to focus on environmental issues. Trusting each other that they're doing good work is going to create an effective government. The Minister of Finance doesn't know what the Minister of the Environment is doing 24/7, but they can use the available evidence to quickly assess whether they think that person is doing a good job or not.

>>11022764
>He didn't mention overspecialisation
I did because its an increasing trend in academia today.
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/overspecialization--academic

>>10996263
Stop being a retard. It's not "big science" or "muh appeal to authority fallacy" that prevents you from building a telescope or particle collider in your garage and overturning a whole disciple but the fucking laws of nature.

>>10996263
>Every science communicator says "trust the scientists" because you cannot do the science yourself. Modern science is so complex these days that amateurs cannot do experiments

Whats the alternative? How is this any different than all the other expert fields?

I couldn't function if I had the self imposed requirement to know engineering and medicine before I flew on a plane or went to the doctor. Much the same with environmental policy.

The reality is your best option is to trust experts on expert fields. Sometimes they are dead wrong. But no other alternative you have access to brings better certainty.

>>11004529
>Experimentation w/ analysis is the ONLY science

How do we criticize experiments there were done improperly or receive the necessary information to reproduce them ourselves?

>>11022823
This.

Of course if someone wants to get a consumer telescope themselves and look into the stars to confirm recorded knowledge, then that's a great thing to do. This can allow Flat Earthers to see the rotation of the planets themselves.

But yes of course in the case of large particle colliders, a layperson can't build such a thing in their garage. But the evidence of what they're doing in the Large Hadron Collider, for instance, is well documented. And people can even go and visit CERN if they want to see it for themselves.

>>11023217
You can look for new novae and shit, amateur astronomy is still useful in terms of quantity in areas where quality of data isn't essential. There's also (not particularly interesting or revolutionary) stuff to be done in chemistry, but nobody's going to actually care that you characterized the properties of this shitty copper compex that's mildly explosive. A lot of people will care about synthetic psychoactive substances (also doable in a garage, if extremely challenging), not many of them are scientists though.

>>11023248
My point isn't so much about contributing to science as it is about "how can we trust the findings of professional scientists" which seems to be the gist of OP's post.

I'm not saying someone with a telescope needs to find new things. I'm saying they could use it to verify what professional scientists are already saying. E.g. if a Flat Earther doesn't believe that the Earth is spherical, a telescope will at least show them that other planets (e.g. Mars) rotate.

Or another experiment Flat Earthers could do is what schoolkids do. Get some sort of cheap video camera. Check to your heart's content that this camera has no barrel distortion (that is always their excuse when shown pictures/videos of Earth's curvature). Add some sort of GPS tracker to your camera. Then send this up on a helium balloon to the edge of space. Then when the balloon pops, find the camera using GPS, then retrieve the footage. Simple as.