/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15156757
Doing your own research and using your discernment when viewing the research of others are the best ways to acquire knowledge.

>>15156757
no
take your booster chud

>>15156757

>>15156757
doing your own research, i.e. blindly believing anything you read on Twitter that confirms your political priors

>is most published research wrong?
No. All published research is wrong.

>>15156757
lots of weed

Science means not trusting "the science." You can have consensus of scientists but consensuses themselves are inherently non-scientific.

>another schizo poltard thread sci

Go back to your containment board, incel.

>>15157587
>Feynman
>>/sci/thread/S15123016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnCDVrBSDFk
https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10345
https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0011

It's been well over a hundred years since a single person in a single lifetime could learn all science. Saying 'just do your own research bro' is incredibly stupid. At my university there was 2 floors of the library, two entire floors, dedicated to student research. That's just at 1 university. You couldn't learn all the science there in one lifetime and there's people in this thread saying the unbelievably stupid thing of 'dude man, just do your own research' like fucking retards. We have to trust something or live in a world where everybody needs to drink antifreeze to test for themselves what drinking antifreeze does to the body.

The answer is trust institutions. We cannot trust individual scientists and their research because it's subject to flaws, personal projects and the possibility of corruption. When scientific theory is tested and retested and understood it becomes mainstream science and the individual opinions, personal errors and possible corruption are smoothed out. It's easy to donate money to a scientist to get them to say what you want, it is next to impossible to bribe an entire institution and it is entirely impossible to bribe the all. Individual mistakes and personal opinions no longer matter on a grand scale.

Want to understand climate? Study the writings of organizations like the IPCC and NOAA. Want to understand medicine? Study the writings of the world health organization and the American medical association.

Individual crackpots are subject to errors, personal opinions and outright bribery. You can find individuals who will tell you anything you want to hear.

>>15157769
>Want to understand climate? Study the writings of organizations like the IPCC and NOAA
I don't recommend this.
because
>Individual crackpots are subject to errors, personal opinions and outright bribery. You can find individuals who will tell you anything you want to hear.
^this is denial

>>15157769
>tfw you've founded and funded all the institutions

>>15156757
i'd say 5% is wrong

>>15157769

Yes. Period.
If you @ me youre reddit.

>>15158422
Big if true

>>15156757
>Retard here, If this is true then what is the best way to acquire knowledge?
if you know a lot of stuff is wrong then that means that the opposite stuff is right