[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 245 KB, 1124x1042, soyience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12083947 No.12083947 [Reply] [Original]

>Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
>The Effects of Corrupted Peer Reviews on Scientific Credibility
https://www.enago.com/academy/corrupted-peer-review-affects-scientific-credibility/
>Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
>In Psychology And Other Social Sciences, Many Studies Fail The Reproducibility Test
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te
>Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/

Reminder that if you still trust "scientific consensus" you're an idiot. The sciences have become hopelessly corrupt, peer review is just a rubber stamp for people with the right connections. It's especially bad in places like China and India, corruption everywhere.
Scientists are human beings with moral and intellectual failings just like everyone else. They have agendas, both personal and political, like everyone else. You're a fool if you see them as infallible paragons of truth.
Science is not a person or group of people. It's a listen of steps that anyone can follow. That is what determines whether something is scientific or not, not the word of some "pop scientist" like Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, or Bill Nye.

>> No.12083961

>>12083947
I would say you can believe anything that is has stood the test of time for about rougly 50-100 years. The schizo shit has in general already been sieved out, disproven or gotten a bad name by then. By no means a "law" on what you should believe about the world but a handy rule of thumb I suppose.

New science, even good science, is just not as reliable by the sheer nature of the field. Of course, the fact that science has become a job for many people has corrupted the field more due to monetary incentives.

>> No.12083967

>>12083961
Psychiatry has been around for more than 50 years, is pseudoscience and it's still here.
No, science doesn't filter itself. At least not soft science.

>> No.12083974

>>12083967
Was thinking of hard science when writing that post. Who the fuck takes soft sciences seriously anyway. They concern themselves with "systems" that have too many variables and their methods do not enough rigour to be taken serious.

>> No.12083982

>>12083947
That's because most findings actually never end up being useful. They might resolve a very specific problem, too useless for any application.

A silver bullet comes from something that regards the whole picture. Something that is in the hands of an individual anyway.

I'm not talking about engineering or 'physics'. That's another story.

>> No.12083993

the stick religion is still false

>> No.12084028
File: 46 KB, 535x800, stick_religion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12084028

>>12083993
Yes, scientism is a false religion.

>> No.12084030

>>12084028
I knew it it was a christian making this thread
>scientist makes mistake
>therefore jesus

>> No.12084037
File: 25 KB, 720x405, nye_dick_science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12084037

>>12084030
>OOGA BOOGA BOOGA! SCARY CHRISTIAN! INQUISITION CRUSADES! BURN YOU AT DA STAKE!
You need to deflect because the moment you reflect on your own beliefs, you are forced to admit they are false. Nye-worshipers need to be on the offensive at all times.

>> No.12084059

>>12083947
This affects shitty quasi-sciences like psychology mostly. It doesn't affect scientific consensus, which is based on strong, replicated evidence.

>> No.12084064

goes in all fields.
>>>/pol/
>>>/b/
>>>/x/

>> No.12084066

>>12084059
You're speaking of the hard sciences, sciences which only deal with the material? Things that can actually be replicated in a laboratory?
I agree. That is real science, but the "scientific community" at large has drifted away from that.

>> No.12084068

wait for it, he's gonna claim evolution isn't science

>> No.12084069
File: 213 KB, 1660x1140, scientific_discovery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12084069

>>12084068
>wait for it, he's gonna claim water is wet

>> No.12084095

>>12084069
Are you mad because your desert cult losing its members and has no place in the future?

>> No.12084098

>>12084066
You obviously know very little about the scientific community.

>> No.12084121

>>12084066
>another uni student waxing and waning about the state of science, which they have 0 experience in, and most likely doesn't even have a first-author
How am I supposed to even take this place seriously

>> No.12084125

>>12084121
dude is literally a cultist

>> No.12084126

>>12084095
>>12084098
Ad populum and ad hominem. Not a single argument to be found. But then again, science and logic are two separate things. You can't expect a scientist to think in a logical manner.

>> No.12084129
File: 25 KB, 564x544, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12084129

>>12084126
>Ad populum and ad hominem

>> No.12084130

>>12084121
>>12084125
read >>12084126
none of you have an argument against me

>> No.12084132
File: 733 KB, 1600x1131, lawsoflogic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12084132

>>12084129
Yes, those are logical fallacies. Do you know what a logical fallacy is? Probably not. All you have are childish personal attacks, this is very typical of scientism worsipers.

>> No.12084135

>>12084132
>logic
>is a christian

>> No.12084136
File: 261 KB, 888x894, 1599139727745.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12084136

>>12084130
>>12084132
No point of arguing with stupid, go back to your containment board.

>> No.12084137

>>12084135
>>12084136
Still nothing but ad hominems.

>> No.12084139

>>12084132
>complains about worshipping blindly
>worships blindly

>> No.12084143

>>12084139
Acknowledging that objective claims require a suitable benchmark is not "blind worship" at all. You blindly trust in your own senses, your own intellect, even though your worldview provides you with no justification for trusting in them. You rely on immaterial, abstract concepts such as language, truth and ethics despite being a materialist who denies the existence of such things, and belittles them as "man-made constructs"
If they're just man-made constructs then why pay any heed to them at all? And if nothing is true, if "truth" is just an arbitrary man-made construct and everything is relative, then why are you presupposing the existence of truth by arguing with me?
Your worldview is completely illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever. You can't even justify arguing with me.

>> No.12084145

>>12084143
churches are open now, you can go catch covid in there

>> No.12084147

>>12084145
You're a coward, you know I'm right but you're too afraid to admit it.

>> No.12084153

>>12084143
>Acknowledging that objective claims require a suitable benchmark is not "blind worship" at all.
fool that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you what is logic and objectivity. You have no evidence that logical thinking or objectivity is even a possibility without assumptions- that whatever is the essence of your consciousness did not foolishly make up this idea without blind spots in thinking.
You cannot even propose modern logic as a consistent system without blind assumptions, yet you do here.

>> No.12084163

>>12084153
You must presuppose an objective benchmark in order to have objectivity. I make that presupposition, you do not. Therefore my worldview is consistent and yours is not.
In your worldview the very concept of "evidence" does not make sense, because you deny the existence of truth. If nothing is true then you cannot prove or disprove anything, but everything is subjective, arbitrary, it's just an opinion, a personal taste.
I refer you back to my previous point - your worldview offers you no basis for arguing with me in the first place. It offers you no reason to trust anyone or anything, not even the contents of your own mind. Therefore, it is illogical for you to argue with me. If you were being consistent, if you truly believed your own lies, then you wouldn't be arguing in the first place.

>> No.12084179

>>12084143
> if "truth" is just an arbitrary man-made construct and everything is relative, then why are you presupposing the existence of truth by arguing with me?
>Your worldview is completely illogical.
Next
>>12084163
>You must presuppose...
>Therefore my worldview is consistent
fucking kek, you can't make this up

>> No.12084185

>>12084179
Yes, that's all correct. Did you plan on posting a rebuttal or have you conceded the argument? Please be more articulate in what you're trying to say.

>> No.12084188

>>12084095
Fuck off, JIDF.

>> No.12084193

>>12084188
judaism is also a desert cult

>> No.12084194

>>12084069
Based

>> No.12084196

>>12084193
Yes, but it's one you actually fear, along with Islam. It's always Christians you gaytheists talk shit about, never the other 2.

>> No.12084200

>>12084196
Christianity remains false even if people do that you know

>> No.12084219

>>12084200
>"Everything is subjective, no such thing as true or false"
>"Christianity is false"

>> No.12084227

i was going to say that you are mad because you got rejected from a master's/PhD but probably haven't even finished high school.
btw 99% of science and research isn't even remotely political, someone that discovers a new grass species or some shitty compound or some random protein, etc will write and publish a study about it. since you only read popular media you are only hearing about the controversial shit instead of the trillionth time someone did a field research and found plants

>> No.12084234

>>12084227
Translation: I have no argument so I'm going to insult you.
Why are materialists so irrational and angry?

>> No.12084236

>>12084227
can't push my cult with plant journals

>> No.12084245

>>12084236
>can't push my cult with plant journals
yeah that's sort off what natural science is. biology chemistry and physics. no one is pushing a cult with plants or aromatic compounds or some shit with vibrations.

>> No.12084247

>>12084245
we only care about wood here, so we can make cross shaped sticks