Science Summary

[Anonymous No.15719214]

Why doesn't /sci/ discuss studies and real current scientific matters?

[Anonymous No.15719454]

>>15719214
Because contemporary science is garbage. Any 'science' that hasn't been tested and reviewed for a solid decade is just PhD busywork

[Anonymous No.15720112]

>>15719214 With that I mean threads other than climate change a hoox, LK99, Hossenfelder videos, etc.
Just actual studies or exciting fields and topics such as issues/research of science itself or recent significant papers.

>>15719454 Not most of what is featured in the summary image. That absurd decade claim is false.

[Anonymous No.15720691]

>>15719214

>a study suggests that you should gibes all your money to tha gobermant to make da weather gooder

can't believe you think this leftist political tripe has anything remotely to do with real science, its just another greedy cash grab by people who are too lazy to earn a living honesty

[Anonymous No.15720977]

Is there any other study that is not completely retarded that /sci/ is discussing?

Mostly interested in things that have potential real use in practice, but this place seems to be overrun with shills and 15 year old Muskfan/pol/ster shitposters and I couldn't find a single thread about actual studies.

[Anonymous No.15720988]

>>15719214
Define "real scientific matters" because it doesn't sound academic enough

>Verification not required

[Anonymous No.15720990]

>>15719214
this is a slow board and therefore has been overran by pol years ago

[Anonymous No.15721562]

>>15720988 Roughly things that are both tangible in terms of real world relevance/impact and genuine research subjects.

Example: whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real is not a current real scientific matter, we're far past that.

[Anonymous No.15722600]

I wondered if there could be recurrent "quality-days" where everybody gets here to make or contribute to a genuine quality thread of substance.

[Anonymous No.15722612]

>list of unreplicated trash that will be retracted in a few years

[Anonymous No.15723131]

>>15722612 In over 3 years only two featured studies got retracted ao I doubt it. One was the prior superconductor.

[Anonymous No.15723139]

>>15719214
Why would I bother when 99.9% of the audience doesn't know the field? I can just talk to my colleagues for that.

[Anonymous No.15723140]

>>15719214
Also those infographs are useless without sources. I actually think I might've read one of the mentioned studies but I can't comment without being sure.

[Anonymous No.15723456]

>>15720112
You can discuss these topics on r*ddit just fine.
People discuss things on /sci/ that they find "highly debated/criticized" or when some polfag feels they need a /sci/nerd to deboonk some argument they've stumbled upon on the internet.

[Anonymous No.15723681]

>>15723140 The sources are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_in_science which is mentioned at the bottom. Used to put them onto the newsletter page at https://mailchi.mp/4345cd0237c2/orapfn1bn4 but people weren't interested and it wasn't different.

[Anonymous No.15723686]

>https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00113
quantum cancer. discuss

[Anonymous No.15725033]

>>15723681
Yes, but this requires me to go to the link, go to the appropriate month, find the appropriate entry, click the footnote, and then go to the link. It's much better to add the authors and journal at the end of the description. That said, I already have an issue with the second entry in the OP. It says that the first paper finds a "more effective" carbon tax even though it doesn't make this claim, nor does its methodology allow it to make this claim. The idea of a policy instrument being more effective than another has precise connotations in economics, so this just sets the authors up to get criticized for things they never said. I feel like the editorialization coming from the choice of which dozen or so articles to pick among the thousands published across all fields in a given month and from the choice of how to paraphrase their findings can create a misleading framing. I don't even know if it's possible to accurately summarize the state of research given how much of it is being done. I can barely keep up with research in my own discipline, let alone with what's going on elsewhere. To answer the OP's question, the reason /sci/ doesn't discuss actual science is that 90%+ of anons don't have a degree and the remainder is scattered across different disciplines and subdisciplines such that it's improbable two people that know a topic and are willing to exchange will ever meet. With odds like these, you're better off attending seminars, conferences, workshops, etc. in-person at your university to talk with people you know for sure are actual researchers. If we had a higher density of high quality posts and posters, it might've been possible to sustain a true science & math board because people wouldn't feel like it's useless to put in the effort. As it stands, I'm not expecting much from this place.

[Anonymous No.15725186]

>>15723681
>wikipedia
propaganda trash site

[Anonymous No.15725862]

>>15725033 It does make that claim. I had to keep short so this limits how accurate it can be described. It suggests it would be useful in terms of efficacy and more effective than not using it. It doesn't compare against alternatives like partly-tradable carbon budgets.

Also I don't think a degree ia requires for anons to discuss various topics and fields. I was expecting a bit more because, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are nearly no other places to openly discuss any science topic when not considering outdated forum formats and except for reddit (which has many limitations/issues too like mostly discussing one link/news at a time).

[Anonymous No.15725913]

>>15719214
>2nd item
>carbon tax fairness
not science or math, pure politics.

[Anonymous No.15725919]

>>15725186
>propaganda trash site
isn't that everything that has any value at this point?

[Anonymous No.15726361]

>>15725913 False. Policy studies and policy-relevant science is/are the most neglected field(s).

[Anonymous No.15726588]

>>15723686
>lower the chance of the quantum probability
>Point mutations less likely to occur

[Anonymous No.15726642]

>>15719214
Why do people who complain about the quality of /sci/ never themselves contribute to the quality of /sci/?

[Anonymous No.15726786]

>>15726642
How do you know OP isn't making amazing posts in other threads? But seriously, having a low quality board discourages people from putting in the effort. Why would I take time and energy to make a good thread if it's going to be pruned or, worse, derailed?

[Anonymous No.15727741]

>>15726642
why do people who suck balls at posting even presume that they have the ability to identify good posts at all? its like asking someone with no math education to grade a calculus exam