/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15783772]

Dilbert has some criticism of contemporary science
Agree or disagree?

[Anonymous No.15783783]

Illbert is an office drone that has wasted half his life away in a cubicle for a boring telcom company. He has never set foot in a laboratory, read a peer reviewed paper nor produced a thesis.

Please OP, next time let us know what your local garbage man thinks about science too

[Anonymous No.15783812]

>>15783772
grant funding "reforms" in the 90s/00s ruined science

[Anonymous No.15783827]

His opinion is worthless. The guy had a mental breakdown years ago and is now a full-on wack-a-doodle crazy.

[Anonymous No.15783838]

Clott Adams' not as bad as he was. definitely forced a hard reapprasal during the pandemic

[Anonymous No.15783870]

Disagree, it's a pretty ignorant take. The top scientists in most fields are old people, reaching the ends of their careers. Their research was not flashy, but it actually had to endure. It's not enough to publish some sensational shit in Nature once to end up at the top, you need to lay the foundations which others have tested and build upon. Outright fraud is pretty rare in most fields (ignoring medicine), because it doesn't get you far. If what you've claimed is really interesting then people will investigate and try to replicate, if they can't then the attention vanishes. Being found to be actually falsifying data is pretty catastrophic, people will dismiss anything you ever publish again. Making some sensational claims that no one can replicate doesn't put you at the top of your field. Also if people were constantly lying papers would be a lot more interesting.

[Anonymous No.15783873]

you now can win Nobel price by giving tons of people a vaccine that causes myocarditis, and does not prevent the disease it is designed.

[Anonymous No.15783882]

>>15783870
You say but at the same time several well regarded scientists have been exposed as frauds as well as psychology having a replication crisis. How can you hold this opinion despite these factors?

[Anonymous No.15783935]

>>15783882
>several well regarded scientists have been exposed as frauds
"Several" out of how many researchers? And "well regarded" is not the same as being at the top of their field.
>psychology having a replication crisis
Does not imply large scale fraud. It's also not all of science.
Do you think in that landscape people benefit from fraud? In medicine and psychology people have stopped believing single studies. They only way to endure as a top researcher is to have results which are replicable.

[Anonymous No.15783944]

>>15783772
> The guy who initially named the dog Dildog is an unhinged schizo
News at 4

[Anonymous No.15783955]

>>15783873
>this
Make you question what the board members were bribed with.

[Anonymous No.15783967]

>>15783827
>"I don't want to be around black people" qualifies as a "mental breakdown"
Shalom!

[Anonymous No.15784034]

[Anonymous No.15784159]

>>15783935
What makes someone "at the top of their field" in your opinion?
>Does not imply large scale fraud.
Maybe not directly, but it's certainly a possibility. The bigger question is how often are studies replicated. Considering it does little to nothing towards advancing someone's career, who's going to bother doing it, especially if the study in question is hard to replicate? It's easier to just let it slide and focus on your own work.

[Anonymous No.15784162]

>>15783772
Time will prove him right as the zoomers fake everything and have no concept of honor or integrity.

[Anonymous No.15784165]

>>15783783
Let me rewrite this post for you.
>Galileo is a glassmaker that has wasted half his life away next to a furnace making telescopes. He has never set foot in a church, read a theological treatise on the heavens nor gone to the seminary. Please OP, next time let us know what your local garbage man thinks about heaven too.
Fuck the new priest class.

[Anonymous No.15784190]

[Anonymous No.15784198]

Clot Adams is /our guy/. He's based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.15784208]

>>15784159
>What makes someone "at the top of their field" in your opinion?
According to the researchers in the field.
The household names, who's work is widely known enough to be part of standard courses. If you do research there are names that everyone knows.
>The bigger question is how often are studies replicated. Considering it does little to nothing towards advancing someone's career, who's going to bother doing it, especially if the study in question is hard to replicate? It's easier to just let it slide and focus on your own work.
It will vary greatly between fields. It's important to remember that just because something hasn't been reapeated doesn't immediately make it problematic. Lots of results are simply not interesting enough to warrant further investigation. A significant fraction of papers are never cited. People are judged on publications, and so there a great number of low quality ones. Also a paper might not be replicated because it has obvious flaws, or fails to convince anyone that the authors did their due diligence.

[Anonymous No.15784219]

>>15784198
Biggest faggot posted on /sci/ atm

[Anonymous No.15784236]

>>15783772
Yet he will defend macro-evolution until he dies. And yet this comment will be deleted as a sin against the prevailing religion.

[Anonymous No.15784250]

>>15784208
You wouldn't consider Dan Ariely who has several NYT bestsellers or Marc Tessier-Lavigne who was the president at Standford prominent enough? Should we just ignore the fact that they had immense success in their careers using fake data and simply hope that no one else is faking data as well? I'm really curious of your perspective on this problem or if even see it as a problem at all.

[Anonymous No.15784265]

>>15783873
>does not prevent the disease it is designed.
It was designed for the ancestral strain and works well for that.
>causes myocarditis
Oh no, not le hecking 10^-5 side effect that's so benign that most people don't even notice it. What's the rate of people that actually suffer from their vaccine-induced myocarditis?

[Anonymous No.15784293]

>>15784219
Listen, I simply don't appreciate you.

[Anonymous No.15784324]

>>15784250
Data forgery is a bigger problem for people who "trust the science" than it is for people who are intelligent enough to think for themselves instead of relying on media outlets to tell them whats what.
Journalists shills the same rhetoric about "we would never lie, we have a professional code of ethics" that the scientists do and the journalists' are all as fake and gay as the science journals are.
Its a common problem, but it mainly affects only the people who are too low IQ to think independently and instead allow (((media))) outlets to do their thinking for them

[Anonymous No.15784351]

>>15784250
> You wouldn't consider Dan Ariely who has several NYT bestsellers or Marc Tessier-Lavigne who was the president at Standford prominent enough?
Not my field so I can't say for sure.
>Should we just ignore the fact that they had immense success in their careers using fake data and simply hope that no one else is faking data as well?
You seem to imply that you should extrapolate from these two data points to everyone else, that's faulty logic. But really they are outliers, that's why you know their names. It also runs up against the conspiracy angle, this would never be investigated and exposed if it was totally endemic.

[Anonymous No.15784373]

Harold Hillman's challenges to mainstream biology

[Anonymous No.15784385]

>>15784190

[Anonymous No.15784395]

>>15783827
>The guy had a mental breakdown years ago and is now a full-on wack-a-doodle crazy.
Too many mini-strokes from the vax

[Anonymous No.15784397]

>>15784351
>You seem to imply that you should extrapolate from these two data points to everyone else, that's faulty logic.
I'm using it as evidence of leaders using data fraud to get into prominent positions and evidence to support that Scott Adams may be right in his assertion.
>But really they are outliers, that's why you know their names.
>this would never be investigated and exposed if it was totally endemic.
We know their names because they got caught. However, they got caught many years after the fraud, which is what's concerning. If people have incentive to commit data fraud along evidence of it not being caught or taking a long time to be caught, then it's naive to assume it's rarely happening, especially since it gives someone a big advantage over their peers.

>>15784324
Without an effective system to detect fraud, the only you can do is trust the science.

[Anonymous No.15784401]

>>15784385
That isn't funny

[Anonymous No.15784406]

>>15784385
Post the libshit ceo in philly that let a black criminal into her building to murder her

Cancer eating itself is funny

[Anonymous No.15784435]

dude has a slanted forehead lmao

[Anonymous No.15784440]

>>15783772
He's right with covid, climate prob has fraudulent narrative as well as any dissents are pushed out and punished heavily..