Was Science fake the whole time?
Other urls found in this thread:
science.org
twitter.com
We are the replicators
Science has always been a lie. God is the only answer.
>the whole time
No. The scientific method, if properly followed, is a powerful tool for working things out. Unfortunately science as an institution has been corrupted by people looking to use the authority that lab coat gives you to push falsehoods for their own ends.
Lmao I tried to explain this to a normie coworker (an otherwise brilliant network admin), and he unironically tried to claim that replicability was not one of the steps of the scientific method.
The founders created a republic and not a direct democracy for a reason. The average citizen, even with a worldbrain in their pocket, is too fucking dumb to vote on anything meaningful.
It’s bait, bro.
Don’t waste a reasonable explanation on these dataminers.
The whole time? No.
It has been in a huge decline ever since it got subverted by kikepitalism, though.
Everything eventually starts become half-assed and scientific studies are no exception.
Yes, the scientific method is collapsing, under bias and the results of it, primarily
Never, ever, trust an "expert"
The implication of the replication crisis IS that the scientific method always has been unreliable, though. It has nothing to do with muh corrupted institutions. It's a flaw in the scientific method itself. You guys are retards. Not everything loops back to OLD GOOD NEW BAD
No, and it is a very useful tool. The problem is people have been using "SCIENCE!" as a political weapon to advance corporate agendas to make money, thus creating a reproducibility crisis (reproducibility being the cornerstone of science) because of junk science where managers want the data to say certain things that is beneficial for their current agenda.
Always was, simple as.
>the whole time
No. Science has just been monetized, commercialized, and subverted for money and power. Its always been like that but for the wealthy, now its also for the poor. Real science is done by people passionate about discovery or invention.
and this is the tip of the iceberg. i have worked in various labs, there was fraud in over half of them. as long as the "data" fits the story you're trying to tell, no one looks too close. plus institutes are even more desperate to get women and nigs in science, so you can imagine how a bad problem is only going to get worse
>It's a flaw in the scientific method itself. You guys are retards.
>have an agenda
>need $20 mil to do study
>peer review community "yep that looks about right"
between the cost of study and stamp of approval of peer reviewers reproducing the study seems asinine to the institutions
funny that the two fields of science highest affected are the (((social sciences)) and (((biomedical)))
>phd in maths
>don't rely on replication at all
>mathematics is so legit and truthful it's not even considered a scientific field
>300k starting wage
Feelsgoodman
everything considered true becomes false in 3 generations so yes
Nah the implication is that the people who pay for science to be done don't want the scientific method to be followed, they want results. If you're properly following the method then your first round of experiments will not give you results that can be accepted as conclusive. The problem is that the lack of patience has pushed non-replicable hypotheses to be accepted because the dumbfucks who wanna sell the brain numbing meds that science makes can't handle the reality that the scientific method takes multiple years with tens of rounds of experiments to have any results close to fact.
It IS corruption and it's probably not following the scientific method and publishing studies because it makes them money. The idea of “There is no cost to getting things wrong. The cost is not getting them published.” is for a lot of scientists who want to advance their career very important. So they push out junk studies and then people base their research on these junk studies that never followed the scientific method because it's too much work and many studies would have been trashed, as they should have been. Much like we used leaded gasoline for so long despite knowing how bad it is, only because it was making corporations lots of money.
yup
Yeah.
>the whole time
no
recently yeah, most of it is fake and just based on manipulating algorithms to fit a preordained conclusion
The degree to which the research in a field is irreproducible is directly proportional to the percentage of female PhDs in that field.
Which god?
>The implication of the replication crisis IS that the scientific method always has been unreliable, though.
it wasn't
used to be you could reproduce everything yourself
wikipedo article is just trying to whitewash the very recent corruption of the field
Marduk