/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16162383
>whole academia does valid research
no they don't, they only publish worthless replication crisis trash. if they were doing decent research then life would be improving, life expectancies would be increasing, etc.

>>16132194
>Its highly likely the study is honest about this.
no it isn't, soientists voluntarily and willfully created the replication crisis. blaming journalism is a dumb attempt at scapegoating anyway because all soientists do at their professions is publish lies in academic journals.
soientist = journalist

>>16077441
When they're published in a conventional academic journal that pretty much means they're fake

>>16082089
>muh replication crisis journal
fake and gay

it amazing that the replication crisis has gone on for so long and soiynetists don't even seem to care. seems like they're perfectly content knowing that science is full of fraud and fakery.

>>15750984
No, global warming is faker and gayer, so is astronomy and most of physics. It might not even be the fakest subset of biology or behavioral sciences. Its still completely fake and gay of course, but in clown world you have to do more than just be fake and gay to stand out from the crowd, since nearly all academic science is completely fake and 100% gay

>>15680032

>>15667295
>source: the replication crisis journal of gibes me dat research dollaz grant fo free
just more lies from dogfucker university

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
>The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge.

It just keeps on getting worse and worse and the scientists and their fangoys just don't seem to care at all that most scientific publication is fake, nobody does a thing to correct the problem? Why not?

>>15501977
>people have done studies
>trust the replication crisis publications, goy

>>15479202
>Climate-related papers I've read
science publications are all fake af
why do you waste you time reading replication crisis fodder? do you enjoy being stupid and gullible?

>>15489103
an endorsement for atheism from academics isn't meaningful, academics are the people who tell lie after lie in their "replication crisis" journals. nobody cares what dishonest people think on any topic, they will always just think up the most self serving lies they can think up

>>15470046
because they were published in picrel

>>15433886
20th century science comedy publication
now its irl science
clown world

>>15327220
>studies
your academic fraud publications are all transparently fake

What major changes have the sciences made to their publication processes since the replication became common public knowledge over a decade age? What improvements in the system have developed to combat the problems caused by dishonest scientists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

>>15247283
>90% of this board is pseudo intellectualism and baseless crackpot theories.
thats probably the same fraction as in the replication crisis journals. also you left outright shilling off your list of unwanted content, thats another problem /sci/ shares with the journals

>>15187363
>peer reviewed
fake guaranteed

Friendly reminder that OP picrel Federico Germani only got a job as writing scientific articles about Trump & Twitter after he was permanbanned from this board for posting too much off topic /pol/ shit on /sci/.
As it turns out, you can post /pol/ shit in refereed professional journals, but /sci/ has higher standards. Apparently so does Reddit too.
4chan and Reddit have higher standards for intellectual honesty and scientific merit than the scientific journals do. You might have been awarded a PhD on the basis of your research and maybe you got published in Nature, but unless your science has been accepted on /sci/, it is not a legitimate theory, we are the highest bar.

What major changes have the sciences made to their publication processes since the replication became common public knowledge over a decade age? What improvements in the system have developed to combat the problem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

>>14862003
>4chan hates Nature articles
someone was too low IQ to figure out how to circumvent the filter on long strings of numerals and they got frustrated at their own lack of intellectual capacity and declared "OMG SCIENCE DENIER 4CHAN HATES NATURE ARTICLES"
instead of admitting that they need to learn better patience and reasoning skills.
picrel latest issue of Nature

>>14825649
The Turner Diaries accurately predicted the future.
Works of academic rigor, the tiny portion that anyone reads, keep on getting retracted for fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

>>14810879
>Recent studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

>>14718720
none of them are true, they were all intentionally falsified for political propaganda purposes, as are virtually all scientific journal articles.