/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10969748
>research suggests
Yeah no shit undergrad retards can't do anything right, let alone replicate a complicated experiment

>>10969748
reproducibility crisis applies to soft sciences, maybe some areas of medicine/biochemistry if you squint enough

I am afraid our precious science ain't going anywhere

>>10969748
Are you just learning this now OP?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

>>10969771
What is the Cavendish experiment?

>mfw wiki how to articles have more scientific peer review than most credited "scientific studies"

It would appear true "scientists" are people like good old Red Green, and most everybody else is in it just to stay in academia and live off grants.

>mfw wiki how to articles have more scientific peer review than most credited "scientific studies"

It would appear true "scientists" are people like good old Red Green, and most everybody else is in it just to stay in academia and live off grants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLd6174bz2k

>>10969748
>I wonder how much of "settled science" is actually junk
Most of IQ science for one

>>10969820
What are you talking about, you do that shit in undergrad. Hell you can do that at home

>>10970375

Okay but black people are still dumb anon.

Most nerds can't reproduce themselves let alone science

>>10969748
>I wonder how much of "settled science" is actually junk
If it can't be reproduced it isn't settled science.

>>10969748
If they do more research on the replicability of science and it doesn't show the same results as the research from this article does it prove it wrong or prove it right?

>>10970796
The research will mean whatever we want it to mean!
t. modern academic

>>10970789
>If it can't be reproduced it isn't settled science.

Men walking on the moon hasn't been reproduced by another nation. Does that mean the conspiracy theories about the moon landing being faked have some merit?

>>10969748
90% or more of science studies are not reproducible.

>>10970803
>>10969748
Mostly affects areas of the social sciences.

Who would've known that surveys and qualitative interviews are very prone to manipulation by the researcher? The methodology of survey based research is just flawed. Often such research isn't research at all and very limited in what you can find out and conclude from.

Though on /sci/ most I assume are in the natural sciences not in the social sciences where I wouldn't be surprised if 90% in there was bogus. Nobody could really catch you anyway if you were to produce bogus.

>>10971317
>social
>science
*social pseudoscience

This is why when you see any news report stating "A new study finds..." you should stop reading immediately.

>>10969748
You don't need to worry. It only affects social sciences and some parts of medicine and biology and chemistry.

It's extremely pronounced in sociology and psychology though. It just so much happens that the latter gave us the various junk science that only laymen are obsessed with (Such as IQ and MBTI).

Where did this "settled science" phrase come from. I have literally never seen it before a week or two ago and suddenly every retarded anti-science culture war shitpost is acting like it's a fundamental pillar of whoever they're going after this time.

>>10971427
>Such as IQ

This is the most scientific part of psychology though.

>>10969748
> in a recent 10 day study my benis is pretty hard
>my peers cant get hard

yea its a damn shame those faggots dont like naked ladies

*whips out a bottle of baby oil

>>10971450
>Where did this "settled science" phrase come from.
Arguing with creationists, I think.
A lot of people have an idea of science where every idea is equally open to challenge at every point in time. It's as if we're equally likely to find out tomorrow that the details of the big bang and the fact the Earth orbits the Sun are wrong.

>>10969748
each scientist also faces his own reproduction crisis, if you know what I mean;)

>>10970861
>Another nation
Didn't realize review had to be by someone of a different nationality

>>10972066
peer review is usually done by another agency. You can't do your same experiment twice and claim you peer reviewed yourself. Space programs are usually government funded and since America has just the one, yes another nation would need to get involved.

Unless Elon can get his shit together, which will never happen. Elon is a dot com boomer, in that he got rich in the dot com boom/rush and has since used brute force/lotta cash as a business strategy. I don't think he's very business savvy. He just has a lot of weight to throw around cause he got lucky one time and became rich.

>>10969748
>medicine
literally not science. not even trying to discredit medical professionals.

>>10969770
>Unironically using undergrad as an insult

>>10970861
Walking on the moon isn't science. Just like traveling from Los Angeles to NYC isn't science. They just did a thing.

>>10972560
>space travel has nothing to do with science
>leaves thread
>makes new OP
>Scientifically speaking why was Hitler right?

I hate this board.

>>10969771
>Unlike you "soft scientists" we're always right
>By the way 96% of the universe for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. What do you mean prove it? It can't be measured! The math says so right here!

>>10969820
>retard watches a bunch of conspiracy truther flat earth videos on YouTube
>takes their word at face value and makes a fool of himself on /sci/
Go back to /x/.

>>10972706
>space travel has nothing to do with science
Who are you quoting? He said the act of walking on the moon itself isn't science, which is correct. The original retard was trying to make a terrible argument by implying that the moon landings some how never happened because they're "not reproducible", which is obviously a bogus argument. The actual science that made the moon landings possible (propulsion, materials, batteries etc) are all testable here on Earth and are reproducible.

>>10972706
made me laugh.. because I don't want to face how true it is.

>>10972553
>t. seething undergrad

>>10969748
>research making research seem illegitimate

Sometimes they have all the right material but all the wrong things. You can read research but they never go into too much detail as to what they are using they just describe its state but not quality. Like generic vs name brand.

>>10969843
This is true.