[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 121 KB, 659x729, 1570691846079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11046755 No.11046755 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]


>> No.11046757
File: 51 KB, 553x599, Lol_1a0433_301728.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.11046767

Thats what happens when all science depends on stupid paper publication economy and making reputation

>> No.11046779

We don't really have a lot of science left these days. It's a shame such a high endeavor was claimed by capitalism. Dark ages lie ahead.

>> No.11046794


doesnt china pump out "studies" that can't be replicated anywhere else as well? Lmao, it's a numbers game in the research field of science. Just pump out as many one time trial experiments to get funding and move along.

>> No.11046806

There must be 50 universities in the greater Southern California area alone, and every single grad student is expected to publish to graduate, everyone knows there are not 50n publishable advancements a year (Where n is the number of grad students per university). Let alone for the entire country or world.
So everyone just looks the other way on 99% of papers, just format it right, have the presented charts line up, source 10 of your friends and 50 other papers and you will get published. Most journals don’t even ask to look at your raw data

>> No.11046875

>haha let's only publish studies with statistically significant results, what could go wrong haha

>> No.11046885

>We don't really have a lot of science left these days.
That's just not true. The real problem is the energy levels needed to test new physical theory.
Most reproducibility issues ive seen tend to be with psych and soft sciences though.

>> No.11046914

>what could go wrong haha
5% of the time it can go wrong

>> No.11046931

Physics is only a small part of what is done in science. I agree that physicists usually care more about reproducibility and scientific rigor in general, but other branches do not.
If read several papers which withheld information in such a way that their results couldn't be reproduced at all. Another issue that just shouldn't be a problem.

>> No.11046943

i cant replicate the results of this article either. science is fucked

>> No.11046967

If you need articles like that to realize that society, and therefore science, will collapse within one or two generations then you are a brainlet. We tried to build a rationalist society and we failed on all fronts. Religious beliefs in a wide sense has proven much more capable to govern people’s life which is pretty ironic if you think about.

>> No.11046977

it is even worse in (((psycho"logy")))

>> No.11047010

High energy physics is a waste of money and hasn't even historically been one of the main drivers of scientific progress. What we need isnt more funding and even more collabarative "big science". Actually the proliferation of massively collaborative science is to some extent a symptom of underlying problems. In a lot of fields, including physics, what we need isnt more data, its more theory building, speculation, and cross-discipline synthesis.

>> No.11047024

So we need a polymath like Niel Tyson or Michio Kaku to just figure it out

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.