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

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 121 KB, 659x729, scienceisfiction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11891703 No.11891703 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Is anything we know about anything even real?

>> No.11891862

we assume it is.

>> No.11891871

I love how they lump in actual sciences with the soiences like psychology. Physics does not have this problem you god damn hippies

>> No.11891875

Reproducibility isn't a crisis in physics. It's not even a problem. It's only a problem in the fields where women excel. Correlation doesn't imply causation but a problem is always correlated with its cause.

>> No.11891876

How many times do we need to teach you this lesson old man? No, but seriously, these kind of things are rampant with medicine and social sciences. You can't compare this with traditional science.

>> No.11891880

Journos (which are all brainlets, no exceptions and make no mistake) think science is this UN-like institution that determines what is real or fake

>> No.11891888

>social science majors cry about inferiority to hard science
>make up their own experiments that aren't reliable
>use statistics of their failure to discredit hard science
I'm onto you fuckers.

>> No.11891903

There is problem with theory.
Whole our science and its own basics comes from peoples who understand hermetic laws,they understood how universe was working they where gnostics just like Newton if you saw his Philosophia Naturalis you already know that he was one of the peoples who cares a lot about this... it wasn't just him but also different scientist. I mean it's even stupid because all of them that bring something interesting or inovative to the science where peoples who also study gnosis.

There are peoples and specially scientist or nihilistic fools that keep talking same shit over and over again "We don't know anything, we will never know anything BUT WE ARE TRYING".

While these types of peoples usually don't bring anything because they simply cannot think outside of box they cannot think about new they cannot think about different they have to come with this theory of here are the particles,there are some gravitons,space have properties ("somebody fucking explain me how empty space can have property, because it can't") and other BS. They should make science look normal and elegant but they don't do really nothing. I can write math that supports that there is a flying shit producing gravity and with stupidity of common peoples it will be a great addition to our new education system for idiots that learn nothing else then do something then repeat it,read,repeat,do,repeat.... that's not how you train your brain fool that's how you let it die slowly.

Muh science 2020 but hey at least they admit that there are waves and not parctiles we are getting somewhere... it's still have to be some Bullshit Quantum Science not Ether as before but HEY we are getting close.

>> No.11891939

most "science" is just atheist anti-religion counter culture. it's full of retards who don't actually care about objective truth, but just use "science" as a shield to bash religious people and stroke their mind-dicks

>> No.11891984

Just because most science goes aagainst religious beliefs doesn't mean its anti religion counter culture if there is science like that it isn't most. Clearly you just got butthurt over evidence against your beliefs. Any science that seems to be bashing religion is simply due to overwhelming evidence against religion through time that is why many religions tried to shut up science in history especially Christian religion. And notice how slowly throughout time people became less religious and while doing so also gained a better quality of life and education? If it weren't for secularism you wouldn't be able to post that.

>> No.11892001


That's problably afro-psychology

And it's ruled as a major science in this clown world

>> No.11892010

Just because you don't like doesn't mean it is bs. A round earth would seem bs too without the idea of current day understanding of gravity. The earth seems flat and makes no sense to be round without gravity. Same for science that don't make sense. Just because quantum mechanics seems like bs doesn't mean you should treat it that way. If everyone did that we wouldn't be using such technology. Theory that goes against logic shouldn't just be ignored. If anything quantum mechanics is creative and out of the box.

>> No.11892024

Just because you don't like doesn't mean it is bs. A round earth would seem bs too without the idea of current day understanding of gravity. The earth seems flat and makes no sense to be round without gravity. Same for science that don't make sense. Just because quantum mechanics seems like bs doesn't mean you should treat it that way. If everyone did that we wouldn't be using such technology. Theory that goes like quantum mechanics shouldn't just be ignored because of perspective nor is there any problem with theory. Hell if it weren't for "bs" theories no one would be able to use the internet.

>> No.11892030

Einstein never believed in gnosis.

>> No.11892262

Suppose It's not.
Then it follows that the statement above is not real, which is a contradiction.
Therefore It is.

>> No.11892278

Based schitzo

>> No.11892332

I imagine this is mostly in fields like field biology where theres no incentive to replicate others experiments or medicine where there's a lot of money and things are moving very quickly

>> No.11892356

That's because 'scientific studies' are now being done by Indians, Pakis, Chinks, Niggers and other subhumans. They lie and cheat in almost every study.

>> No.11892430

so does the replication crisis actually affect things like physics and chemistry? Or is it just social "sciences" that have (unsurprisingly) turned out to be a load of bullshit, and they decided to lump the hard sciences in there too?
I've rarely had problems replicating chemical reactions from literature. Sometimes the yield isn't as good as reported, but that's it.

>> No.11892442

I think biochemistry is having a major issue as well primarily from the chinese

>> No.11892474

metaphysics is a meme
replication is a fallacy
corporate sponsored studies are always fact
we /posttruth/ now

>> No.11892527

>gravitational waves

>> No.11892535

Have been independently verified. Clear indirect evidence was found in a binary pulsar by Husle and Taylor, long before LIGO. This was confirmed in other systems. Then LIGO made the direct detection. This was independently confirmed by the Virgo detector in Italy.

>> No.11892538

It has long been the consensus that the only piece of information we have is “cogito”
Unfortunately we don’t even get to keep the “sum” since Descartes declined to prove the syllogism.
The best we have is cogito ergo cogito and that’s not exactly the solid foundation we’d like to build our intellectual edifices upon.
It’s why /sci/ hates philosophy. It’s the Diogenes to their Plato.

>> No.11892543

I blame IQ.
None of Richard Lynn's work has been peer reviewed.

>> No.11892652

biology,major replication crisis there,and yes it matters way more than meme physics

>> No.11892667


>> No.11892695

>non-replicatable reality

>> No.11892989

Science has become a meme.

>> No.11893029

is that for all biology though or just clinical/medicinal research?

>> No.11893156


>> No.11893179

science must be the dumbest religion there is

>> No.11894898

>the brainlet

>> No.11895140


Yeah? How are you going to reproduce the results found in a 100 billion particle collider?

In fact, in physics its very common to just use such expensive equipment, and such low tolerances, that you can't tell whether something is real or a measurement error. The whole field of astrophysics and radiophysics is just a meme.

>> No.11895217

You know why? Because they're making shit up to please their employer.

>> No.11895312

you ever heard that people at CERN only consider their results significant if it is 5sigma? That is a 99.999943% confidence. For comparison, most social sciences think their results mean anything if it's one sigma or about 68%.
Moreover, even though the collider is the same, the data analysis is done by multiple international collaborations. The chance that ALL of them missed some crucial detail is astronomically small.

>> No.11895352
File: 976 KB, 898x677, 1591522219595.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>hi science man what's the physical structure of quantum mechanics?
>it's a particle
>alright thanks for answering my ques...
>w..well on second thought it's actually a wave
>but you just said...
>I take that back it's actually strings
>wait what? Hold on bu...
>sorry did I say strings? It's actually fields!
>are you sure?
>It's actually multiple universes.

>> No.11895634

You'll see it show up in biology and biochem somewhat often due to how ridiculously touchy some systems are. Especially tactile lab knowledge that doesn't usually get reported

>> No.11895640


I've unironically lost my sense of smell and taste 4 days ago...it will never come back unironically

I've been going out to fine ass restaurants only to have the hell of not even knowing what a pasta tastes like again.

All I can feel is food texture & temps and can't taste FOR SHIT.


I too was one who thought it was a fake plandemic but this is the greatest form of reverse-misinformation to spread the virus faster I've ever seen.

>> No.11895650

remember how those faster than light neutrinos were also 5 sigma?
5 sigma doesnt mean what you think it does because you dont know stats.

>> No.11895673

Generally, the more publication hungry an institute is, the less 5 sigma matters. It's not reproducibility that's the problem in physics, it's that the field has too many people trying to compete for limited research grants. It's also to the point where your average Joe Schmoe can't just sit under an apple tree and come up with the laws of planetary motion, any results that actually expand physics will mostly be taken from large concerted efforts like CERN, where there's absolutely 0 false 5 sigma results. But in general, physics also has the resources to repeat the experiments, that's why neutrinos still don't violate special relativity, social sciences pretty much view repetition as pointless.

>> No.11895684

take your meds

>> No.11895886

>remember how those faster than light neutrinos were also 5 sigma?
Is 99.999943% confidence the same as 100% confidence?

>> No.11896015
File: 91 KB, 1200x1049, 1590445790267.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Reproducible in isolated conditions really should be the gold standard of any distributed practice or teaching.

Admittedly though the time it might take to become validated could be so long that multiple generations are required to resolve the initial finder or finding.

Pic related.

>> No.11896022

Is this even a "crisis"?

Isn't this just how the system is supposed to work?

>> No.11896032
File: 9 KB, 343x147, 1585751670672.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I rather like this question. Is a crisis just another word for cry for attention to people or persons that have no actual game plan?

Can it be demonstrated that this crisis is responsible for human suffering/misery/loss of life?

>> No.11896035

Psychology is a legitimate field of study, although it's been bastardized by jews. We do not yet have a complete standard map of the human brain. Psychiatry is a quack field. Parapsychology is a real science.

>> No.11897587

>not enough scientists work on replicating studies
>this means I will become a god if I throw myself into an active volcano

>> No.11897884

>I thought it was one global conspiracy but it was actually this other completely different global conspiracy.
Seriously anon.

>> No.11897967

>Physics does not have this problem you god damn hippies
Yeah I could meassure gravitational waves in my personal LIGO in my backyard.

>> No.11898194

Any journalist that ever publishes anything science-related may come over to my house to get the moneyshot on a real-life outback firing squad

Also fuck social sciences

>> No.11898223

>dark matter
>dark energy

>> No.11898271

Hello you are corona postive.

>> No.11898359
File: 59 KB, 558x614, 1570664055152.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>peer reviewing a theory

>> No.11898450

Nope, peer review is an echo chamber with a feedback loop intended to generate funding

>> No.11898517

Would it be possible that a large chunk of these studies that can't be replicated are stuff like tranny research?

>> No.11898989

Yes. Pretty much everything in psychology in general is bunk. But also biology and chemistry have a bunch of junk papers.

>> No.11899339

>implying all of these "unreproductable" papers aren't just madeup data

>> No.11899349

>primarily from the chinese
we all know why, and considering that several has some chinese either as member or leader doesn't help

>> No.11899351

Anon, please get yourself to a psychiatrist soon, you're not doing well. A good therapist can also help you work through the emotional stuff.

>> No.11899354

Yes, actually. You can verify the theory is based on sound knowledge. Your testing the method of creating the theory, not the theory itself.

>> No.11899377

>Pretty much everything in psychology in general is bunk
Not really. Just that to replicate conditions is very hard because doing a study of the toll of miners disease on family mental health in even two different parts of the USA or South Africa versus Kentucky is very different.

>> No.11900090

Being able to reproduce results is not a trivial thing you can hand wave away by saying "but it's hard!", unless you're in the field of psychology it seems. What's really happened is the bar for what constitutes data and correlation has been lowered to the point where you can publish subjective shit while retards defend you because "to replicate conditions is very hard".

>> No.11900282

Well blame academia for it. Journals explicitly state that they will not publish replications of studies, and universities dont want to fund it.
I also would not be surprised if plenty of math results on arxiv/submitted to journals are just false because the editors dont bother to check them.

>> No.11900806

>Yeah? How are you going to reproduce the results found in a 100 billion particle collider?
that's not what "can't be reproduced" means here. here we talk about repeating the experiment and not finding the result. also, the Higgs boson matters fuck all in the grand scheme of society, but quack psychological theories are used to make policy.

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