/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15661692]

>google science news
>Top result is something like "wowsciencesocool.com"
>top news article: "WOAH! DID YOU KNOW THAT [non peer reviewed exaggerated news from 2022] IS SO COOL! SUNOVABITCH!"
so... what are some scientific news websites that actually understands what is going on and actually present what is important to the audience rather than making a sensation over false news?
I want something like scholarpedia but more up-to-date.

[Anonymous No.15661704]

>>15661692
if you need to ask where to find articles, then you have never worked in a STEM field in your life (CompSci doesn't count brainlet)

[Anonymous No.15661713]

>>15661704
>then you have never worked in a STEM field in your life
this is correct, I literally got kicked out of STEM and made a career on Liberal Sciences and economics.
I still live an average life I would live with a STEM degree, lol.
btw ArXiv is not a news website.

[Anonymous No.15661719]

>>15661713
>Liberal Sciences
fuck me I am wasted.
Liberal arts*

[Anonymous No.15662429]

[Anonymous No.15662444]

>THE SCIENCE BEHIND IRON MAN'S THRUSTERS

[Anonymous No.15662456]

>>15662429
my new boss manages research labs across the US. Travels around with some esteemed titles or whatever bullshit. She wouldn't shut the fuck up about the new Little Mermaid movie and how WONDERFUL it was.

[Anonymous No.15662503]

>>15661692
>can I have a predigested form of the Science please?
No.
Read the papers the "The Science" tabloits and r/science are pushing.
And simply read more than the headline.
Actually you can skip the most bullshit and straight go to the methods and materials.
If you read it and you see, that this study does the following:
>use multiple statistical models
>uses multiple wierd standartisations
>is a meta study of multiple heterogenous studies
>does not have a controll experiment with all variables in controlled
>uses a lot of exclusion criteria
>uses only in silico or in vitro modeling
>uses big buzzword bingo to distract from their shitty not to reallife relating shitty models
>uses only lab parameters without showing any releation to lab parameters and clinical findings
They you know it is bunk.

Don't trust anyone.
Just read the paper and you will see.
It just follows the same patterns most of the times.
>state hypothesis in headline and introduction
>excludes a lot of data based on wierd criterias that are not transparent in the releationship to the thing they want to test
>applies a statistical model with a meme name for no reason
>uses over generalized "inculsion criteria" for one variable
>data perfectly fits the hypothesis
>wooah the science

Example:
https://archive.is/RGA6D
Heat-related mortality europe.

>collect data
>use quasi-Poisson regression (select parameters are specified but not explained why e.g. cross basis Lag functions for past variables), meta-regression
>declare any excess death as heat death when the death happened during a "heat anomaly"
Quote:"Heat-related mortality was calculated for the weeks with average temperatures above the location-specific minimum mortality temperature"
>declare any anomaly with the method:
Quote:"We defined the temperature anomalies as the difference between observed and baseline temperatures"
>use Monte Carlo simulations to until some data jumps out to "predict" mortality

[Anonymous No.15662518]

There's no money to be made in catering to the intelligent. They're never satisfied, and they spend cautiously. That's why you pander to retards.

[Anonymous No.15664311]

>>15662518
>That's why you pander to retards.
retards who fucking love science

[Anonymous No.15665157]

>>15662456
>She
thats all you had to say to convince us your boss is low iq

[Anonymous No.15665560]

>>15664311
>I've decided to redefine the rules of science to adapt to my personal infallible view of the world
>Eat dog food and lift.

[Anonymous No.15666771]

>>15661692

[Anonymous No.15666901]

>>15661692
Read raw papers.
Use google scholar or web of science or other search engines to narrow down things that interest you, then use scihub to get the raws.

[Anonymous No.15666997]

>>15661692
quanta is good

[Anonymous No.15667929]

>>15666901
Reading the replication crisis journal is a good way to find out what definitely isn't true. You can then figure out what is true via process of elimination. If it passes peer review then you know its fake and gay, start from there and eventually you'll have it all figured out

[Anonymous No.15668973]

>>15661692
sorry to break it to you but smart is a minority, so is curious, and their overlap is an even smaller one
introvert just find most minds a bit dull

[Anonymous No.15669932]

>>15666901
>read these articles published by ppl who fuck dogs
low iq take

[Anonymous No.15671277]

>>15665560
>projection

[Anonymous No.15672459]

>>15661692
>what are some scientific news websites that actually understands what is going on and actually present what is important to the audience rather than making a sensation over false news?
doesn't exist, the media is controlled by jews and they only want to lie and manipulate, if they started publishing media that was genuinely informative they would be committing suicide

[Anonymous No.15672686]

>>15661692
There aren't any and for your consumption, it's enough to read whatever "I fucking love science" trash and schizo bullshit you find here. You're not trying to make a living of this. You don't need to know any of this. You're here to have fun. And schizoscience is way more than the real thing.

[Anonymous No.15673666]

>>15661692
Isn't it amazing that in the whole massive world of scientific publishing both from the popular press and from the scientific vanity press there isn't a single reputable trustworthy publication that anyone can name? Its almost as if science is all just a bunch of fairy tales and lies designed to trick and manipulate the low IQ, weal willed atheists

[Anonymous No.15674925]

>>15673666
>noooooo!!
>muh soience is real!!!!

[Anonymous No.15676475]

>>15662456
Does she know Twum?

[Anonymous No.15678027]

>>15667929
thats my approach to scientific publishing too, its like betting against jim cramer

[Anonymous No.15678071]

i read skepticalraptor sometimes

[Anonymous No.15678115]

>>15673666
>>15674925
(you)
there you go

[Anonymous No.15678193]

>>15662429
>masculinity is not necessary
isn't knowing about science a masculine characteristic? old sci-fi tv shows and comic books portrayed scientist as manly heroic people, even the first iron man movie had a montage of tony stark building his suit, working with high voltages and showing his muscles, using his tools, same tools that people buy from a hardware store where men buy their stuff.
now sci-fi and comic book stem characters are portrayed as quirky beta faggots who get overshadowed by a narcissistic poc mary sue

also the people who keep consuming that shit dont know shit about science, people who liked science used to like sci-fi/comics because they were just good stories that takes a scientific concept into a interesting story so stem people can relate and have fun, now they use those fictional stories as their study material which is cringe

[Anonymous No.15679711]

>>15678115
thanks

[Anonymous No.15680032]

>>15667929
>the replication crisis journal
link?

[Anonymous No.15680803]

>>15680032

[Anonymous No.15681226]

>>15680803
Thank you

[Anonymous No.15682339]

>>15676475
If you're not part of the Twum inner circle then you might as well not even call yourself a scientist

[Anonymous No.15683976]

>>15661692
https://retractionwatch.com

[Anonymous No.15684298]

>>15683976
Best science news site on the internet

[Anonymous No.15684618]

>>15661692
Francis Villatoro

[Anonymous No.15685746]

>>15662429
they don't think they be like that but they do

[Anonymous No.15686757]

>>15684298
Only science news site on the internet, the rest of them are a bunch of IFLS propagandists

[Anonymous No.15688717]

>>15686757
iflscience.com

[Anonymous No.15690291]

>>15661692
Nobody is going to tell you the truth for free anymore, information thats given out for free is only done so in order to manipulate. Back in the old days when people were religious they avoided misleading people and telling lies because of their religious convictions against those practices, but those days have long since passed, we now live in a world of satanic atheism.

[Anonymous No.15690297]

>>15662503
You forgot
>Zhang et al.

[Anonymous No.15691853]

>>15688717
omg i can't believe thats a real website

[Anonymous No.15692907]

>>15680803
That was a satire magazine back in the 20th century, but now its all come true. Thats just the way things go in clown world

[Anonymous No.15694199]

>>15692907
thats why they call it clown work