Q
QI 541
Guest
kiwifarms.net
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
Science is about discovering the truth. Not everyone is correct the first time. It was thought the universe was static and unchanging. That was proven wrong.
The most important thing about science is humility. The highest honor granted to any scientific finding is a "theory". Meaning it can always be proven wrong, no matter what. Even things that are clearly true like Atomic theory or Cell theory are still referred to as theories.
Even if something is incorrect, someone will prove it wrong. That is science.
The most important thing about science is humility. The highest honor granted to any scientific finding is a "theory". Meaning it can always be proven wrong, no matter what. Even things that are clearly true like Atomic theory or Cell theory are still referred to as theories.
Even if something is incorrect, someone will prove it wrong. That is science.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2015
If someone is talking of "science" and not of "sciences", you know they are bullshitting.
The scientific method you learned in high school? No one really use that.
Each branch have it's own methodology, it's limits, it's strenghts, it's bias.
The scientific method you learned in high school? No one really use that.
Each branch have it's own methodology, it's limits, it's strenghts, it's bias.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2013
And academia is about job security and prestige ("earning" tenure by, among other things, getting published), hence why most academic journals are just professors jerking each other off. Which I think is what raymond is getting at with these articles.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
Getting published isn't as important as citations.
Getting citations in scientific journals is seen as a much better indicator of how good a scientist you are. Even famous scientists like Lawrence Krauss have comparatively average amounts of citations compared to other scientists.
Being a scientist isn't just about "job security". Prestige ties into it but you don't get prestige as a scientist the way most people do. You do it by conducting experiments and discovering things, which is what you should be judged upon when you go into that as a career option.
There are plenty of much more mundane jobs scientists can do that guarantee job security and don't require constantly conducting experiments, filling out forms and paying regularly for scientific journals. Some go into corporate positions and others just teach.
If I wanted a well paying job that guaranteed job security I wouldn't go into very serious debt and study for a decade to get a Ph.D just so I could do mentally taxing experiments and regularly write for scientific journals. Not every scientist who gets a ph.d even gets a job above minimum wage.
Red_Rager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
Truth should always be able stand against scrutiny, so the process is working. If something is wrong then it gets called out as bullshit and the scientists dig in again. To be fair the media does sensationalize when they report studies as they do with everything else they report.
Q
QI 541
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Theories and ideas can be proven wrong, but experiments should always return the same results if done correctly, with all factors identical.
Admittedly, in the case of social science, the same culture could change enough over time to return different results later.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
Social science it's a bit of a different story. Since you're constantly working with hypotheticals and there's always factors that can completely change your results. It's why it's considered a "softer" science compared to something like chemistry. Where you know for sure putting sodium next to water will cause it to explode every time and can conclusively test it over and over.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
I do have to say a lot of scientific papers are usually funded for the "I told you so" aspect, unless independently studied.
A lot of information is muted or changed for the betterment of a company, you can also skew your opinions on science with different facts that might be contradictory.
The cholesterol in eggs have a strange relationship about if its good or not, while some people say having eggs is good for you, some say having too much eggs in your diet is unhealthy. Apparently the belief that eggs are healthy is funded by the US Egg producers funding their own research to claim that eggs are good for you which came back with dubious results, as the papers were heavily baised.
I can't really say which one is true, you will have to choose for yourself.
tldr; it is up to you to believe in whatever you want.
A lot of information is muted or changed for the betterment of a company, you can also skew your opinions on science with different facts that might be contradictory.
The cholesterol in eggs have a strange relationship about if its good or not, while some people say having eggs is good for you, some say having too much eggs in your diet is unhealthy. Apparently the belief that eggs are healthy is funded by the US Egg producers funding their own research to claim that eggs are good for you which came back with dubious results, as the papers were heavily baised.
I can't really say which one is true, you will have to choose for yourself.
tldr; it is up to you to believe in whatever you want.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
The whole basis of modern science is falsifiability. Laboratory conditions, methodological shortcomings, variability, all kinds of factors result in studies that when repeated yield different results. Science is a painstaking process of doing tests, analyzing the data, redoing the tests, analyzing the data and making adjustments, over and over and over again until conclusions can be assessed as reliably indicative of anything coming close to certainty. The payoff is that when that does eventually happen, we can use the discovery with a fairly high degree of confidence.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I thought you meant actual science when I opened this thread. Psychology and most of medicine aren't real science.
I bet if you did a similar study involving theoretical physics, you wouldn't get the same voodoo results.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
The only science worth studying is psychohistory. A fundamental understanding of social sciences and the ability to make predictions about how a society will change and react to said changes is the only thing that will combat the collapse of our galactic empire and reduce the length of the successive dark age from 10,000 years down to only 1,000.
Long live Hari Seldon. Forward the Foundation!
Long live Hari Seldon. Forward the Foundation!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
Oh man, if modern psychology studies are upsetting you, you're going to be really upset when you learn about Freud.
Psychology is never going to work like physics. There are so many factors we probably don't even know about yet. It's a crazy field of study but one that we need more funding to in my opinion.
Psychology is never going to work like physics. There are so many factors we probably don't even know about yet. It's a crazy field of study but one that we need more funding to in my opinion.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2014
If it's not repeatable, it's not science. Period.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
How much of the sciences is wrong? Ask me in 100 years. Then ask me again 100 years after that.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
From the first article he posted:
Plus, are you seriously suggesting that theoretical physics is less susceptible to voodoo?
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2015
This is so turning in a my field is better than yours discussion.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
Exactly that's why I'm not vaccinating my child and forbidding my wife from taking insulin. Modern medicine isn't real science, more like Jew mind control methods.