🇳🇱
@yaksha You do realize you are on a **STEM** instance? You literally need to be a professional scientist (or student) to have an account on this server... So either you arent a scientist or you think you profession is a scam?
Lol. Firstly, only 1 out of the 4 letters in STEM stands for science. Secondly, if you want to excommunicate people for heterodox views you are not doing science, you are doing ritualistic cult behavior.
Frankly, most science is a scam. Entire fields in replication crises, lunatic math illiterates engaging in ritualistic numerology they claim is "statistics", artificial "peer review" gatekeeping and a fully gleichgeschaltete complex of scientists.
Ahh Science is a scam, the battle cry of the moron.
When the day comes I meet one person who actually understands a scientific subject that is well established and makes that claim maybe ill reconsider. But its usually people spewing complete nonsense that is trivially debunked who keep saying that.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @yaksha
I was refering to Servant who said it was a scam.
A scientists invents a drug that is suppose to cure cancer.. if your wrong then "the product is subpar" (it wont cure cancer).. it doesnt require someone to replicate what you did per se to find this out. It only requires people to use the product you created as a scientist (the cure for cancer) before people find out its subpar... its not that different from engineering. Science produces things that are reusable, either by general consumers, or by other scientists when doing further research. When it gets used the quality of the research/conclusions show though. Peer review speeds that up by reviewing the "product" sooner, much like reviewers of engineering products.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @yaksha
I didn't. I said that a significant part of it are scams. Which (joke intended) is actually mainstream science, just look at the replication rates in psychology, medicine, ETD.
>It only requires people to use the product you created as a scientist
This is delusional. Say what you want about the FDA, but there is a good reason people don't use customer reviews as a basis for medical effectiveness...
>Peer review speeds that up by reviewing the "product" sooner, much like reviewers of engineering products.
I mean, that isn't even what peer review *claims* to be. Much less what it has the possibility to be...
The replication crisis is largely limited to psychology. It also makes sense as psychology is a very hard subject to control the variables in and thus perform the same study twice. Especially when social constructs change rapidly over the course of years.
Science isnt perfect as I said, but it accomplishes a hell of a lot more ground breaking things than people who reject science. Those people wind up muttering nonsensical conspiracies for the most part.. Even engineers tend to have a foundation in science, at least the good ones.
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
I am well informed on it. Notice the word "largely", are you aware of what that word means and how it is distinctly different from "only"?
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
If you have no more than 5 minutes skim the Wikipedia article.
The issue isn't even that there is a certain amount of false statements, but that falsity propagates itself.
I have this argument with random plebs at least once a month. I've "skimmed" through the wikipedia article more times than I can count. Not to mention actual scholarly sources on the topic. Its not a new topic.
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
And honestly, I don't think "low replication" is inherently bad, the issue arises when you have low replication, in combination with low replication attempts.
I never once claimed the issue didnt exist. In fact I had mentioned there are issues to be addressed in some areas of science before you even brought it up (and the replication crisis in psychology was what i was thinking of when I said it).
Dont put words in my mouth.
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
But the replication crises are everywhere, maybe physics or chemistry are largely immune, but medicine certainly suffers from it as well. To me it as an issue of scientists (but also non-scientists) overvaluing the worth of scientific output to an enormous, unprecedented degree.
No. I hate to cite Wikipedia, but please just gave a glance at their article on the subject if you are THIS uninformed.