"Science" is failing as an institution

>Sorry if im retarded, but if they cant be replicated, then why are they published/known about at all?
So that MSM can publish articles and bully humanity into subjugation

Attached: kay.png (1328x1310, 482K)

In fact QBism brings back each one of us into the picture. It is not strange this approach to Quantum mechanics is not welcomed.

Attached: 68717061-84DE-4C2F-AC77-2EA5919010A9.png (1665x1181, 1.84M)

Well i know that but why are they being published if they cant be verified? Or is it just a simple people are bought and whatever fits the narrative

> Or is it just a simple people are bought and whatever fits the narrative
Exactly. Why do you think they use loaded words like Climate "Denier" or "truther" or all this emotionally manipulative language. It's all for control.

>THE MORE YOU UNRAVEL THE LIES THE MORE YOU BEGIN TO REALIZE YOUR SENSES CAN BE TRUSTED
The earth is flat

Social science is civic theological studies

What is included in 'science'? The article was talking about psychology at one point.
I feel like this is posted a lot here to push some sort of anti science stance, "dont listen to that study on [insert thing I disagree with], most science is bullshit"

Clearly not if you look to a mountain from afar.

>I feel like this is posted a lot here to push some sort of anti science stance, "dont listen to that study on [insert thing I disagree with], most science is bullshit"
Science without skepticism is dogma

Study? Unless you actually build the device I consider it bullshit

>Sorry if im retarded, but if they cant be replicated, then why are they published/known about at all?
Scientist here, it's a system thing.
Basically you are judged on the AMOUNT of shit you publish, not the QUALITY of it.
The only QUALITY metric is getting into a supposedly better journal, but it does not mean a flawed study can't get through, only that the flaws are more subtle.
In the old times reviewers would check shit carefully, but now they don't since there's too much work and they are not paid
Worse yet, there's enough wrong shit out there that you can quote it and prove your point
Actual example
> be me
> get a paper to review
> run the numbers
> this shit must be wrong
> check carefully
> the authors copy the method from another paper and THAT paper is wrong
> problem is THAT paper is from a much better journal
> so I am effectively arguing that the other author and his reviewers are all wrong
> which means I'm literally questioning the system and accusing it of letting through a faulty paper

corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/

As always, Jimmy presents the issue with intelligence, evidence and thought provoking ideas.

fractal fuckups
science war now

Iraq war victims allege pharmaceutical companies' bribery led to U.S. troop deaths

usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/17/iraq-war-victims-allege-pharmaceutical-companies-bribery-led-u-s-troop-deaths/771290001/

Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry?

Sergio Sismondo

PLOS

Published: September 25, 2007
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040286

journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040286

This is literally the gpa fallacy... foreign students with perfect gpa averages are worthless robots. Science created its own problem... stfu science

Do you mean that science is just one big scam to get government funding? Wow.

the jew jews and now you know. Trust nothing after 1968.

Actually theres a scientific term for that.
"A BIG FAT LIE"
There science

"science" these days is whatever the mainstream media calls science.

If I had the money or clout, I would create a research firm that did nothing but replicate studies to check results.

Attached: aaronswartz.png (1313x7511, 1.34M)

>scientist
New word for high priests; too bad too- because science can be used for good or bad.

>for-profit medical "science" yields a puzzling degree of non-repeatable findings

gee, how unexecpted

Attached: 1400534891457.png (250x250, 136K)

The way it's supposed to work is that a single study gets published if a peer review committee looks at the methodologies and determines them to be sound, and if they are the paper gets published. A single study isnt proof of anything, it needs to be replicated by several different studies before its supposed to be considered even a little legit.

There are a zillion problems with the peer review process. I'm a psychologist so I'm not a real scientist but I superficially operate under the same principles, so I pay close attention to the APA. The APA essentially believes that "science" is a democratic process. The most exemplary case is of declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness - the definition of a mental illness hasnt changed in a long time, homosexuality fits the criteria, but it.was arbitrarily given exception back in the early 70s because of a vote.

I imagine the hard sciences are suffering from the same bullshit since they are being taken over by sjw's too. Science is less a method now, and more of a religious tenet. The enlightenment is genesis, climate change is revelation, and whiteness is original sin.

At the very least, it's easy to get stuck up your own ass in hypotheticals and forget that your theoretical conceptions need to work in the real world for them to be of any real value.

In a nutshell.

Ok "scientist" you can just say what you do instead of using the biggest fucking catch all

I do know thats for persons what matters is how often you get a study published but i thought the publications sole job was to verify the study more or less. Otherwise, what do they do?

Attached: 1541608238943m.jpg (666x1024, 197K)

FDA medical adviser: 'Congress is owned by pharma'

finance.yahoo.com/news/congress-big-pharma-money-123757664.html

Pharmacy Says They Deliver ALZHEIMER’S Medications To Members Of Congress

dailywire.com/news/22170/pharmacy-says-they-deliver-alzheimers-medications-ryan-saavedra

That's because most studies out there are not actual science but psychology or sociology, which are bullshit. I can assure you that most studies published by physicists, chemists and engineers can be replicated.

Based and Teslapilled

kinda retarded but not completely

it's do to chinese "research" which can never be replicated because it's all fabricated junk.

this is very true by the way
chinese are known to fabricate chemistry papers out of thin air, with peer reviews and everything, which just don't work at all when you try and follow their instructions

Oy vey you must obey science GOYIM

Well
Here is another redpill
Most of scientific publishing goes through two companies
Elsevier and Springer-Verlag
But you cannot read this shit unless you pay $25 per article or you are a university with a subscription (which costs a lot)
So
We write for free
We review for free
Elsevier publishes and charges money for reading
Back in the day Elsevier would do typesetting printing and shit, but now they just put a PDF on their server
A couple of years ago this caused enough uproar so EU mandated "open access" publishing
So now I have to pay Elsevier $1K so you can read my PDF for free
And that $1K will come from your taxes because that's what's funding me

> The name Elsevier doesn’t mean anything in Dutch or Flemish. That points to foreign roots, and it may find its origin in the sephardic jewish community in North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, driven North by successive pogroms. The fact that they were printers and publishers gives us some clues. ‘Hal Safir’ (הל ספר) in old Hebrew apparently means ‘the book’. That makes the name’s etymology credible. From the hebrew ‘Hal Safir’ to the more Arabic sounding ‘El Safir’ of North Africa, to ‘Elsevier’ in Western Europe, is a believable etymological sequence. And aren’t the Jews known as the “people of the book’?

He is saying you need something else other than just straight calculations or you start just making up hypothetical story problems instead of real science. You need something concrete beyond just numbers

That’s why when we use tools like this we try to replicate our own work over and over again. We can usually do that better but this stuff can be very fuzzy, yes

That's why libgen exists. Not to download your shitty textbooks for university but to actually access a shitton of research papers for free.

Not necessarily. Your falling into the mindset of "a scientist said it so it must be true". Always assume that it cant be replicated, and attempt to do so yourself. That's how science is supposed to work. A unique study is supposed to be a signpost urging more people to explore your idea and attempt to disprove it. Once it's been replicated 5+ times you can actually say you might be onto something.

Not to trigger the smoothbrains too much, but the only reason vaccines are thought to cause autism is one study from the UK in the mid 90s that's never been replicated. That may possibly be due to politics causing review committees to suppress this info, but with youtube and the chans and social media the peer review process can be subverted but as far as I know no one has bothered to do this, and there is not a boy of published work supporting this assertion. Ergo you're fucking stupid if you still believe it 25 years after the fact.

those straight calculations would work if you actually considered all possible data and eventualities : plenty of science can't be resolved with actual experiments
but ye, I can see what he meant

it's like that old joke where a farmer meets with several scientists to get his chickens to lay more eggs, the other examples are all straightforward but they can't help him, finally the physicist is like
> we have a solution that works on spherical chickens in a vacuum

They started teaching pic related in the late 1800s and it took over schools completely mid 1900s so it's no wonder why science has degraded. Science has been substituted with imagination.

Attached: public school.jpg (1272x700, 61K)

>Not necessarily
Most of the papers published in hard science can actually be reproduced, it has nothing to do with a mindset, it has to do with the science being actually right. A lot of the sociology, psychology and environmental crap out there is not actually science. This is why it cannot be reproduced. If it was a real science, like physics, chemistry, it is either reproducible or isn't. If it isn't, it almost never gets to the publication stage, and those few who do will usually be found out pretty quickly. It's because you can actually test them. Prediction about the environment, mind or society cannot be tested accurately. This leaves a lot of room for error, something that isn't the case for actual hard sciences.

Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our mother earth.
Spirit moves through all things.

re: that pic:
left-liberal Jews already destroyed the future military capability of USA through mass non-White immigration.
Either the military budget will be sacrificed to socialist and racial redistribution programs, or the USA will go down in a civil war or break up through secession.

You actually explained perfectly why the Tesla quote is spot on. When you run a brain simulation, you only factor in the variables that you can conceive of. Your math is essentially proving a straw man until it can be proven in the real world.

Lol ok faggot, trust the plan. Believe in Science. Fucking Love Science! The priests...er...scientists would never be lazy fucks trying to satisfy the weird Jeffrey Epstein motherfucker that cut their check

Sounds like a credibility problem or a business decision...

Its hilarious jews think they can rule over chinks.

I do solid state physics (think semiconductors)

> i thought the publications sole job was to verify the study more or less.
Correct the idea is to get your shit out there so people can use it
BUT
At some point bean counters realized that publishing output should be treated as a metric of quality
So now you write a grant application and you say that you will put two papers into Journal of Thin Solid Films, well, the you HAVE TO put two papers into Journal of Thin Solid Films or you are fucked
What the quality is nobody cares
Which leads to another problem:
If you God-forbid get a negative result (i.e. this shit does not work) then you have zero incentive to disclose it
This leads to people having to reinvent the wheel

Libgen was literally created by a chick in Kazakhstan who could not afford access to Elsevier
But you kind of miss the point
I still have to pay (((Elsevier))) from your taxes, even if the paper gets leaked to libgen and you can read it there

Hello lads. I recently completed a M.S. in biomedical engineering. I did 3 years of undergraduate research and then 1.5 years of graduate research in a stem cell/regenerative medicine/tissue engineering lab. I also had friends in other labs and we talked often about our research and whatnot.

Long story short, at LEAST half of all the research that is published is fake as shit. We had previous, published studies from OUR OWN LAB that we couldn't replicate to continue the research. I've known more than three M.S. or Ph.D students to massage or fake their data because of reasons like "I just need to fucking graduate and this shit isn't working," "I need results from this study to apply for my next grant," and the like.

I can answer some questions if you have any, but science, medicine, pharma, etc., in the USA, China, and India are FAKE! FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE AS FUCK!

P.S. I also faked some of my data for my master's thesis because I needed to graduate. Fuck it.

stupid quote.
math is all there is.
everything is Bayesian, mass data systems will discover rules that work and can be verified. Already being done with genetics.
what can't be replicated are low-N studies published under pressure to show results.

Am I the only one who finds this more relaxing than the other map? It looks better with the base on the bottom and the tips on the top

Yet, 75% of you believe in evolution.
Modern "science" is broken.
Bad metaphysics equals bad science.
Protestant Reformation destroyed Scholasticism and broke "science".
We are left doing what the ancients did, making guesses and ignoring the counter data (dark matter, red shift, quantum, etc).

Jeez guys, I knew it was had, but this is so much worse than I thought. So potentially anything in a scientific medium is fake or shit science?

Looks pretty organic.

my results are reproducible. my constructs are available on addgene and my methods are clearly outlined. if you deviate from those published methods in any manner, you may not get exactly the same results. but of course, because you deviated due to whatever reason, you didn't actually do the same experiments as me. some people deviate from published protocols just because they have to be special and creative.

>Most of the papers published in hard science can actually be reproduced
No they can't, that's the problem
People repeat published experiments and get null results
Because there is such pressure to publish people put out faulty results just because they fit the theory
Instead of doing things correctly

Also
There are certain (((theories))) you are not allowed to question
Relativity is a good example
If you look at speed of light measurements you can see that the spread in results is bigger than experimental error
Taken at face value it means the speed of light is VARIABLE
So definition of a meter was changed to depend on the speed of light
> muh E=mc^2
So every experiment which attempts to prove that speed of light is variable is metrologically incorrect by definition

Medicine, the most highly funded of all the sciences, is corrupt??? Imagine my shock

Yeah and I'm sure you didn't cherrypick your IF, PCR, WB, flow, histology, rna seq, just like everybody else does. You need those publications and grant money just as much as every other researcher.

>My results can't be reproduced because you didn't follow my protocol exactly
sounds like plausible deniability to me.

stop being a retard. Chemistry and Physics are rigorous disciplines with enormous bodies of provable work constantly replicated by students and research.

These studies are true sciences because the measurement process is fundamental and well understood.

The reason the rest of the sciences are vulnerable to the problems you describe are due to poorly defined and understood measurement.

when the measurement is poorly constructed the data has variability of interpretation and errors accumulate.

The real problem is that social scientists pretend thier measurements are as solid as physics or chemistry.

>this is so much worse than I thought
It really is much worse than you think.

>So potentially anything in a scientific medium is fake or shit science?
I can't speak for much outside of medical/biological science but yes if I had to bet money I would bet on "at least half of everything published is fake"

>Lol ok faggot, trust the plan. Believe in Science. Fucking Love Science! The priests...er...scientists would never be lazy fucks trying to satisfy the weird Jeffrey Epstein motherfucker that cut their check
Take your meds. I've actually been the co-author of 3 published papers and I know what I am talking about. The way hard science publications are reviewed is way different from how other papers in fields such as psychology are. If we've published something that is complete horseshit, it will get debunked very quickly, because unlike other fields, in science, every thing is built upon prior knowledge and discoveries. If the foundation is bad, the whole thing collapses. This is not the case in other fields. But go ahead, you were rambling something about epstein and priests.

Like embryology being considered evidence for evolution yet Haeckel's drawings which were proven fraud in the late 1800s and recently in the 1990s are still used as the evidence in text books today.

And quit blaming protestants for this it was a Jesuit that started that Big Bang nonsense.

I brought up the Great Awakening earlier.
I think what you're referring to here is what that is supposed to be countering. For me, Q has never been about the issues, per se, and certainly not about Q. It's about fighting this paradigm that's destroying us.
Screw determinism. Game theory has me convinced.
>mechanical processes with no agency...
No more.

Not the point. You cant possibly account for every variable and confounding factor using mathematics alone, you have to successfully apply your idea in the real world. Mathematical results are only as useful as the data you plug into your equations

like i said, any deviation has therefore resulted in a different experiment. if you get your antibodies from a different company, there's no reason expect the exact same results.

I think it makes us look important :^)

.....so I don't like it. Stay away, forget about nz. Do not come to nz. We are full

>any deviation has therefore resulted in a different experiment. if you get your antibodies from a different company, there's no reason expect the exact same results.
your results are fake just admit it, nigger, we're all anons here.

lol most papers in physics don't publish exact protocol because if they did then someone with more funding/resources would rebuild the same experiment and then make progress faster than them, destorying their funding source.

As much as people say science is collaborative, it also isn't

ive never faked any results. i work very hard to do good research.
>i have low integrity, therefore everyone has low integrity

>most papers in physics don't publish exact protocol because if they did then someone with more funding/resources would rebuild the same experiment and then make progress faster than them, destorying their funding source.
Same goes for biomedical science. My and others' PI's have told us to leave out critical details to prevent other, better-funded labs from outpacing us.

whatever you say, mate. I don't believe you.

Big Bang was centuries after the beginning of the Enlightenment.
Leave Prot vs Cath out of it if it makes you more comfortable. When we discarded Aristotilian metaphysics and started uaing Kantian "metaphysics" everything became a downhill slope from there.
Some discoveries were made, some inventions, but as a whole the process started to brake down and now is totally and foundationally broken.
It is all either social engineering or navel gazing now.

>if you publish bullshit it will get debunked quickly
Yeah if anyone gives enough of a shit to double check your work. That what this whole thread is about.

Can you give me another example you've found that is complete bullshit? I mean I knew some science was bullshit, but the amount of it being half of everything published is staggering

Phil Jones (CRU) in email to skeptic: Why should I supply you with the data and methods if all you're going to do it try to poke holes in it?

If only you knew how bad things really are
t. sceintist

He is not completely wrong. The hard sciences have a much lower failure to replicate percentage than the "social sciences" and medical fields.

mathematics are projected onto reality by human beings. they are pure abstraction. all boundaries between objects are arbitrarily put there by human subjectivity. sure we can discover patterns through projecting our systems onto reality, but the results of this are nothing more than our subjective systems of compartmentalization. there is no such tangible thing as a "four" or a "five" in the universe. there is only humans deciding that within a subjectively defined area there are four or five subjectively defined objects with subjective boundaries. it is a mistake to think that mathematics are in any way inherent to reality, a common result of STEM syndrome. there is in fact very little that can be said with certainty about your phenomenological experience, past the fact of its existence. even noumena are purely hypothetical. imagining that there is anything outside of the boundaries of your immediate perception is nothing but that, imagining.

the ones that can't be replicated are most likely research papers/studies from Chinese scientist.

climate change is a fact bigot

>double check years of work
simply not possible if you want to do any work of your own.

there are lots of bad papers in highly respected journals and there are also some very good papers in lower ranking journals. part of your job as a scientist is to think critically about the type of experiment presented, the evidence, and the conclusions.

science isn't as cut and dry as you want. it never will be. there will never be an experiment that screams, "this is the answer." there will always be uncertainty.

>but if they cant be replicated, then why are they published/known about at all?
Pay-for-Play

Attached: bribery.jpg (1000x667, 109K)

the article does a piss poor job explaining exactly why research cant be reproduced. Cant speak for drug field specificially but i know most economic literaure cant be reproduced because
1. writers used some non-standard program to get their results which the person reproducing the study is not well versed in
2. data they use is not publicly available
3. they made their own program to do some shit
BBC article should better address which of the 2/3 of unreproducable studies are actually due to bad research and not just mismatch in skills and difficulty in reproducing them.

Mathematics is just glorified bean counting, its a useful tool but bean counting nonetheless, the main problem it has is quantifying whats pretty much is unquantifiable (like fields for example), thats why quantum physics is mostly just scientist circlejerking.

Never trust the result unless you have personally done the testing yourself.
With medicine, if you feel like taking it, then take it. Just understand it is always a risk. Sometimes the scientist wasnt lying, sometimes he was. Its vegas odds baby

>at least it's diverse
Has very little to do with it. It's about the structural factors of having to put out so many papers to stay in businesses, getting the outputs, being a paper mill. The whining pro/contra diversity from liberals and rubes like you only serves to obscure the true problem: capitalist domination of the sciences.

Big Bang never happened. Universe has existed since time immemorial.

>but the amount of it being half of everything published is staggering
I'm only speaking of biomedical science. I don't know about physics, chemistry, etc.

>Can you give me another example you've found that is complete bullshit?
There are cells-X from amniotic fluid that have marker CD-Y which a previous paper from our lab has published can be sorted and differentiated into cells-Z with some % efficiency. We wanted to continue this research but the researcher has since moved labs. We have spent 3 years off-and-on trying to replicate this and it absolutely doesn't fucking work. Best part: the researcher has been ignoring our e-mails asking about this study.

This shit happens over and over and over. Some lab publishes about some shit you can do to increase differentiation efficiency, cell maturity, gene expression, whatever whatever whatever. We and/or other people in other labs that I know try to replicate it because it will help their experiments, and it doesn't fucking work.

It's all garbage and trash and it's the competition for grant money that fuels this fire of fake science.

God I miss that show, he's such a deranged shill now.