all 30 comments

[–]yayblueberries 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

I went to college for the sciences and have worked in the sciences. We're trained to view research as overall trustworthy and a great foundation upon which to build new studies (but to also keep an eye out for bias and studies bought for by companies with an MO). To watch all of that blow up this year is horrifying. I might not even stay in the field after all, after losing my job in it. If everything is lies I might as well go make more money doing something else.

[–][deleted]  (9 children)


    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

    What is the difference between the Big Bang and creation

    Doesn't the big bang theory imply our existence is some kind of fluke accident?

    [–][deleted]  (6 children)


      [–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      The big bang theory was actually created by a Catholic because the church in Rome wanted a creation point. Einstein originally imagined an infinitely existing universe, they talked him round.

      [–]Horrux 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      But Einstein was a subhuman who never discovered anything at all. All he did was copy other people's work and take credit for it, never once mentioning the original authors.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Lol, nice Asimov reference.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      His books from I Robot to the end of the foundation series is ONE STORY.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Really? I never knew this... but it makes sense...

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I read them twice and there are too many themes running through out them all. I see it as one continuation of the same world to galactic civ.

      [–]Froglich 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The big bang is fake.

      Easily disprovable, but supported by occult science/scientist.

      The cosmic microwave radiation was EM noise from the radio telescope's proximity of the ocean.

      [–]C3P0 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

      We all knew pseudo-science studies were just a farce anyways. p-hacking, lack of diversity, willful ignorance of controlling for variables, etc. all just so Mr. Shamash could acquire his Ph.D.

      I just stick to real science nowadays.

      [–][deleted]  (5 children)


        [–]Popper 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

        can't be african studies or feminist studies

        [–]C3P0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Physics, chemistry, biology, botany, etc.

        Not: psychology, pharmaceuticals, or like Popper said, gender studies.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)


          [–]C3P0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Whether or not something is a science is an opinion, similar to calling mathematics or computer programming an art. Students can even major in "food science."

          [–]FreeJulianAssange 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          You misread the entire thing imo C3PO. The subject here is the so called hard sciences, specifically medicine.

          The quote is saying they aren't really much better than BS pseudo science.

          It is the problem called the crisis of reproducibility.

          [–]C3P0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Medicine isn't science generally. Doctors admit to mostly just guessing what is wrong with people--that is why they say, "get a second opinion." Opinions are not science.

          [–]bald-janitor 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Yeah, setting up OF is easy nowdays

          [–]missdaisycan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          As a fellow scientist, this pains me to read you may leave the profession, though I understand your position. Civilization's tragedy that liars have purposely overtaken science.

          [–]magnora7 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

          I did medical scientific research for 12 years. I have seen how the sausage is made. It's not pretty.

          Some scientists are truly rational and careful people, and I greatly respect them. And others are just trying to make quotas and get enough grants, and could care less about the actual science. And in academia, these two types of scientists are mixed all together and there's no mechanism to separate them. A lot of people are just doing research because it's their job and it's what they chose in college, and they're just trying to do the bare minimum to get through the day. These people still publish research.

          There is an incredible amount of bad research that has been published. And there's very little incentive or push towards reproducibility. Reproducibility is the core of the scientific method, yet in modern academia is basically treated as an afterthought. There is no funding for reproducing studies. No one really wants to publish a study that merely reproduces another study. So people don't reproduce things. And that's one way modern academic science has divorced itself from the scientific method. Seeing this clearly happening in practice on a regular basis honestly changed my worldview.

          [–]noice 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I saw similar things and it affected me deeply (changed my worldview) as well.

          [–]5Nco2VME7FpWVbuS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

          Sounds like reproducing studies from bad scientists and overturning their results is a great way to get recognized though.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          Being recognized doesn't always pan out well. You can either become a figure of truth, one to be praised and remembered... or a figure to ridicule and destroy because you shake the fucking boat way too much.

          [–]noice 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Given how political academia is, it'll likely turn out more like the latter

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          It's already gone that way, sorry to tell ya. If they can't control you in some way, and you get a following or a good time in the limelight to talk, they take ya out.

          [–]SierraKiloBravo 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          Kinda related, I listened to a great podcast today on Michael Shermer's Science Salon. The episode was called Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth.

          I thoroughly enjoyed it.

          Here is the episode description:

          Science is how we understand the world. Yet failures in peer review and mistakes in statistics have rendered a shocking number of scientific studies useless - or, worse, badly misleading. Such errors have distorted our knowledge in fields as wide-ranging as medicine, physics, nutrition, education, genetics, economics, and the search for extraterrestrial life. As Science Fictions makes clear, the current system of research funding and publication not only fails to safeguard us from blunders but actively encourages bad science - with sometimes deadly consequences. Yet Science Fictions is far from a counsel of despair. Rather, it’s a defense of the scientific method against the pressures and perverse incentives that lead scientists to bend the rules. By illustrating the many ways that scientists go wrong, Ritchie gives us the knowledge we need to spot dubious research and points the way to reforms that could make science trustworthy once again.

          Shermer and Ritchie also discuss:

          • Why we need to get science right because science deniers will pounce on such fraud, bias, negligence, and hype in science,
          • Daryl Bem’s ESP research and what was wrong with it,
          • “Psychological priming” and the problem of replication,
          • Sleep research and the problems in Matthew Walker’s book Why We Sleep,
          • Amy Cuddy and the problem with “Power Posture” research,
          • Andrew Wakefield and the biggest fraud in the history of science linking vaccines & autism,
          • Diet and nutrition research and the complication of linking saturated fats, unsaturated fats, cholesterol, and heart disease,
          • Phil Zimbardo‘s Stanford Prison Experiment,
          • Samuel Morton’s skulls showing racial differences in head size, Steve Gould’s critique, the critique of Gould, and the critique of the critics of Gould,
          • Self-plagiarism,
          • P values / p hacking
          • The Schizophrenia/amaloid cascade hypothesis and why it has been hard to prove,
          • The file-drawer problem,
          • How to detect fraud, and
          • Terror Management Theory and why it is almost certainly wrong.

          Stuart Ritchie is a lecturer in the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King’s College London. His main research focus is human intelligence: how it relates to the brain, how much it’s affected by genetics, and how much it can be improved by factors such as education. He is a noted supporter of the Open Science movement, and has worked on tools to reform scientific practice and help scientists become more transparent when reporting their results.

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Lol, Michael Shermer

          [–]Horrux 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Almost all science is actually politics with a tiny bit of science dabbed on top to make it look, smell and taste like science. I mean, there may be SOME actual science out there, but it's probably published in "unstrustworthy" journals... ;-)

          [–]0rco 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          The problem with science is that its not very scientific. Has anyone heard if rational science?

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          not me

          [–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Just remember, this is what Nietzsche said would dethrone God. I bet the fundamentalists are yucking it up.