throwing some scientific theories in the bushes
they'd have to know how to read a research paper first
First off - scientist do not discuss what is wrong with the scientific method. They discuss what is wrong with the peer review process BY PEER REVIEWING THE PROCESS. That's what makes Napoleon's comment so dead on accurate. Papers get published and redacted ALL THE TIME. The average citizen (yourself), only cares about the headlines and does nothing to follow-up on the research. When a paper is published, or when evidence is presented, scientist around the world attempt to repeat those same steps. When they cannot, the methods used by that particular scientist are called into question.
This is the very thing that annoys us about people that link health articles. This is the very fukkn method that was used to discredit the math behind austerity measures. This is what kills us about people who still site Andrew Wakefields anti-vaccine paper.
Take for example the evidence for the gravitational wave leftovers from the big bang. That shyt was HUGE fukkn news right. But did you follow-up on the news story when scientist immediately found a flaw in the paper? No. But everyone else who actually lives this and understands this was hip to the game.
^^^that's science sir
In any regard discovery without the modern scientific method should be as encouraged as discovery with the strict rules of the SM. It's not like Neurophysciology wasn't discovered by chance observation. Much of what we know in astrology. Treatments for certain diseases, blah blah about a million other significant things...
But that's what scientist say.
I'm more so into technology so I'd say it from a different angle... The more we learn of biology and Chemistry the further we get from a model that can explain it, therefore realizing what we realized prior to the scientific method when we were advancing into modern times ------------------ the shyt is unnecessary.
What are you talking about? Nothing you said here is true or even makes sense.
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
First off - scientist do not discuss what is wrong with the scientific method. They discuss what is wrong with the peer review process BY PEER REVIEWING THE PROCESS. That's what makes Napoleon's comment so dead on accurate. Papers get published and redacted ALL THE TIME. The average citizen (yourself), only cares about the headlines and does nothing to follow-up on the research. When a paper is published, or when evidence is presented, scientist around the world attempt to repeat those same steps. When they cannot, the methods used by that particular scientist are called into question.
This is the very thing that annoys us about people that link health articles. This is the very fukkn method that was used to discredit the math behind austerity measures. This is what kills us about people who still site Andrew Wakefields anti-vaccine paper.
Take for example the evidence for the gravitational wave leftovers from the big bang. That shyt was HUGE fukkn news right. But did you follow-up on the news story when scientist immediately found a flaw in the paper? No. But everyone else who actually lives this and understands this was hip to the game.
^^^that's science sir
What are you talking about? Nothing you said here is true or even makes sense.
So scientists can definitively prove that the Big Band did happen?
Except, its not.
Theres a simple way to know if you're lying or not.
Re-do the experiment.
Thats way less politics than you dweebs will concede to
Science isn't a thing, its a process.
So yes, the terms peer-review and the scientific method are in fact one-in-the-same of the process of science.
I don't know why you fukking bother. You're clearly not versed in these topics and want to pretend like you can hold a candle to people who do this shyt every day.
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Who said anything about lying....I said politics....But yall don't read for discernment tho.......
Politics don't matter that much.
Cause if you say something and it has to work, then no money can be made.
I've managed to work in labs for genetics and physics, which my school is listed top 25 in, and none of the professors I was working for while doing research seemed to think I had a problem understanding science.
I'm telling you that your conception is wrong. You can believe that or not, but I've reached the point in my studies where if you presume to tell me that I don't understand science, I'm going to make sure you explicitly know how wrong that statement is.