• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass.

    Yes, for that paper. Past work is not evidence for future work.

    I see the problem. When I say “science” I mean science.

    When you say “science,” you mean academia. I agree with most of your statements as they apply to academia. Academia is not science.

    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Call it the Game, call it the science Meta, call it politics in the sciences, whatever you like. It’s an extension of the same fundamentalist principles. Whatever it is, isn’t science itself.

        • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Whatever it is, isn’t science itself

          But it is. More science than you’ve ever done it seems since you think one data point with no controls is somehow scientific.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            That’s asinine. The bureaucracy and politics surrounding the practice of science is explicitly not science itself. It is crucial to a career in in modern science sure, but it is not itself science.

            • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control “science”, and leave the real science to us scientists.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Scientific consensus is determined by peer-review. Peer -reviewed consensus can, and has been down to be false.

                Absolute certainty still isn’t part of science. If it’s 100% certain and not falsifiable, it’s not science by definition. Just like an atom with 7 protons isn’t carbon, by definition. Nitrogen is an important and valid element, but it isn’t carbon.