2141
2142

Pretty accurate (i.imgur.com)

ecky--ptang-zooboing が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]sarcastic__cunt -44ポイント-43ポイント  (64子コメント)

I'm in no way creationist, but some scientists are pretty full of shit too... you can make anything scientific if you are able to invent math around it.

[–]wvsfezter 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

invent math

do you have any formal education? It's not about sounding scientific, it's about standing up to scrutiny which means being questioned from every angle and still holding up.

[–]ecky--ptang-zooboing[S] 19ポイント20ポイント  (39子コメント)

That's not how math works

[–]mfb- 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or science.

[–]Walterwayne -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

We do adapt our mathematics to fit the situation that we're in. Literally every aspect of math was invented by humans. Science is discovered, math is invented.

Source of my opinion on this matter.

[–]Lots42 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.

[–]AdseyV 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Right a scientist may do that, that does not make it science.

[–]Haagenbargain 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

if you are able to invent math around it.

If you can fake statistical analysis around it by drawing false conclusions intentionally.

[–]WheeMe 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Isn't that politics?

[–]breville135 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Surprising amount of that in science nowadays (hell, even as far back as Newtons day and probably even further).

[–]sarcastic__cunt -4ポイント-3ポイント  (11子コメント)

tell me about how rare faking shit in science is...

[–]Haagenbargain 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

That's not what I was saying, I was saying that it's not faking math, it's manipulating the statistics to say what you want instead of what they actually indicate. Inferring false conclusions that aren't representative of the statistics, or designing the experiment wrong intentionally to give bad results. Or using the wrong statistical analyses to give incorrect results

Also, it is rare. The amount of actual literature vs the fake stuff is probably in the order of 1000:1, but of course the false stuff gets more publicity because it's generally used by press or lobbyists (vaccines cause autism, MSG is bad for you).

[–]sarcastic__cunt -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

you can read the same article I gave to the other believer... http://www.popsci.com/ask-us-anything-how-common-scientific-fraud

it's not rare, and it's rare to be even retracted...

on the subject of science itself, experiments are for testing if your theory works is a specific way, it's whole another thing than the development of theory itself. and there could be countless theories which when tested would show same results in some experiments. so it's really not that simple to devise a comprehensive set of experiments to test all aspects of a theory to prove it, and even all aspects of it are proven it could turn out to be incomplete. when I was talking about inventing math around it I didn't imply that it's fake...

and I explicitly told to ask theoretical physicist not experimental...

[–]Haagenbargain 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well no, different theories wouldn't produce the same results in some experiments. The theory would either be accepted within a reasonable margin of error, or rejected.

Why a theoretical physicist though? What about every other branch of science? Marine biology, organic chemistry, any branch of experimental science all use experimentation to test hypotheses.

I'm really having a hard time trying to understand what you're getting at here, you're talking about inventing math and falsifying literature, and then talking about theoretical physics and theories.

What part of science are you saying is fake?

[–]aftokinito 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

He's mentally handicapped, downvote and don't water your time matey.

[–]wirf 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

But how will time grow without water?!

[–]Haagenbargain 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah I'm thinking there's a language barrier here, I can't follow what he's saying.

[–]sarcastic__cunt -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

you are saying that you believe that no two theories could have positive tests on a particular experiment? accepted by who?

theoretical because they likely have the best expertise to explain you that. experimental physicists are inventing experiments to test theories... theoretical ones are proposing theories, that involves a lot of math, sometimes very inventive math. there is no math of buttload of dimensions to begin with and let's look what to do with them... they had to invent them.

all other sciences you mentioned are involved with real things... in theoretical physics, much of the shit is just made up but beautifully described with math. they usually don't use statistics to derive their theories.

I didn't say any science is fake... I said you can make science out of anything! you have an idea, you apply scientific method to describe it you have science...

[–]tpn86 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Very rare, but when it does happen it is big news.

[–]sarcastic__cunt -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

oh really? read this http://www.popsci.com/ask-us-anything-how-common-scientific-fraud

[–]tpn86 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

2 percent of scientists admitted to fabricating or falsifying their work or manipulating data

So 1 in fifty has had some point done something bad. How bad? have you ever broken the law?, I have! I walked a red light just the other day. How often? meaby it was one thing 20 years ago rather than every paper. Which seems very likely.

It is RARE.

Mistakes happens but fraud is very rare in science as far as I am aware.

[–]sarcastic__cunt -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

well scientific fraud is no jaywalking... it's fraud, it's not a victim less crime