>>11967978Not true, it is just significantly worse in the soft sciences than the hard ones.
I have read many new release materials research papers that have been absolute dogshit and have been pushed through to preserve funding for the department they came from. Unrepeatable experiment, incomplete synthesis routes, variables that were unaccounted for. I also did a lot of work for grad students performing materials research and the lack of consistency of how they conduct their experiments is very concerning.
E.g.
>dude is doing phase experiments with ceramics over long periods at high temps>tell them that operating the furnace at its max temp for that long will likely cause a failure at some point prior to the time he wanted>didnt care, did it anyways>1/4 the way though one thermocouple dies, temp starts to fluctuate by a couple hundred C which significantly impacts growth mechanisms>later that week other thermocouple dies and the furnace goes cold>him and the PI said fuck it 'we dont have the money to redo it'>full send the thesis without accounting for any of the fuckery that occured and 'extrapolated' information that wasn't there>gets published>someone tries to repeat experiment in future>I wonder why my results dont match!!!Not to mention they did not account for the diffusion of the crucible material into the tested material that was fairly significant at those timescales and temperatures.
But what do I know, I don't have a PHd
