/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12713475

420KiB, 922x922, 1581648560801.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Is the past more trustworthy in science?

Anonymous Tue 16 Feb 20:44:05 2021 No.12713475 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12713504 >>12713562

Today with the rise of publish or perish promoting mediocrity and unreplicated experiments, politisation of science, commie subvertors mixing truth with lies and chinks buying off entire organizations for their political endeavors, that is the 'science and facts' we are left today. No one trust authorities anymore and why should they after all the lies? However that also has left many as an easy prey for charlatans and snake oil vendors, creating even more victims. In times like these I feel the only trustworthy science is that which was done before the 90s.

Is this a somewhat accurate belief or maybe the science community was clusterfuck of lies even back there?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Feb 2021 20:53:50 No.12713504 Report

Quoted By:

>>12713475
>the science community was clusterfuck of lies even back there?

It was already bad but now it's worse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Feb 2021 21:11:22 No.12713562 Report

Quoted By:

>>12713475
>Is this a somewhat accurate belief or maybe the science community was clusterfuck of lies even back there?
The scientific community used to also be a clusterfuck, with the focus on the white male christian conservative side.
There was a shift from then to now.
Now the community is still a clusterfuck, but for different reasons. Firstly, its now more liberal, so a lot of research is frowned upon. There is also some shit research done to meet agendas, and some good science that just so happens to meet liberal agendas.
The clusterfuck also transitioned from being a bunch of rich white+jewish males dominating science to a less rich, less white+jewish, less male publish or perish scientific community where there is an incentive to p-hack, self-cite, rush work etc.
I heard from one professor that his colleague would take some work that would have all been one paper (several decades ago), then splits the work into as many individual papers as possible. Publishes the papers, then writes a review of those several papers. Instead of doing legitimate good work and putting it in one paper, they dilute the work into several papers, so they can have a longer list of published work, and more citations, and a higher h-index. Honestly, I'd game the system the same way.

But to answer your question. The scientific community always had problems. But its in fashion for anti-liberals to dislike modern science because some of it is liberal garbage and some of the good neutral science supports liberal points of view. It's just easier to say "articles published when right wingers were dominant are reliable, newer articles when libs are dominant are garbage".

Though I suspect the idea of trying to take a moderate centrist stance will cause a lot of retards on this board to seethe and either call me a libtard or an alt right nazi. To which I say seeth, dilate, you will never be a real woman, and one term, two impeachments, no wall, magagagag on my balls, you dogmatic double nigs

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches