What's up everyone. We are doing a contest with T.I. and we are giving away $1200 a day for the next 10 days. Just wanted to give you all a heads up.
https://www.allhiphop.com/ti

Most scientific findings are wrong and useless

Neophyte Wolfgang
Neophyte Wolfgang Members Posts: 4,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use

"Science, the pride of modernity, our one source of objective knowledge, is in deep trouble." So begins "Saving Science," an incisive and deeply disturbing essay by Daniel Sarewitz at The New Atlantis. As evidence, Sarewitz, a professor at Arizona State University's School for Future Innovation and Society, points to reams of mistaken or simply useless research findings that have been generated over the past decades.
«1

Comments

  • Will Munny
    Will Munny Eatin pussy and kickin ass Members Posts: 30,199 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sounds like a Vice article.
  • Neophyte Wolfgang
    Neophyte Wolfgang Members Posts: 4,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sounds like a Vice article.

    Head scientist from prestigious journals says otherwise though
  • b'mer...
    b'mer... Members Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I wonder what religion he is...
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    he is correct there are people studying all kinds of 🤬 that will have no practical use anytime soon if ever
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Man with No Fucks Given Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It depends on what kinda science you're talking about. I'd strongly question the truth of the statement if they were talking about hard sciences like chemistry, biology, and physics. It's not that wrong info can't be put out there, but considering that those sciences drive technology and other innovation, it would be hard to believe that they are useless given the progress we're seeing.

    If you're talking about soft sciences like psychology, sociology, etc... I can believe that. It's not that those sciences don't have merit. It's just that what is "right" or "wrong" is a lot fuzzier and it's a lot easier to present 🤬 as truth.
  • HafBayked
    HafBayked Members Posts: 16,248 ✭✭✭✭✭
    kinda like this thread
  • Neophyte Wolfgang
    Neophyte Wolfgang Members Posts: 4,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I wonder what religion he is...

    Me? I'm atheist
  • Neophyte Wolfgang
    Neophyte Wolfgang Members Posts: 4,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It depends on what kinda science you're talking about. I'd strongly question the truth of the statement if they were talking about hard sciences like chemistry, biology, and physics. It's not that wrong info can't be put out there, but considering that those sciences drive technology and other innovation, it would be hard to believe that they are useless given the progress we're seeing.

    If you're talking about soft sciences like psychology, sociology, etc... I can believe that. It's not that those sciences don't have merit. It's just that what is "right" or "wrong" is a lot fuzzier and it's a lot easier to present 🤬 as truth.

    Its all science and its become an epidemic. If qualified scientist are coming out who is anyone to say otherwise?

    I assume you didn't read the article.....
  • Neophyte Wolfgang
    Neophyte Wolfgang Members Posts: 4,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Technology and Science are interchangeable. When man created the wheel or fire it wasn't science it was imagination
  • Paprika
    Paprika Members Posts: 2,475 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    he is correct there are people studying all kinds of 🤬 that will have no practical use anytime soon if ever

    On the other hand, a lot of this 'useless' research provides a background for those who want to advance their studies and even further the original thesis. Every research isn't going to be a home run. To get funding, you have to be willing to work on weird things because a lot of what you want to work on has already been done.

    This useless research is the basis for other minds to utilize their strengths and resolve something the original researcher couldn't.
  • caddo man
    caddo man Failure is success in progress! Members Posts: 22,476 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    he is correct there are people studying all kinds of 🤬 that will have no practical use anytime soon if ever

    Reminds me of Gorilla Glass. Dow invented it decades ago but it had no practical use so it was shelved. I dont have to explain what happen.
  • caddo man
    caddo man Failure is success in progress! Members Posts: 22,476 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Paprika wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    he is correct there are people studying all kinds of 🤬 that will have no practical use anytime soon if ever

    On the other hand, a lot of this 'useless' research provides a background for those who want to advance their studies and even further the original thesis. Every research isn't going to be a home run. To get funding, you have to be willing to work on weird things because a lot of what you want to work on has already been done.

    This useless research is the basis for other minds to utilize their strengths and resolve something the original researcher couldn't.

    I wish I can show you all of the useless thesis I see everyday on the walls of universities. I think Google 🤬 up the game too cause now advisors can easily shoot down your research with a quick google search.
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It depends on what kinda science you're talking about. I'd strongly question the truth of the statement if they were talking about hard sciences like chemistry, biology, and physics. It's not that wrong info can't be put out there, but considering that those sciences drive technology and other innovation, it would be hard to believe that they are useless given the progress we're seeing.

    If you're talking about soft sciences like psychology, sociology, etc... I can believe that. It's not that those sciences don't have merit. It's just that what is "right" or "wrong" is a lot fuzzier and it's a lot easier to present 🤬 as truth.

    You are totally correct
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Technology and Science are interchangeable. When man created the wheel or fire it wasn't science it was imagination

    No they are not. science is a methodology it's simply a system of learning new truths
    technology is more like the use of what is learned

    you can have a science that produces nothing, a science that leads to no technology also technology is not necessarilytied to science
  • Neophyte Wolfgang
    Neophyte Wolfgang Members Posts: 4,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I can tell none of you read the article
  • Lou Cypher
    Lou Cypher Make Reasonable Choices. H. E. Double Hockey SticksMembers Posts: 52,521 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thats why its Science. 100s of experiments fail, things get discovered but there is always another piece of the puzzle.
  • SolemnSauce
    SolemnSauce Don't wanna go tew hard, Don't wanna upset em, tryta infiltrate I won't let em, naaah I vet em In my skin Members Posts: 15,860 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 On the shoulders of Giants and Elders in history UniverseMembers Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.

    Shut your 🤬 up. The engineers based their information based on the scientists years of study and information.
    Anti-Intellectualism is at an all time high though. Puritan 🤬 nation.
  • SolemnSauce
    SolemnSauce Don't wanna go tew hard, Don't wanna upset em, tryta infiltrate I won't let em, naaah I vet em In my skin Members Posts: 15,860 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.

    Shut your 🤬 up. The engineers based their information based on the scientists years of study and information.
    Anti-Intellectualism is at an all time high though. Puritan 🤬 nation.

    what part of my post do you disagree with?
  • babelipsss
    babelipsss Members Posts: 2,517 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It is a part of human nature to explore and seek out new knowledge. That will never stop.


    The magazine "The Reason" is not what some of y'all think it is. Hilarious.
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 On the shoulders of Giants and Elders in history UniverseMembers Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.

    Shut your 🤬 up. The engineers based their information based on the scientists years of study and information.
    Anti-Intellectualism is at an all time high though. Puritan 🤬 nation.

    what part of my post do you disagree with?

    All of it. Scientist are not just people with good memories, they develop through observation and studying the natural world, scientist developed the technology that you are using.
  • SolemnSauce
    SolemnSauce Don't wanna go tew hard, Don't wanna upset em, tryta infiltrate I won't let em, naaah I vet em In my skin Members Posts: 15,860 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.

    Shut your 🤬 up. The engineers based their information based on the scientists years of study and information.
    Anti-Intellectualism is at an all time high though. Puritan 🤬 nation.

    what part of my post do you disagree with?

    All of it. Scientist are not just people with good memories, they develop through observation and studying the natural world, scientist developed the technology that you are using.

    who created the technology I am using?
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 On the shoulders of Giants and Elders in history UniverseMembers Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.

    Shut your 🤬 up. The engineers based their information based on the scientists years of study and information.
    Anti-Intellectualism is at an all time high though. Puritan 🤬 nation.

    what part of my post do you disagree with?

    All of it. Scientist are not just people with good memories, they develop through observation and studying the natural world, scientist developed the technology that you are using.

    who created the technology I am using?

    Who found the research that it is possible and tested the data? Scientists, who in then use the knowledge that they discovered engineers.

    You can't take one from the other a damn engineer would tell you're statement is foolish
  • Neophyte Wolfgang
    Neophyte Wolfgang Members Posts: 4,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ok none of you read the link. This is about the replication crisis (not reported in mainstream media)

    Yes this is all areas of science....it has to do with who funds the study, replication design flaws, lying about results and pressure to get a paper published for notoriety its a epidemic and one top scientist said 90 percent of the published studies are wrong. They couldn't replicate 67-90 percent of studies......that is alarming.

    In reality, of course, scientists are people, and like other people have different temperaments and personalities from each other, are often competitive, and prefer their own hypothesis to be right rather than wrong. In most branches of science, scientists publish only a small percentage of their data, 10% or less, and obviously select the “best” results to publish, leaving inconvenient or inconclusive data unpublished. The problem is made worse by a systematic bias against replications within the sciences. Researchers who replicate other people’s work find it hard, if not impossible, to get their papers published, because replication is not deemed to be original, and most journals pride themselves on publishing original research.

    http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/blog/the-replicability-crisis-in-science

    You know how one day Green Tea is good for cancer one week it isn't? yup 🤬 like that. Yes science has made discoveries, but we really don't know as much as we think we do its majority theories by some people who have good memorization of one theory taught in school.
Sign In or Register to comment.