I do love that flat earth documentary where the guy eventually proved the Earth is a sphere.
I’m saving this and I’m going to use it so much
Save yourself if you wish. They’ll say “well that just means that the peer-reviewed articles are in on it, too”. 🤦♂️
“Sure”
Nick Kroll? 😍
Can’t argue with facts……. is a quaint old saying that used to not be rhetorical
Dude. I completely forgot that Cillian Murphy was in Inception with DiCaprio!
I’ve never seen a published paper on how to make meth. I gotta get that info from Bill, and his parents were siblings.
Youtube
The guy who set himself on fire actually had lots of proof.
Unfortunately the proof is just deranged connections
https://theponzipapers.substack.com/p/i-have-set-myself-on-fire-outside
My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan.
Well he certainly knows how to write a hook
Wow. That was a fascinating look into a paranoid mind.
TRUTH SOCIAL ITS GOT TRUTH INNTHE NAME THATS HOW YOU KNOW ITS TRUE AND ITS BACKED BY THE MESSIAH TURNIP GODBBLESS STAY SAFE VOTE FOR PEDRO
Like most published research isn’t unreproducible horseshit mostly there because of name dropping or dollars.
Fwiw the reproducibility crisis isn’t because of “horseshit” science. There are a few examples of that for sure. But the vast majority of it is just good science that happens to be wrong. The scientific method doesn’t mean the wrong conclusion can be drawn, especially when for budgetary reasons sample sizes are relatively limited, or when the effect size being studied is small, or there are too many confounding variables.
That’s not a mark against the studies though. It’s just a mark in favour of attempting to reproduce studies and giving good funding to attempts to do so. And perhaps a mark against using one-off studies with small effect sizes to shape public policy or health advice.
My critique was not aimed at the scientific method itself nor at constraints faced by researchers. I was aiming more towards the sneering attitude that published research is the only valid method of drawing a conclusion, especially at the person level.
One published paper is not a valid method of drawing a conclusion. Studying references, citations and related papers is.
Correct, most published research is not unreproducible horseshit.
So it is reproducible horseshit, got it.
Im ashamed to say I get a visceral reaction from people misusing this word
It’s one of those unfortunate words that has multiple meanings depending on the venue/context, and where the casual meaning conflates and lessens the value of the technical meaning. Another: “experts.”
I researched the spelling of “research” for this reply. Does this count as publishing?
Slap a doi on it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research you should have done yours
Á la recherche du science perdú! Aka “The Sound Of Silence”.
Wait, an accent on the U? I thought the participle of perdre was just perdu. Typo? Or does that accent actually have done significance here?
Oops, typo. My first language is Spanish, I assumed there was an accent at the end.
Tumblr
