Poll: How do you feel about society?

[Speaker to Animals]

Honest to God, the vast majority of published scientific papers are complete junk. Rational people are highly skeptical of the academic community, for very good reasons.

From his lab at the University of Virginia's Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

"The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results."

You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.

The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.

After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies' findings.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778


If it cannot be replicated, it is not real science. If the hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not real science. Those two things are fundamental axioms of science, and they automatically weed out the vast majority of research papers today. That's not even getting into the shit with all the statistical errors.

[Montegriffo]

So gay man. Society is gay. Maybe we should burn it

Or maybe just throw it off the rooftops...

[C-Mag]

Honest to God, the vast majority of published scientific papers are complete junk. Rational people are highly skeptical of the academic community, for very good reasons.

Look Prof Mann's Hockey Stick graph. Algore was pushing that thing by about 1990, and it finally has been officially debunked. It had to be done in court, which is a real shame, because the scientific community should have done this themselves long ago.

[Speaker to Animals]

The Soviet-Harvard Complex runs on bullshit. When rational people grow skeptical, the globalists accuse them of being "anti-science" when, more accurately, they are anti-junk science.

The divide is between people who are interested in truth and people who profit, or derive some satisfaction, from bullshit.

Progressives do not even believe in objective truth, so why anybody would think they can discern real science from bullshit seems less than realistic.

[C-Mag]

The Soviet-Harvard Complex runs on bullshit. When rational people grow skeptical, the globalists accuse them of being "anti-science" when, more accurately, they are anti-junk science.

The divide is between people who are interested in truth and people who profit, or derive some satisfaction, from bullshit.

Progressives do not even believe in objective truth, so why anybody would think they can discern real science from bullshit seems less than realistic.

The telling part is the same people that believe in junk climate science, also believe there are an infinite number of genders, when the science is clear there are only two genders, though you can get rare mutants with multiple hardware.

[Montegriffo]

[StCapps]

Learn to play better don't blame the game.

Politicians lie, learn to play better, lies don't invalidate election results Montegriffo doesn't like.

[Montegriffo]

Learn to play better don't blame the game.

Politicians lie, learn to play better if you don't like the outcome, it's all in the game.

Full quote

It's akin to a loser flipping the chessboard in rage.
Learn to play better don't blame the game.

So you approve of cheating at chess too?

[StCapps]

Learn to play better don't blame the game.

Politicians lie, learn to play better if you don't like the outcome, it's all in the game.

Full quote

It's akin to a loser flipping the chessboard in rage.
Learn to play better don't blame the game.

So you approve of cheating at chess too?

Lies aren't cheating, they are free speech, all politicians engage in them, it's perfectly legal. I may not agree with what they say, but I defend to the death, their right to say it. Not liking what they have to say does not make it cheating, you are getting mad about the way the knight moves and calling it cheating, because you don't like all of the outcomes the rules make possible, like you losing for instance.

[PartyOf5]

Seems to be some support for the academic study's conclusion being expressed here.

The intense hostility to political establishments of all kinds among what could be called “chaos voters” helps explain what Pew Research and others have found: a growing distrust among Republican voters of higher education as well as empirically based science, both of which are increasingly seen as allied with the liberal establishment.

So what they're saying is that we're onto them.