@ping, sorry .33333 repeating x 3.. as in 1/3 *3 and all that,nevermind

leerooooy

i'm more about the actual application in society than proving things concretely

and that figure out why 40% are unaffected is irrelevant, in modern medicine these sorts of random % of X happening is so common they even place it on the medicine "May cause unintended side effects"

chemistry / physics need to be absolutely perfect and concrete in order to help, which is why it's so strict

yes but thats what makes them sciences

getting a correlation wrong by 10% in sociology is usually not that big of a deal

yes, because its not following the scientific method

its following statistics

i mean you are using the scientific method to collect good data

you're using experiments to collect the data

experiments being methods of collecting your data

yep, good data and good experimentation lays credit to the correllation, no one will want to say its 100% truth, but can be confident nonetheless, thats good science

as in selection strategies and in the case of something fuzzy, a classification algorithm

@pukeblood i think we should define "good science" as something that has an actual use in society that offsets it's cost

well its hard to say if something is good if its, say, new

supporting hypothesis are needed to make a theorem in any science

nah, he means a reliable conclusion when he says "good science" he doesn't mean how much it matters to society

like traffic studies that reduce road deaths by 1% is still going to be good

oh yeah nah I dont mean societal benefits

but instead that its drawn from reliable experiments and data to draw an accurate conclusion

implementation of good science will probably, *usually*, result in good benefits

yeah but like

i can prove my brainfuck theories for decades and decades and waste countless hours of other people's time

so can anime

thats not a problem

if its scientifically proven, its still good

the issue is also my hypothesis can be so loose that it would always be a hit

then its a bad hypothesis 😛

youd get called on your shit immediately

like if someone makes a study they can make it "good science" by just making the hypothesis too loose

I mean, a loose hypothesis gives you loose results

loose hypotheses are thought up by many a "woke" person

lul

like when you do shrooms and look at space and go "bruh what if like, hold on"

"what if the stars are watching"

*hits blunt* is it called Sand because its between Sea and Land?

reminds me of another thing to bitch about

creationists saying we cant prove evolution is real because we don't have a time machine

but what about the Ohare airport ufo of 2007

gotta be timetravellers and/or underground aliens