Techinically science is like wikipedia. Anyone can make a scientific study or display new data. Then that data is tested and retested to assure whether it is true or not. So yes, like wikipedia

Special relativity superseded Newtonian physics completely, giving a completely new set of supporting assertions and observations

Newtonian physics is great for the simple interactions we have on Earth with negligible difference in results to special relativity so they are both usefu

What I'm getting at is that you need to explicitly state which theory you are pulling from instead of just calling whatever shit you say "scientific fact"

Because you can't mix and match

or if you do

that's a new theorem entirely

a theorem is a hypothesis with a huge amount of supporting hypotheses surrounding it

which must stand up to scientific scrutiny before beingcited as example

and tend to stick

I mean we have thousands of University professors to figure this shit out, anything you come up with is most likely not new and has already been classified or thrown out

Peer review culture is the best we are going to get to a system that produces theories that match reality

(for humans at least)

I'm not so sure

on the surface, yes

but the entry to those peer reviewed articles can be low, and its jsut the same bubble that peer reviews each other, so very little scruteny

Well you might have objections to a lot of acedemia and I do too but they come from areas with very low peer reviews and citations

one study can be unanimously decided to have been executed to the best methods available, but its still only one study

Physics, psycology, engineering, etc are extremely difficult to bullshit

Psycology less than others since they are based on less concrete observations of extremely complex systems

https://youtu.be/YWVmDSMl30s?t=4335

jbp ont he subject

But still waaaaay harder to bullshit than history or sociology

JBP explaisn what I'm talking about more than I could ever

JBP basically says humanities is cancer and most people that make humanities papers aren't doing it to progress human knowledge, just pitch their own opinions and circlejerk them

the issue is the culture of the people in the position to write the papers

yup

the "real sciences" value citations, coherence, and predictability over the social impact

which is good because that means they are contributing to society by helping us all make predictable decisions in reality (absolutely invaluable in physics and chemistry)

humanities papers simply aren't useful enough to offset the energy the field takes

real science follows the Scientific method, which basically means:

"If you repeat how experiment X is ran, you will always get Y" every time

for example, a normal glass of drinking water will always boil at 100 degrees C

humanities and also medicine even isn't a science because theres no guarantee that your experiment on person A will have the same result as your experiment on person B

@Dr.Wol sorry, you're wrong.. water will not always boil at 100c.. it depends on atmospheric pressure... water can boil at room temperature in a vacuum

😛

aye and sociology can be considered real science in some cases, just not in ways that attribute to the entire planet like say, physics and bio

this is true, fair point, however, that follows the same scientific method of the experiment

in a vacuum it will always boil at room temperature

sociology isn't a science because it doesn't guarantee that under the same circumstances in an experiment the result will always be the same

neither does science

name one case

they dont set out to always achieve the same result, they try to reach different results, thus disproving theorems

*trying* to achieve the same result is pointless

thats not the definition of the scientific method