Message from @LotheronPrime
Discord ID: 407302439897792513
@Christopher Yactayo So you're saying science is like wikipedia?
science =/= statistics though
too many people are quick to find a cause for ANY statistic, good or bad
They aren't always true in the sense of reality we just choose the theories that best match observations
its like the pseudoscientific health articles "eggs are bad for you mmkay"
because some people reacted bad to eggs
For example, special relativity vs traditional Newtonian physics
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Special relativity superseded Newtonian physics completely, giving a completely new set of supporting assertions and observations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)
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
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