people don't want to have kids anymore

>>16993494
kek

File: take a seat.jpg (46.8 KB)

people want the kids

>>16993491
Over a decade ago, it was discovered that ~80% of a sample of psychology papers could not be replicated when attempted. Since then, scientists in various fields have taken it as a call to action to conduct mass replication studies and conduct further inspection of proor research post-peer-review. Many established journals have faced increased scrutiny in their peer review process as a result and certain landmark findings have since been retracted (notably: amyloid plaque hypothesis for alzheimer's).

In practice: whenever somebody brings it up, they are most likely just using it as an excuse to ignore evidence presented to them. But realistically, the fact that the problem was identified and measures are constantly being taken to mitigate it should indicate to anyone who took more than two seconds to think about it that the scientific process is more robust and reliable now than ever before.

>>16993542
>psychology
not science

>>16993552
Elitist virtue signaling aside, the problem was shown to exist to a lesser degree in other fields. The takeaway is "don't take every study at face value" which is something I'm pretty sure we all already knew anyway.

>>16993542
>To a lesser degree
The replication crisis was realized just after clomategate happened and yet you're here saying we should still trust the science?

>>16993542
>Many established journals have faced increased scrutiny in their peer review process...

Any resources you recommend for reading more about examples of how the peer review processes have changed?

I find something of value the AI says and try to get it back later and it's never the same.

>>16993491
It means whatever shit published in science might as well be fake.

>Mask stops spread of covid?
Fake
>Getting shots helps prevent getting covid
Fake
>Vaccine has 100% efficacy
Fake
>Vaccine has 50% efficacy
Fake

No double blind test, nothing. Its all fraudsters defrauding their authority to lord over people

>>16993576
Have you ever bothered to actually read the content of those emails and attempt to understand what they were actually talking about or did you just hear somewhere online tell you third hand that it means climate data is fabricated?

>>16993580
https://retractionwatch.com/
Mostly highlights individual retracted papers but they regularly publish articles about entire journals coming under scrutiny. Great place to get started.

>>16993542
I expect soft sciences to be fabricated and have faulty data. What troubles me is when fields like physics or chemistry have large amounts of unproven and doubtful papers.

>>16993607
Fraud is very rarely the culprit. It's mostly flawed methodology, poorly controlled confounding variables, etc. You can pass a lot of crap past peer reviewers when your paper is sufficiently boring and loaded with dense, unnecessary jargon.
Most chemistry papers are about the extraction efficiency of some useless compound from some uncommon solution using a method that would never scale well even if there was a practical application.
When faced with a paper like that, the reviewers, being the humans they are, are most likely just gonna read the abstract, look at the figures provided, read the conclusion, and pass it off with a shrug if nothing sounds obviously retarded about what they did.

The more interesting the claim, the more scrutiny it's gonna receive.

>>16993615
>this isnt a problem its normal guys and that doesnt mean bad things come on...
No -that- right there is the problem.

The amount of papers I've read, as you also said, that are using shitty methods and confounded math to create their pre outset conclusion is embarassing. And I only involve myself with science as a hobby for maths and logic practice.
The amount of bullshit happening in the whole field must be widespread and astounding.

>>16993618
Who said it's not a problem?
It very much is a problem, but one that's being addressed.
Without seeing the specific papers you're referring to, I can't really evaluate how rampant the problems you're citing really are or whether your criticisms of a particular paper are even valid. But since you're engaging with science "as a hobby," I have to imagine you're dealing with a lot of open access journals which have notoriously low/non-existant standards.
Case in point:
https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

>>16993624
>oh its not REEEEEL science its just the mass of junk Bachelor grads push out
The junk is the people. Most science is worthless.

>>16993627
>Most science is worthless.
This I can actually tentatively agree with you on. Most scientific papers are published just to have something to publish. They're a boring, useless, "contribution" shat out by someone trying to get a degree. But understanding that fact actually dulls the perceived blow to the sciences.

Stuff that is actionable and has real world consequences gets attention. And with attention comes scrutiny.
Most published research being false is an artifact of so many journals being littered with throwaway studies that wouldn't change anything whether it was true or not.

>>16993542
>whenever somebody brings it up, they are most likely just using it as an excuse to ignore evidence presented to them.
Got some actual evidence for that? Yeah, thought not. The damage control attempts around this is just making the distrust in science even more extreme. You can't stop yourself, no matter how far into overshoot you get. It's not within your ability to do so.

>>16993665
>Got some actual evidence for that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue

>>16993586
I was alive when it happened, first of all. The emails clearly showed that IPCC scientists completely altered their data on order to net the results that was demanded of them. Other emails showed that IPCC scientists were also internally discussing how to hide their paper trails from things like the Freedom of Information Act

>>16993668
Your faggot ass gate keeping attempts are very obvious to anyone with half a brain, just so you know. That goes for most of modern academia too. A bunch of fuckin losses that have spent 30 years on the same college campus acting like it's some birth right privilege to get some bullshit published. As the other anons have pointed out, most of the time it's just some dumbass horse shit dressed up with some gay ass intellectual vernacular

>>16993491
It means a lot of people made money off of phony credentials and will wholeheartedly pervert the field so that they can keep their jobs even at the expense of the truth

File: 1754105833661679.jpg (143.9 KB)

>>16993542
>the vast majority of science is bullshit but the fact that we admitted it under duress many years later is proof that you should trust us now
fucking lol

>>16993692
>I was alive when it happened
You'd better have been. You need to be 18 to post here. But chances are you saw a bunch of media reports explicitly lying about what happened.
Nothing in the emails showed any data manipulation. The IPCC never conspired to hide any data.
What happened was the data that was requested was provided under confidentiality agreements with foreign governments (it was a British university these emails were hacked from). The vast majority was already publicly available but because 5% wasn't, tards like you treat it as a cudgel to beat legitimate researchers with.
>>16993695
Okay, here's evidence of my claim: see >>16993697


>>16993707
If a food item gets recalled for salmonella or some shit, do you decide you're never gonna buy that product again? If so, you're retarded. The product on the shelf shortly after a recall is the stuff you know has been tested and had no issues.
The fact that the problem was identified is evidence that the stuff that wasn't pulled is probably fine.

>>16993491
Basically this >>16993542, people read a wikipedia blurb about it and then use it as justification to dismiss any study they dislike. A certain class of disingenuous reactionary incels have interpreted it to mean that literally all science is false and it's impossible to know anything.

You can find many examples in this thread and you'll note that they tend to be politicized. This is not an accident; these people fully realize that their worldviews are incompatible with objective reality. I don't think they fully realize the logic they're using but their counter has been to declare reality to be unknowable since our primary method for investigating reality, science, is now "worthless".

Of course, this all tends to fall apart a bit as soon as you see the sort of thing these people are willing to accept as alternative evidence. Peer reviewed article they dislike? Fake science! Youtube essay they like? Pure fact!

>>16993711
>Okay, here's evidence of my claim: see
umm why did you quote me? are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

>>16993711
>The fact that the problem was identified is evidence that the stuff that wasn't pulled is probably fine.
No, that's a hollow argument, ot only means that the tests used were triggered not that what remains is fine
if you're only testing for cyanide contamination it won't pick up lead

>>16993721
I coted you as an example of someone who would evoke the replication crisis to disregard findings you don't like.

>>16993722
The fact that the food recall happened is evidence that food safety standards are being enforced. The individual test being employed does not matter here. If a problem is suspected, the suspect is investigated.
Tons of papers got retracted following the replication crisis. Journals updated their standards to mitigate p-hacking and HARKing.

The machine was kinda running like shit for a very long time. The problem was identified, patches were implemented, now it runs better than ever, though never perfect.

>itt
>some fucking academia jew desperately trying to deflect
>provides no proof, ironically enough

>>16993724
>I coted you as an example of someone who would evoke the replication crisis to disregard findings you don't like.
No, I pointed to a dogmatic incentive that reinforces maintaining the fraud. unless you plan to argue coherently against it that.
I'm all in favour of retractions but some frauds are too big.
We have secondary fraud in obscure quarters where some unwelcome results can be quashed by unfavourable rigged replications.
Ultimately the solution is sunlight and mutiple testings of raw data but data manipulation is quite rampant, often hampered by time and money.

>>16993711
>If a food item gets recalled for salmonella or some shit, do you decide you're never gonna buy that product again?
Yes, obviously? What?

Why would you expect a corporation to suddenly stop being stupid and incompetent just because they got caught once when people don't remotely work that way?

>>16993542
imagine if vaccines had 80% failure rate. would you take it?

>>16993735
thoughts on polio?

>>16993724
>mainstream science has mostly been an clusterfuck of fraud and bullshit since the dawn of humanity until...*updates narrative*...about 2023 but NOW we definitely got it locked down
lol

>>16993791
science didn't exist at the dawn of humanity. do you even know who the father of modern science is

>>16993794
Fauci?

>>16993789
There is some serious fraud around polio.
cases hugely declined due to hygiene improvements but later increased after the introduction of a vaccine, then they changed the diagnostic criteria to hide the figures.

>>16993795
Our heavenly father himself. Praise Fauci.

>>16993711
>Nothing in the emails showed any data manipulation. The IPCC never conspired to hide any data.
>What happened was the data that was requested was provided under confidentiality agreements with foreign governments (it was a British university these emails were hacked from). The vast majority was already publicly available but because 5% wasn't, tards like you treat it as a cudgel to beat legitimate researchers with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKf1iLwak7o

No thats EXACTLY what they did and what they were accused of. They intentionally withheld entering data that would change their models and show a completely different result than what they were claiming.
Heres a wonderful book on the topic since you clearly have no idea what youre talking about
https://archive.org/stream/climategate-emails/climategate-emails_djvu.txt

People like you like to forget about the bogus "hockey stick graph" and how it's been laughed out of being used as a debate tactic now adays

>>16993797
Jesus Christ. Conspiracy theories really are a luxury of boredom bred by the advent of science. If you were around to see the horrors of polio, you would be jumping at the opportunity for a vaccine against it. Polio is damn near globally eradicated at this point, and very well may be by the end of this month. If hygiene were really responsible, all viruses would cease to exist. But no, here you are saying it's hygiene instead of vaccinations. Your opinions are dangerous.

>Your opinions are dangerous

>>16993789
Not as big a deal as its been propertied. In fact, virtually every deadly disease and virus as wiped out in America by the 20th century simply due to the massive increase in hygiene standards. Before any vaccines. Hence the reason why media back in the 60s and 70s had TB and Measles around and nobody gave a fuck

>>16993803
I remember how retarded niggercattle jumped at the opportunity to get untested corporate clot injections because of the coof so maybe you're projecting?

>>16993803
It's literally an objective fact that everything you cry about was virtually eradicated before vaccines even came out

>>16993807
Yes. Some opinions are dangerous.

>>16993815
Show us on the doll where the opinion hurt you.

File: npc-hivemind.png (393.0 KB)

>Your skepticism is dangerous for our democracy

>>16993794
>do you even know who the father of modern science is

Y'know who else had "dangerous opinions" that needed to be repressed for the public good?

>>16993818
>for our democracy
Never was said. You're hallucinating.

File: seething_calmly.jpg (39.0 KB)

>Never was said. You're hallucinating.
Dumb clotcattle thinks it counts.

>>16993800
Its crazy to think that around 2009 the WHO attempted a world wide lockdown with H1N1 and was called out for creating a fake pandemic by whistle blowers, along with this climategate hoax.. Then 10 years later they simply repeated the exact same thing and its a success

Dangers to public health are not necessarily dangers to democracy. You should know the difference.

>>16993834
Yeah you covid cultists have yet to explain how rioting and protesting for an entire summer magically didnt spread an airborn virus

File: greyest-retard-itt.jpg (35.2 KB)

>Dangers to public health are not necessarily dangers to democracy. You should know the difference.
You can tell this NPC is quadrivaxxed.

>>16993789
Your mom

>>16993840
The discussion is polio.

>>16993847
The discussion is now your mother as you seem to believe i'm "anto science" with your play into vaccines.
Fuck off loser.

>>16993828
smartphones increased accessibility to the moronic masses and they perfected their thought and mind control systems.

lol how did polio mindbreak /sci/ this hard

>>16993834
democracy is dangerous to public health, there's no intrinsic accountability other than placating the masses so it attracts those who want free shit

>>16993852
I just stated statistical reality, dunno why I get called a conspiracy faggot for it.

>>16993847
>>16993852
What about Polio?? It's already been mentioned that disease, along with virtually every other deadly ailment was already on the decline or wiped out by hygiene standards in the 20th century

>>16993857
>wiped out by hygiene standards
lol

>He thinks hygiene prevents airborne viruses
Good luck washing your hands to prevent breathing in a virus lingering in the air.

>>16993860
Look up how Polio is contracted you FUCKING IDIOT

Well that shut him up.

File: polio transmission.png (89.2 KB)

>>16993864
https://www.cdc.gov/polio/about/index.html

>>16993868
And the most common way a person becomes infected is through shit you fucking dumb asshole. Furthermore
>Next, it enters the bloodstream where Aanti-polio@ antibodies are produced. In most cases, this stops the progression of the virus and the individual gains permanent immunity against the disease [1]. 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54Average Cases per 100,000 Many people mistakenly believe that anyone who contracts polio will become paralyzed or die. However, in most infections caused by polio there are few distinctive symptoms [2]. In fact, 95 percent of everyone who is exposed to the natural polio virus won’t exhibit any symptoms, even under epidemic conditions [3,4]. About 5 percent of infected people will experience mild symptoms, such as a sore throat, stiff neck, headache, and fever—often diagnosed as a cold or flu [3,5]. Muscular paralysis has been estimated to occur in about one of every 1,000 people who con-tract the disease
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252553744_The_polio_vaccine_a_critical_assessment_of_its_arcane_history_efficacy_and_long-term_health-related_consequences

Tldr You are extremely fucking stupid, and most likely a redditor cultist who takes r/science at face value because youre incapable of actually thinking.

>>16993872
>95% = 100%
>youre incapable of actually thinking.

>>16993873
Not sure what you're on about, but its still an objective, unassailable fact that polio and virtually every other deadly ailment was on the decline or wiped out thanks to hygiene standards

>>16993875
But have we considered that maybe the diseases which kill people also have a right to exist, and we're being shitlords by committing essentially genocide? There must be a way to coexist, where people carry every disease possible, but don't actually die. The true utopia we weren't promised, never planned for, but still thoroughly deserve. Why do we have to aim so low. Let's take all life with us on our grand adventure through the universe.

Why is the measles vaccine associated with rheumatoid arthritis?

>>16993880
Why is there an episode of the Brady Bunch where the kids all catch measles and celebrate because they get to miss school for a week? (Since it was not a big deal at all to be infected with Measles in 1970)

>>16993875
>wiped out thanks to hygiene standards
name one.

>>16993491
It mostly comes down to funding, no one is funding labs to run replication experiments making it much easier for lies to pass as truths because no one if fact checking.
In a perfect world we would have state run labs dedicated to replication and they would be a great place for post-grads to get real world experiance but we live in this shitty world were government spending is vilified by retards that drive on publically funded roads daily.

>>16993883
Polio. Besides that, diarrheal
diseases, diphtheria, measles, pneumonia and influenza, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, typhoid and paratyphoid fevers, and whooping cough already declined into irrelevancy or were eradicated in the mid 20th century thanks to hygiene standards.

>>16993885
>vilified by retards that drive on publically funded roads daily.
Funny you should mention that seeing as my states road budget has doubled since I started driving 20 years ago ontop of implementing a .50 cent tax on every gallon of gas each person pumps and yet the roads are worse than ever.

>>16993886
not a single one of those were wiped out, let alone by hygiene alone.
>polio wiped out
>still exists today

>>16993888
Government spending is good, corruption is bad, if you have high government spending and shitty government services the issue is corruption.

>>16993889
You are a child throwing a tantrum.
>wahhh it was only wiped out 95-99% that doesnt mean it was wiped out though

You need to be slapped across your dumb fuckin mouth which is what your whore mother should have done by now.

>>16993890
Ah yes, its just the corruption. Apathy never EVER comes out of the public sector!

>>16993893
>Apathy never EVER comes out of the public sector!
Apathy is in every sector, you think the kid putting the fies in the bag is giving it their all?
The biggest issue with public spending over the last 60 years is the shift from the government directly employing people and only paying wages to governments outsourcing to firms that pay shareholders and wages.

>>16993894
>The biggest issue with public spending over the last 60 years
Not really, it's because government spending and taxation has dwarfed the private sector. Case in point, recently it came out that in NYC, its going to cost $500k and take 3 years to replace 2 individual drinking fountains in one single park. The reason being because the public sector is so bloated with unions and employees that there needs to be like a dozen "departments" that have to approve the construction site before a single plumber even turns a wrench. Ontop of this, there is an inevitable conflict of interest with public unions, since they get to pay people and give benefits with OTHER people's money. So at the end of it all, who really gives a shit? Which is why almost every single project ALSO goes over schedule and over budget

>>16993818
(((Our))) Democracy

>>16993910
Our """democracy""".

>>16993897
>no unions are the problem
You guileless, self disrespecting worm of a taught wrong dumbass.
Bloat in society isnt the fault of the systems the society operates. It's the people.
It isnt mine yours any union nor the governments fault we have 10s millions broke 60 year olds who cant retire because they lived financially like retards despite making 2x the average.

Forest for the trees.

I read a quote here once, I thought it apt enough to remember it was something like
>In a democracy everything brureacrats do is is evil

>>16993930
That was my point stupid ass, hence the reason why I brought up apathy. Yes, apathy is totally natural, especially in our day in age. In application through public unions this issue becomes compounded. When the departments of buttfuck are the only ones allowed to illicit or launch projects then what fuckin incentive is there to actually do whats tasked? If the MDOT road crew fucks off and smokes weed all day while collecting over-time, whos going to correct it?

>>16993893
95-99% reduction is a reduction. wiped out means eradicated. is english your first language?

>>16993748
>I pointed to a dogmatic incentive that reinforces maintaining the fraud. unless you plan to argue coherently against it that.
See >>16993615

>>16993779
Recalls are expensive and food companies that have never had one are a minority. Your advice is retarded, unsustainable, and you most likely do not follow it yourself.

>>16993786
Comparing the entirety of science to one specific technology is moronic.

>>16993791
It's not fraud causing the replication crisis. Learn to read.

>>16993800
Point to a specific quote from a specific email which you think indicates fraud.

>hockey stick graph
Is not "bogus" and the research that went onto it is still valid today.

>>16993815
Thinking is dangerous.

>>16993995
>s not "bogus"

>>16993542
If most papers aren't replicable then why shouldn't most papers be dismissed?

>>16994019
Something that can't be replicated is not necessarily wrong. This is just the way psychology papers work. Most of the times the fault lies in the methodology as in the original paper doesn't describe theirs properly and then the replicators can't replicate the conditions right. Psychology isn't science, you can't just do tests like you can in chemistry or something where you can control all the important variables fairly trivially.

>>16994019
Because the vast majority of papers with any meaningful impact are replicated. The stuff that doesn't get replicated is shit you'd never bother to cite anyway.

Not to mentioned the initial "most published research is false" finding was over 20 years ago and the replication crisis is over 10 years old now. Do you really think nothing was done to mitigate the issue?

>>16994039
I understand people and the more I do the more
>we did our best to bury this and keep the machine rolling
Makes sense.
Some people ITT are behaving exactly as such, and in doing so are refusing to see the comedy of not providing any evidence for their broad claims.

>>16994041
>we did our best to bury this and keep the machine rolling
Who's trying to "bury" it? It's a dead horse people have been beating on for over a decade. There's countless media articles, youtube videos, (ironically) published studies about the issue...
How delusional does one need to be to see look at something so widely publicized as the replication crisis and conclude someone's trying to bury it?

>>16994046
because there's still a huge incentive to bury it, why is it so hard for you to not see that?
and now we have ai mediated fraud

>>16994028
psychology is used to justify some pretty brazen policy decisions
you;d think people would demand actual replicable data for some of their claims yet they reject iq data the most statistically replicable field in all of psychology?

>>16993995
>point to specific emails
Okay? Here have the whole mess of them https://archive.md/6p2r4

It is unassailably clear that IPCC were desperately working towards getting the results that they wanted. They lamented when the results werent what they wanted, they cheered when prominent climatologists that coitized them died, and they clearly were working to try and hide any traces of their methods too.
>Is not "bogus" and the research that went onto it is still valid today.

You are literally a cultist piece of shit and you need to have your head caved in

>>16994058
So is religion and it's 100% bullshit so I don'r see what your point is. If your issue is political you may want to head on over to /pol/ and complain that policy isn't based on good science and instead more on feels and memes. Good luck with that lmao. IQ studies for instance can basically never be replicated just to throw that in to confuse you more.

>>16994062
ah, I made the mistake of thinking you had a legitimate point, sorry for wasting my time

>>16994062
Lmao it is so painfully obvious that you are a piece of shit seething fuckin redditor. Tiny little frail faggots like you will never admit that youre fuckin wrong even when presented undeniable evidence.

>>16994056
Everyone has incentive to rob a bank. But if a bank isn't being robbed, the bank isn't being robbed.
You're here insisting people are trying to cover up the replication crisis despite the insane media coverage it receives. You're denying the reality in front of your own eyes.

>>16994068
>despite the insane media coverage it receives.
What insane media reports are you even referring to? That other anon is right too, if you even begin to try and research the topic on google it immediately tries to shut it down with an AI response claiming its already a myth and only showing links that defend academia

>>16994068
You are quite literally trying to shutdown discussion of how much wider and insidious this fraud is.

>>16993491
Science is about advancing collective assumptions in a way that can be recreated or reproduced objectively.

This works super well when dealing with things that are inherently objects, particles, molecules, bulk states of mater etc.

This system starts to break down when the objects of analysis are themselves subjective such as intents, motives, drivers ans feelings of people and animals.

The idea of an experiment is setting up an environment with known conditions that lead expected results.

This makes a lot of sense so far. When someone from china says "here is a novel method to make a room temp superconductor" the rest of the world can follow the procedure exactly and test the result themselves.

For something that's purely subjective, like psychology, many people have relied on the difficulty of reproducing exact experiments to get away with lying and fraud. They also got away with making large claims about exrenemely small sample sizes.

The sample size issue is probably the biggest issue that's not outright fraud. People will cobble together frame works and then stack up a bunch of studies using 20 people sample sizes

There's plenty of psychology research on personality disorders that will make claims about specific clinical entities while not addressing the inability to differentiate comorbidities or confounding variables. This research then gets tossed around as some novel finding, when in reality there hasn't been a really significant advancement in psychological understanding in like 100 years outside of imagine techniques and some neuroscience here and there.

Tl;dr
It's easier to get away with lying in the soft sciences and many people are more concerned with career, money, or idealogy than they are with accuracy and validity. You have to engage with scientific research, think critically, and remember that people can infact lie.

>>16994091
>and remember that people can infact lie.
they're either lying or retarded, both make me think less of them

>>16994073
>What insane media reports are you even referring to?
It's the quantity that's insane, not the contents.
Firat handful of results when searching (ignoring Wikipedia and reposts of identical studies):
psychologytoday. com/us/basics/replication-crisis
ipr.northwestern. edu/news/2024/an-existential-crisis-for-science .html
nature. com/articles/s44271-023-00003-2
theatlantic. com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/

>if you even begin to try and research the topic on google it immediately tries to shut it down with an AI response claiming its already a myth and only showing links that defend academia
I call bullshit.

>>16994088
How am I trying to "shut down" a discussion when I'm actively engaging with it? Telling you you're wrong is not censorship.

>>16994096
This subject clearly goes beyond just the subject of pyschology, and yet google and the results frame this as its already been fixed.
>oh um actually were just going to try harder
How did it get to this point in the first place? Because some academics don't like results with negative connotations? This needs to be a household subject that EVERYONE knows about

File: IMG_20260604_124703_521.jpg (118.3 KB)

>people defending the bullshit in this thread

>>16994122
Its kind of funny how it really just relates to the Chicken Little story. Any time the discourse boils down to, "You need to believe in this or else the sky will fall," whether it be covid, or climate change, I can literally dismiss it with an elementary school kids parable.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

>>16994104
>his subject clearly goes beyond just the subject of pyschology
Yes, the google results will tell you that.

>and yet google and the results frame this as its already been fixed.
Where? Who says it's "fixed?" The fact that the problem was identified and measures were taken to correct it is a good sign, but bad papers are a problem that will never go away entirely. It's a childish fantasy to think otherwise.

>How did it get to this point in the first place? Because some academics don't like results with negative connotations?
Publish or perish culture and peer reviewer fatigue. These are subjects explicitly discussed when you Google it. Fraud only makes up ~2% of retracted papers. It's mostly lazy researchers feeling obligated to shit out a paper and reviewers who can't be fucked to critically examine a throwaway paper about a niche subject nobody cares about.
>This needs to be a household subject that EVERYONE knows about
It already fucking is. Fucking veritasium did a video about it years ago. It's hard to get more mainstream when it comes to popsci slop. More people have heard of the replication crisis than can name a singular casualty of it.

>>16994068
Different anon but that hasnt been my point at all.
The most likely outcome is nothing has changed, at least not significantly enough to matter.
Do you have any idea how many people still think lk99 is real, and that the discovery is chinese?
Aside from the effect of bad science on the populace, people are still people and shit will atill be forced through whichever crack is tried to fit it through.

What I'm saying is the replication crisis exists for as long as humans are still these barely above base animals that we are.

>>16994155
>nothing has changed, at least not significantly enough to matter.
Retractions went up 40 fold since the year 2000. Preregistration became a standard in many journals specifically because of the replication crisis, practically eliminating the possibility of p-hacking and HARKing among journals that employ the practice.

>lk99
Funny enough, I was considering citing that as a prime example of science being quick to correct when the claim is something actually relevant. It took a matter of weeks to nip that shit in the bud because it was actually a remarkable claim. I don't know who you're talking to that still thinks LK99 is legit but I assure you they're exceptionally retarded people.

Anyone got that paper on the rise of pragmatists vs dogmatists? was from the early 20th century describing the worrying trend emerging

>>16993491
Ever since the Marxists infiltrated academia nobody has been able to replicate the papers the ideologues tout so proudly to justify their delusions, because Marxism is retarded and wrong. But they will never let up, so we will keep seeing false papers day in and day out.

>>16993585
>>Mask stops spread of covid?
>Fake

If masks do nothing then why do surgeons wear masks?

>>16994545
The surgeons require a sterile environment. They wear masks to prevent their patients from getting sick. Even if their saliva doesn't contain viruses, getting droplets into a patient during surgery can cause their immune system to go wild. Consider the following: cysts aren't formed by viruses, but from ingrown hairs that the body cannot dispel from the system. So it creates a barrier around the foreign entity.

Note that surgical masks do NOT prevent the surgeon from getting sick if the patient splatters blood onto the mask, for example. You should be thanking the kind surgeons for putting their own health at risk to help ungrateful parasites like you.

>>16993618
>The amount of papers I've read, as you also said, that are using shitty methods and confounded math to create their pre outset conclusion is embarassing
This is called P-Hacking and it's related to the Replication problem
>>16993542
>In practice: whenever somebody brings it up, they are most likely just using it as an excuse to ignore evidence presented to them
They are scrutinizing a claim that likely has a very poor prognosis for replication and subesquently getting dogpiled by disingenious grant farmers applying more Science to P-Hacking than any *actual* Science, though I understand this is an easy and low effort avoidance tactic
>>16993615
>being the humans they are, are most likely just gonna read the abstract, look at the figures provided, read the conclusion, and pass it off with a shrug if nothing sounds obviously retarded
They P-Hack a result to fit some Science narrative then present a paper filled with buzzwords they know carry more value to the people reviewing them than the actual Science in an attempt to grift some funding for some ridiculous study like feeding cocaine to Fish.
If you do this long enough eventually you impress somebody well enough start getting cited for things and can build an actual career while politely flying well below any Nobel Prize levels of scrutiny and review

Academia is a business, and due to the law of averages, Academia must graduate *most* of the midwits in order to turn a profit and this is the result you get: A system clogged with a bunch of people smart enough to figure out how to make money, but not interested in engaging in any real tangible Science and as a side effect, that system fills up with a huge amount of junk papers which were "good enough" not to be noticed but offer little to no value once appropriately scrutinized.

>>16994759
You don't understand what p-hacking is. P-hacking is selective inclusion/exclusion of data points or multi-hypothesis testing searching for a relevant signal among noise. It's not just a shorthand for "any methodological shenanigans used to support a predetermined conclusion." If the real signal is inverted from the desired signal, p-hacking will not work.
The rest of your post is mostly just you hammering down on a term that you do not understand and a demonstration of your total ignorance of how journals have actively tackled the issue over the past decade.

In short: you are opining on an issue you know very little about.

>>16993542
Anything dealing with human biology or pharmaceuticals also became super suspicious afterwards. So much of cancer research became untrustworthy.

>>16993607
Chemistry was bound to have a big issue with replication given how sloppy some laboratory standards get.

>>16994060
You never read those emails.

Does amy of this also have to do with what James Lindsay did? When he wrote a bunch of bogus retarded papers on purpose and submitted them for peer review?

>>16994068
These types of contrarians love to claim that they're being silenced or ignored while getting massive attention the entire time.
There's no winning with them.

>>16994783
Whatever you say redditor cultist. Oh yes I'm sure that the gas I exhale is causing bad weather. Fuckin pussy.

>>16994787
>insane media
>massive attention
Lmao hardly anybody knows about the replication crisis outside of a few tiny pockets

File: 1780004394004790.jpg (203.7 KB)

>>16993810
You are the niggercattle, you fucking moron.
You literally copied your skepticism from a functionally illiterate 45 year old virgin on /pol/ or whatever random quack you found youtube that would also tell you benadryl empowers anal parasites.

>>16994791
Bullshit.
Anyone vaguely interested in science/popsci would have been introduced to it.
Veritasium did a video on it, black science man discussed it. Conspiracy channels evoke it when trying to dodge scientific criticism.

If someone hasn't heard of it at this point, they are either very young or they're the type of person that wouldn't care even if you told them.

>>16994792
>Cultist throwing a melty
You fags have yet to explain how the virus magically stayed away from the homeless and protestors

>>16993813
Retarded to post this when Thalidomide was blocked by American medical experts and that is why it was not as big of a problem in the US compared to Europe.
If we were back in that era, you'd be bitching up a storm that Frances Kelsey didn't let a new wonder drug enter the country and that we need far less medical regulation to save lives.

>>16994791
Every substantial science communication personality or newspaper or anything of the like discussed it heavily.

>>16994794
>Interest in science
So yeah like I said, a tiny pocket of people. Most of the modern "interest" these days comes from people who go to r/science because they posted a study that shows Trump voters are dumb

>>16994800
>Most of the modern "interest" these days comes from people who go to r/science because they posted a study that shows Trump voters are dumb
I guarantee you even those types have heard of the replication crisis. Arrogant redditors are exactly the types of people who watch Veritasium religiously and hang on to Tyson's every word.

>>16994796
>cultist
Disavow /pol/ and Youtube as a source for anything related to scientific research.

>>16994778
>became
The common impression was that shit was untrustworthy long before the replication crisis.
But it's funny you mention the medical field as medical journals were among the first to impose preregistration requirements which make p-hacking effectively impossible.
You can't get a clinical trial published anymore unless you tell the journal, in advance, what you're testing for and what your sample size is gonna be before you even run the experiment. This is a direct consequence of the replication crisis.

>>16993491
certain religiously parroted myths like freudian psychology and autism vaccines are fraudulent, and those same religious parrots try to apply that fact to other scientific fields

>>16994803
>Still can't explain how the virus magically avoided protestors and the homeless.

>>16994810
>still hammering on a non-sequitur.
I'll bite: homeless people were more susceptible to Covid, not less. This is something you can verify by googling it for 2 seconds.
Protestors? I don't know what their rate of contracting the disease was. You might be able to google it but I can't be fucked.

Now tell me how covid infection rates is even remotely relevant to the discussion.

>>16994813
>homeless people were more susceptible to Covid, not less.
And yet there was never any significant loss of homeless people, and as for protestors..
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/little-evidence-that-protests-spread-coronavirus-in-u-s

>>16994820
>And yet there was never any significant loss of homeless people
Because a small proportion of people infected with Covid died at all, retard.

>protestors
So I decided to google it, cited reasons were:
>1. Protestors were wearing masks
>b-but masks don't work
Yes they do, retard.
>2. More people stayed home during demonstrations.
Most people don't want to get caught up in that bullshit and would rather not leave the comfort of their homes at the time.
>3. The demonstrations were outside.
Pretty self explanitory.

Even if you don't like these explanations (because they directly contradict the political narrative you're emotionally attached to), your claim that their is "no explanation" is falsifiable in a 2 second google search.
You are a moron.

>>16994776
That's what P-Hacking is and the goal if it is to manipulate results. The rest of your post is mostly you just splitting hairs to in order to pick an intellectually dishonest angle to try and pass off smug posting as a valid argument.
>If the real signal is inverted from the desired signal, p-hacking will not work.
Well no shit, most people are at least somewhat strategic about this that's why it's such a problem

I'd make an argument, but I know it's pointless because if you're challenged you're just going start citing credentials, and this is why I don't deal with Academics anymore.

In short: You're basically just mad, deal with it

>>16994852
It's not hair splitting to point out that the things you say are p-hacking are not p-hacking at all.
P-hacking has essentially nothing to do with confirming pre-existing biases. That sort of misconduct typically involves entirely different avenues of data manipulation.
P-hacking revolves around extracting signal from noise and/or making a weak signal look stronger than it is.

I repeat, you do not understand the thing you are opining on.

File: 680763d8-1898-4775-86c4-8525e7be03a5-RG107469.jpg (217.6 KB)

>>16994822
You are a cultist lmao

File: ghows-NC-200619518-f56902dc.jpg (553.6 KB)

>>16994822

File: 9812f152-6885-4359-9080-61292286f3df-large16x9_GeorgetownPolicemarchwithprotestersGCSO.jpg (202.3 KB)

>>16994822
>>16994822

File: GEORGE-FLOYD-DENVER-HC-IMG_8199.jpg (533.1 KB)

>>16994822
>>16994822
>>16994822
>And then magically the virus disappeared

>>16994822
So prior to the protests when everyone was locked down the virus spread... But when tens of thousands of people walked shoulder to shoulder mostly without masks that prevented the virus happening because they were outside? That's really interesting .. maybe you shouldn't repeat Google searches at face value because you sound like a fuckin retard

>>16994854
>I repeat
That's usually the course of avenue in these types of arguments. Look, no matter how smug you are, P-Hacking *is* data manipulation and the goal of it is to produce a statically significant result where it otherwise would not exist. Motivations for which vary but more often than not is a result of poor Scientific rigor rather than nefarious intent, however the problem is now commonplace in Academia

>P-hacking has essentially nothing to do with confirming pre-existing biases
Actually, people engage in P-Hacking specifically because they are integrating a pre-existing bias
You're basically trying to validate your position by asserting you're too ignorant to understand mine. I can do it too - it's not difficult and you aren't creative for doing so.

File: George_Floyd_protests_in_Seattle_-_June_3,_2020_-_James_Street_from_4th_Avenue.jpg (3.6 MB)

>>16994869
>>16994870
>>16994871
>>16994872
>>16994875
I can cherry pick images too (Also lol at the retard holding his sign upside down).

That aside, you are ignoring the other points being made. And the claim was never that protestors didn't get covid, many of them did. It's that the protests weren't linked to a corresponding increase in infection rates.

>>16994877
Which is categorically silly. Everyone is shoulder to shoulder in masks, while plenty of others didn't wear masks.

There's no avenue where you can list these rules and have it make sense. 10,000 people shoulder to shoulder is verifiably worse than having 20-30 people in a restaurant.

You are a cultist

File: Screenshot_20260605-224016.png (1.6 MB)

Fucking lol

>>16994876
>P-Hacking *is* data manipulation and the goal of it is to produce a statically significant result where it otherwise would not exist
True, but your earlier post was conflating data manipulation with p-hacking. P-hacking = data manipulation but data manipulation != p-hacking.

>people engage in P-Hacking specifically because they are integrating a pre-existing bias
Typically not. It's to make their paper look worthy of publication. They usually aren't actually trying to convince anyone of anything. They're more often just trying to pad their CV. These are usually the kinds of papers where the researcher didn't really care what their results said as long as the outcome was statistically significant.

>the problem is now commonplace in Academia
Less common now than ever before due to safeguards implemented specifically because of the replication crisis coming to light.

>>16994879
>10,000 people shoulder to shoulder is verifiably worse than having 20-30 people in a restaurant.
That might be true. But when the protests aren't happening, the total amount of people leaving their homes and interacting is greater, even if less densely packed. You're comparing the protest to one restaurant when you should be comparing it to the sum total of all restaurants in the city, every workplace, every store, etc. Nobody's going about their business when a riot's going on and going about your business is how you spread disease.

File: philly_pano_add_2-460_x2.jpg (217.8 KB)

>>16994884
>the total amount of people leaving their homes and interacting is greater, even if less densely packed

That's stupid, nobody outside of a few miles around the protests stayed at home. Do you think people in the suburbs stopped going to the grocery store because there was a protest 25 minutes away down town?

You are a cultist. You believe this was safe during a supposed viral outbreak. You are unable to think clearly because you are scared to question a very silly dogma.

>>16993491
>>16993542
It means that many published results central to the papers conclusions can't be reproduced.

Either because essential details of experimental procedures were not recorded, experiments were poorly conducted (uncalibrated instruments, testing samples at the limits of detection, controls were not included, etc.), or results were faked.

This is a solved problem. For example the journal Organic Syntheses requires that procedures be replicated by another lab and their measurements be within 1% of the submitting authors to be approved for publication.

The problem is that academic tenure and the grant process incentivizes good stories rather than good research. Much like industrial settings focus on profits over understanding. And journals are more focused on whether a story is intersting (and will lead to more readership) than if it is true.

In short the commercialization of academia has led to its corruption.

>>16994887
>nobody outside of a few miles around the protests stayed at home.
And the protests typically happened at central locations where "within a few miles" pretty much meant "the whole community."

>You believe this was safe during a supposed viral outbreak.
I think covid wasn't a big fucking deal at all, but that's a qualitative assessment.
The people involved in the protests were absolutely at higher risk of infection than those not involved. But that's not the claim being disputed. The point is that the increased risk from engaging in that activity was effectively counterbalanced by the reduced risk on the rest of the community that stayed the fuck away from there.

>>16994893
No, they happened in downtown areas, hence the reason there's 10,000 people you stupid fuck. Here in Detroit they were in cork town, a tiny portion of the metropolitan. I mentioned bars and restaurants since they were closed and locked down. As were schools. So according to you, the virus infection rates were rising during these times (which were used to justify the lockdowns in the first place.) Yet suddenly, when thousands upon thousands of people all showed up shoulder to shoulder, that didn't register even a blip... But walking past someone in a grocery store or whatever corporate chain that was allowed to stay open.. That raised the infection rate?

You are a mindless cultist.

>>16994897
The BLM protests included thousands of demonstrations across the entire country of wildly varying sizes. I don't know what the impact of your particular example is and it's not relevant. The claim is, when taken as a whole, the protests did not increase the rate the disease was spreading among those communities.

Those findings were based on this study of 360 cities with protests:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w27408.pdf
They tracked people's movements via their cell phones and found that people left the house less often if there was a protest around.

You call me a "cultist" but here you are digging in your heels when presented with a direct explanation for a phenomenon which you insist "has no explanation."

>>16994901
>>16994901
You are literally incapable of thought, hence the reason you are repeating your dogma over and over without taking actual reality into the equation. If the virus was spreading during lockdowns with everything closed, then it makes absolutely no sense how ten thousand people can gather shoulder to shoulder and have it stay put. You literally can't have it both ways.
>Actually everyone stayed home because of the protests
Which would imply that the protests were happening everywhere. Thiatis a tiny spot of Philadelphia that was packed with people. So, according to your source, this demonstration made the entire metropolitan of people to stay home? Furthermore, you mean to tell me those that studied had access to the entire metropolitans gps coordinates via their phones??

You're either extremely stupid or you're a cultist.

Why do vaccines make Americans seethe so hard

You guys aren't ready for the problem with popper and induction vs deduction.

>>16995131
>Nooooooo leave the pharmaceutical alone!

>>16995131
Europeans were the ones that blew the whistle when the WHO tried taking a pandemic with H1N1

>>16995142
faking*

>>16995085
You are incapable of reading, hence the reason you are repeatedly mumbling about your own misunderstanding of what's being claimed.
The virus was still spreading during the protests, the claim is that the protests did not increase the rate it was being spread within the communities where they were happening.
The funny thing about this is I can't even say I fully buy the explanation. But you're the one insisting there is "no explanation" when there clearly is one and refusing to even attempt to understand what's being claimed.

The study picked ~360 protests out of thousands. What as the inclusion criteria? They relied on phone GPS data provided by a third party. Was the sample of people being tracked statistically relevant? They specifically measured spread within the areas immediately surrounding the protests, how did they account for people who came from outside the community to attend?
These are the right questions to ask. And you're right to be skeptical of the study in question. But when your response to it is plugging your ears and rambling schizophrenically, it makes it really hard to throw you a bone because your mouth is already foaming and you're looking for blood.

>>16995139
I prefer abduction.

>>16995166
I'm not reading any of your semantics bullshit you fuckin idiot.
>You said there was no explanation but here's an explanation that I don't even fully agree with because of how fucking stupid it is

Why even waste your time? Nigger

>>16993491
Replication crisis is the name for discovering that scientists are by and large lazy fucks who never conduct independent experiments to verify already published research. The original authors could have got something wrong but no one re-runs the experiment to find out.

>>16995198
Well one part is I enjoy browbeating schizos. The other part is I'm optimistic that you might learn from this interaction and learn how to competently make your case, because currently all you can do is cry when disagreed with and it lowers the quality of discourse.

>>16995204
You're not even browbeating. You had to invent semantics like, "The protests were the entire community" whatever that means. You're completely grasping at straws like a whiney pussy

>>16995262
>The protests were the entire community
I said no such thing. You are hallucinating because you're mentally ill. That's not even what "semantics" means.

>>16995264
>And the protests typically happened at central locations where "within a few miles" pretty much meant "the whole community."


You are such a dumbass piece of shit you can't even remember the bullshit you typed yesterday

>Inb4 ummmm no no no that wasn't me!

>>16995267
>And the protests typically happened at central locations where "within a few miles" pretty much meant "the whole community."
>"The protests were the entire community"
These two statements do not mean remotely the same thing. This is basic reading comprehension you're failing at here.

>>16995268
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/entire
According to dictionary yes as a matter of fact "whole" and "entire" are synonyms. Cry baby little pussy can't admit when they fucked up and said dumbass shit

>>16995271
The definition of "whole" vs "entire" is not the point of contention. Learn to read.

>>16995272
Yes it is little boy, you said that protests levied the entire community to stay home. That is what you typed. Sorry you can't just throw a tantrum and claim you're right or wrong here in real life

>>16995273
>you said that protests levied the entire community to stay home
No. I said the claim is that more people stayed home as a result of the protest than attended the protest. If you don't understand the distinction I am here to help.

File: Screenshot_20260606-155305.png (205.3 KB)

>>16995272
This nigger doesn't know how dictionaries work lmao

>>16995274
See
>>16995275
You said the protests were the "whole" community, meaning the entire community. It's not my fault you cannot comprehend how the English language works

>>16995277
>You said the protests were the "whole" community,
I did not say that. That is your own hallucination.

File: Screenshot_20260606-160142.png (93.1 KB)

>>16995280
What does this say? Sound it out little boy

>>16995282
I did say the phrase "the whole community," yes.
It's everything else you hallucinated.

>>16995283
Lmfao. It's so obvious your birth year starts with 2 and I'm going to go on a limb that you're an only child. Your dad either isn't home or is a giant pussy because little kids like you need to be slapped across the mouth when they try and pull this prissy bullshit.

>>16995287
Fascinating how you shift from your failed attempt to parse out plain english to a personal attack while being wrong on every single assumption you've made about me. Another manifestation of mental illness?

File: download.png (240.2 KB)

>>16995291
Save it little boy, I saved this for my collection of seethe

>>16995292
The fact that your sick mind thinks that image shows a contradiction is astounding. You should sign up for a case study.

>>16995298
That's ok little boy keep throwing your little tantrum while everyone else who visits can see what a bitch you are lmao

>>16995299
>tantrum
More hallucinations, I see.
Please. Keep going. These sorts of mental breakdowns are what I come to these discussions for.

>>16995301
I seriously hope you're not close to graduating high school yet because your little tantrums in the real world are going to get your head caved in. Just a word of advice

>>16995302
>Y-you're mad!
Yeah, okay buddy. Just watch the blood pressure. I don't wanna be responsible for you having a stroke, even if it would be really, really funny.

>>16993542
With Psychological studies a lot of it depends on the people you are studying. Take the one where they "fake" shocked people with a guy with a clipboard telling them to, and people just kept doing it. Most people would tell them to fuck off and just walk out, they were not threatening them with violence or anything, which kinda explains the Nazi regime lol. Country and attitude also changes results. There was a crash at I think it was JFK airport or NY or something and the NY air controllers are kinda aggressive, the plane was running out of fuel and the guy was from somewhere where people were not so aggressive and was telling them meekly that he was running out of fuel, then they drowned him out being aggressive, whereas an american pilot probably would have started screaming at them we are running out of fuel, clear a path now or I'll land the plane right in your office. And some Uni's will get funding to recruit from national and international communities whereas smaller Uni's will just have access to hipsters than are waling nearby the University on a given day. There are some blanket psychological techniques and dark arts like MKultra that work on anybody with enough force but the studies most psychologists do are shit.

You have to be a special kind of retard to try and attempt defending the saint floyd protests during COVID holy shit

>>16993542
>i-it's just psychology
Cope, and you're probably indian too.

>>16995476
Reread the post you're responding to nice and slow. If you finish reading it and still think the post you made is a relevant response: read it again, but slower.

>>16995480
I'm imagining raping you, does that count?

>>16995491
Idk, sounds a little gay desu.

>>16995480
True that, there's a ton of fraud in the medical and climate fields as well

Imagine remembering how governments and news were downplaying the FLOYDOVIDdemic despite the >1billion in damages and massive spike in black violence and having the audacity to say that the WHOLE aren't responsible.

I feel responsible for it for not going out and committing a mass murder and bagging at least 50 coons + casualties to defend society.
You're responsible for it too.

I don't see how anyone honest with them himself or herself can say that the George Floyd Protests didn't increase the rate of COVID transmission.

>>16995971
>didn't
The word your meant was shouldn't or wouldn't.