112
What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
551 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

EDIT: Let's cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We're not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don't believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I'm sure almost everybody has something to add.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I'm not criticizing work so much as all the things where the claim work is done but wasn't.

As a flow artist, I understand pendulums more than most. I heckin live pendulums! I play with them every day!

Science is good. Science publishing is out of hand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I agree with you that science publishing can be of variable quality. One solution for the reader IS to never trust one paper alone, scientific knowledge is established when many papers are published about the same topic and give the same conclusions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    So bigger number = more true?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Actually, yes.

    Journal Impact Factor (JIF), is a very important part of establishing credibility.

    Reputable journals are very selective about what they publish. They're worried about their JIF.

    If you get published in a journal with a high JIF, you can be as close to possible as establishing a foundation of fact, as their articles have a high chance of being both reproducible and accurate.

    If there was a casino that took bets for which scientific discoveries would be true ten years from now, I would make money all decade long by betting on high ranking JIF articles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I wish you could hear yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Don't worry, I do. The problem here is that there are two different definitions of truth. Scientific Truth/Fact is what we are left with after we rule out what is not true.

    Science doesn't make declarative statements about what is true in any ultimate sense. But when we talk about truth in science, we're referring to the scientific consensus.

    When we use the scientific method, we deduce facts about reality, then use those facts to infer "truth". Of course, science is often wrong, and we discover when truth is wrong in the second half of the process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent