so has the replication crisis been proven real or were others unable to confirm?
Has anyone reproduced the study that originally claimed there was a replication crisis?
>>16177920unable to confirm
the results were real to mei was publishing truth to power
>>16177870The problem with peer-review system is much worse than just that. It's neither peer nor review. That process should be transparent for whole the world to observe, and submitted stuff should be immediately available on their websites, even if they decide not to put it into the paper version of their magazines.
>>16178976trees grow back retard, get over your childish chuunibyo savior complex
>>16178976>Crowther found that there are approximately 3.04 trillion trees exist on the planet today–a mind-boggling number, especially compared with previous estimates that had not yet guessed the Earth had even a half-trillion trees.https://blog.tentree.com/fact-check-are-there-really-more-trees-today-than-100-years-ago/
>>16177870Why would it be the scientist's fault? You're assuming malice.In reality it was cost by there being too much information and papers to create without there being enough money to reproduce anything.
>>16179606Thank you CO2!
>>16179606CO2 making the planet green without warming a thing like a good trace gas. Fatties overheating and calling global warming
>>16179606>Today, annual tree harvest vs. production on a worldwide scale shows that humans cut down approximately 15 billion trees a year and re-plant about 5 billion. That’s a net loss of 10 billion trees every year, and a rate that would mean the loss of all trees within the next 300 years.
>>16179476>he doesn't understand the value of old growth forests
>>16177870see >>16179599>>16179635No it's genuinely malice and fraud. 99% of papers are garbage made by professors who are so stupid they can't even teach you the basics of their subject properly.What kind of of papers do you think they publish? Unless you are in one of the top 1% elitist programs in the world, there's no chance you are qualified to publish anything of value that adds something to human knowledge.But everyone publishes anyway pretending the garbage they write is important and not calling out the fraudulent system.
>>16179707>a mind-boggling number, especially compared with previous estimates
>>16179635>>16179635>assuming malicewhy should I not assume (or in this case, detect) malice when I see the same "academic" publishing the same shitty ass study for the twentith time in the last 5 years in slightly different form when there is no theoretical basis and I tried to replicate their work for the 3rd time and it didn't work? Ivy leauge professor btw.>>16179722>top 1% elitist programs in the worlddumbass, top 1% elite programs in the world are also full of scam. they attract most of the narcissitic frauds.
>>16179798But they still get IMO winners and the smartest kids, if anyone have a chance of publishing something of value, it's them. Most other schools around the world are filled with larpers. Like if you a professor from Zurich Polytechnique or Ecole Normal Sueprieur published something it might be of actual value.If even they are publishing nonsese, think how bad it must be everywhere else.
it's not a replication crisis anymore. it should be called widespread fraud due to replication disdain. the easiest path to ruin your academic career is to attempt to replicate something from a senior academic and it didn't work and you bring it up. you'll be shunned and never find work ever again in the academic space.
>>16179476>>16179606https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cndkF7bX3M
>>16179844I was gunna make a snarky comment about Vox but its lind of interesting and I want to beat up someone right now so its nice to relax.[releases nerve gas from a radio]
>>16179798>>16179722Still didn't prove malice. Post IQ, schizo.
>>16179806"replication crisis" was always a polite, politically correct euphemism for outright fraud. the people who came up with it were doubtlessly part of the people committing fraud, if they were honest scientists then they would've been outraged at those committing the frauds and would have used a more accusatory descriptive term. instead fraudulent scientists get the dindu treatment and they try to act like the massive amount fraud is all just a big accident rather than wholesale dishonesty
>>16180976This is not a fair labeling to be cast on the individual papers. There are factors beside fraud for why replication may not be possible. The charge is credibly levied at the institution as a fraud, churning out people producing useless work. Useless because it is either so irrelevant that it isn't worth replicating - why do these experiments? - or the work itself is so confounded, complex and difficult that it can't be replicated - why do these experiments? - or the work is outright fabricated.Publish or perish answers all of these questions and it is outright fleecing of research grants and funds. Link your topic to current thing and receive your payment.
>>16179476Do you want all animals in the future to look like a chink? Because that's where we are heading, all extant animals get replaced by human mutants. Fuck you.
>>16181007>Publish or perish answers all of these questions and it is outright fleecing of research grants and funds. Link your topic to current thing and receive your payment.this is the fraudulent system engineered by the career focused mediocre bureaucrats who call themselves "scientists" to make their useless work look great and stealing opportunties from real scientists.there is nothing called "blaming the system". no, you're just deflecting. those systems are created and perputuated by the people who control it as a scapegoat, as a tool to steal money and it is working as exactly as intended for the frauds.
>>16177870I'm in grad school and I can't replicate shit. It's nearly impossible unless the authors share their files. Even then they don't replicate because its likely from an old version of python with a bunch of packages that don't exist anymore.
>>16181627>CStardwell count yourself lucky. it's easy for CS to replicate, you just haven't tried hard enough. I'd say 50% of research in CS are replicatable, which is probably among the highest in the fields. I have worked in both CS and in a wetlab and the scientific standard in wetlab are bottom sewer gutter tier. I'm not surprised if at least 90% of their published craps are deliberate unreplicatable nonsenses.
>>16179707Top educated scientists forgot that trees propagate by themselves. Who'da thunk it?
>>16177870it's on the terminator's jaw, upside-down.
>>16177870Publicationmaxxing is the rational approach in modern academia.
>>16178976>>16179606>>16179707Wait, half the trees were destroyed in 46 years, how come it will now take 300 years to eradicate the rest? I thought we were winning?
>>16181784Amogus
>>16181798>I'll just use this carbon-fuel based machine to cut down and transport my treesHumans will never learn. Trees were supreme long ago, and shall be again.
>>16181811Bark-covered limbs typed this post.
>>16179798The major physics journals alone publish ~200K papers every year and I guarantee you have not read enough of them to generalize the entire lot as "garbage"
>>16181862>~200K papersI guarantee you that at least 99.99% of them never get published at the world would be the fucking same.they're fucking mostly junk cv padding for and grant bow-tying trashes produced by degree mills.
>>16178976>I only use open source code and review the source myself before building it for testing in my sandbox environment.What the fuck are you contributing in this fantasy?
>>16181793I wonder before being ousted how many honors and praises this guy received by the "scientific community".
>>16179805>Like if you a professor from Zurich Polytechnique or Ecole Normal Sueprieur published something it might be of actual valueSeeing people say shit like this makes me want to weep. I did my undergrad, PhD and postdoc in top 5 global ranked universities. None of the groups I worked in knew what the hell they were doing. They only kept existing because, despite the general incompetence of the majority, there was once in a while someone competent enough to get a decent paper out. But the tables were heavily tilted towards them getting into the top journals in the first place and everyone creamed at the thought of collaborating with a top university. The biggest narcissist retard conman I've ever had the displeasure to personally work with is being fast-tracked to tenure at EPFL. There's some very competent people in these institutions but it is absolutely stupid to assume that someone is competent simply because they are in such an institution. If anything, they get away with a lot more.>>16181862The world has 8 billion+ people and despite nobody measuring a significant fraction of them we can make some very generalizeable claims.
>>16181888>degree millsIsn't every university a degree mill nowadays?I actually learned a lot during my PhD but only published one article before going into industry.
>>16181793That facial hair by itself should have prompted a probe.
>>16181910many of them are degree mills but some of them are not.when I were interviewing for my PhD, I was about to join a group lead by a chink professors at a top 10 universities in the US. his google scholar profile 50% of his publications are the almost exact same shit published over and over again into top R1 journals where he and his friends are editors and chairmans. the other 50% are the grant chasing stuffs like crypto, machine learning in X, Y, Z which are retarded. joining that group means I would had to work on whatever the most trending topic and easiest to get grants at the time even though I know they're mostly bullshit. they're pumping out a few papers every week and a few PhD per year. it's literally a paper and degree mill. meanwhile I also interviewed for more obscure universities where the professor is a pajeet but he actually has much more interesting and comprehensive coherent research program. it's all depend on the professors but my general impression is that the most narccisistic fame hungry pseudo people are plenty in the very top institutions.
>>16181908Researchers at ETH, ENS are well known for their very deep knowledges of their field (usually maths and physics); precisely because there are very few post grads or PhD slots in those unis. ETH isn't like Cambridge and their 400000 different departments.
>>16181925I see what you mean, but did you learn while working on your PhD? Do you feel like you've contributed to science?At least my professor had a very coherent research goal (and of course tried to get grants every now and then) but overall his work was coherent and curiosity driven.
>>16182376I think we would benefit from a sharp definition of a degree mill and a high quality university.
>>16182378I think part of the problem is that while some institutions are outright degree/paper mills, there's legitimate and even renowned universities with groups that put out bullshit.
>>16182378>>16183000The only difference is the size of the campus and the cost of tuition.
>>16181925>a group lead by
>>16179662>Fatties overheating and calling global warming/thread
>>16185167>i'm so low iq i can't tell the difference between hollywood goyslop and irl life
>>16185902You're talking about an extremely large group of people who "can't tell the difference between hollywood goyslop and irl life"Thats the IQ range of about 75-105, its about 45% of everyone
>>16178976Following the analogy50% of the earth forests have been destroyed in minutes and seconds literally tens of thousands of times
>>16177870>cannot replicate Israeli study>oy vey this is antisemitismThe replication problem is very real
>>16177870Doesn't the replication crisis mainly refer to the field of psychology, where replication is hard because there are a fuckton of unknowns when it comes to experiments with humans?
>>16188182no
>>16179476Not to mention this stupid scaling make it seem like its going so fast while it really doesn't.
>>16177870daily reminder that the replication crisis affects mostly psychology and that schizos latch on to it because their life is empty
>>16189013nice wishful thinking, but you are completely wrong
>>16189013Its way worse in physics and chemistry. Chemistry is as much a culinary art as it as a science so two scientists following the exact same sythesis can get wildly different results. In physics, everyone has their own homemade shitty simulation software that is full of bugs. The one time my group wanted to recreate someone elses simulation to figure out why it was differing from our own results, we asked them for their code. They sent use a suite of Fortran 77 programs all tied together with linux shell scripts. When you tried to compile the Fortran code, you got a trillion warnings and errors. After we couldn't get it to compile even with their instructions, we got their actual executables, which just crashed everytime we tried to run them.
>>16189440I don't understand, how could there not be agreed on simulation requirements? Is modeling heavily tied to computing capability or something?
>>16189579Every group has their own special snowflake simulation techniques in physics. Like there are broad umbrella terms everyone uses like DFT, but everyone has their own little snowflake branch of it that is tweaked and fitted by them
>>16189579computer modeling is a fallacy, the model's author(s) create software which conforms to how they presume physics works and the software then necessarily confirms the author(s) presumption that they know how everything works is correct. its basically just a big thought experiment for people who can't do math in the heads, just a farce. the only people who get involved with it are people who can't do analytical math and who are too out of touch with reality to do experimental work
>>16190352Such modelling should be subject to pruning, where better models are more accurate, giving better results, more likely to be repeated or cited, etc. What type of parameters are they given the freedom to adjust? Anybody have a textbook on this topic or is it all CS hokie stuff?
>>16190358I were doing in door climate modelling for a company for a while. There are gazillion parameters to adjust. Whenever the results dont match the data they just change the way the control is modelled, or adding some terms there in this part of this approximation functions, or removing some... It's a total inconsistent clusterfuck of throwing darts in the dark, hoping it will hit the bulleye.
>>16177870N
>>16190781>I were doing
>>16181862Not involved in this debate but I'd say the magnitude of that number may even be evidence of a lack of quality.
>>16181862I have and they're garbage. Nobody is going to pay to publish something worth reading. People who publish things that are worth reading get paid to do so.
>>16189579It's VERY hard to get a group of scientists to agree to shit, particularly if it involves changing a convention or their own personal way of doing things.Ex. There's been a push to standardize low temperature plasma sources for almost two decades. Agreeing to specifications for a 'standard' source would lead to such sources becoming significantly cheaper and would make comparison of plasma research results significantly more straightforward. But it's gotten almost nowhere, despite almost everyone in the community agreeing that it's something that should happen... because (a) everyone thinks their standard is best and (b) nobody wants to change how they do things.Same thing goes for instruction. I left my last faculty job because our older faculty refused to allow changes to be made to the labs for our service and intro courses, despite the fact that the lab manual we were using was pushing 30 years old and most of the equipment it required us to keep using hadn't actually functioned in 10-15 years.
>>16181793Berto is a chad
>>16192190they're only hassling him because he is white. retractionwatch never calls out black scientists
>>16193322Maybe they just assume that everyone already know blacks are too dumb to produce any decent science, so they don't feel obligated to debunk them
>>16193834
>>16193322have you ever seen any black soience man pumping a few papers out every week? nah, that doesn't happen.this white baldie is also a fraud not anything better than the black plagarists btw. he just get a better position in the ponzi hierarchy than them. probably he is worse than the black DEI ones because he is the one who are exploit and potentially supporting the system. his scientific contribution to the work he had his name on is zero.
>>16194914He published a lot of garbage and was never called out for it. He plagiarized the Santa Barbra Instrument Group CCD manual and submitted it as a publication and nobody said a thing.
>>16195535>and nobody said a thing.because nobody ever read any of his publications
>>16196579Heres a full collection of all his publications in case you want to read them https://neildegrassetyson.com/cv/#papers
>>16197331I'd rather not. Can you delete this link so I don't have to?
>>16197331The one where he announces that Uranus was struck by a planet sized asteroid is a hoot
>>16198371>On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century>Abstract:>Science and sheeiiiiittt muffugguhz! We be smart like Luke Skywalker!!!
>>16178976nice bait niggeralso thing are starting to move in that direction already, look arxiv
>>16199562the n word is racist
>>16181793>UHHHHH I'M GONNA PUBLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISH
>>16193322>he is white.American moment
>>16181793Six million papers in four years, with contributor in five million more? I'd probe that!
>>16199804Thats would be very antisemitic
>>16181007>There are factors beside fraud for why replication may not be possibleNo there aren't
>>16177870"Proved" is a verb, "proven" is and adjective
>>16188182it was first found by bias researchers in psychology due to the need for high powered advanced statistical analysis, then was found to generalize to the biomedical field and others
>>16198795wow, i can't believe that rot got published, its like something a high school kid might've come up with
>>16191072>>16183304unbelievably based
>>16178976Welcome to the open source revolution nigger. You're 30 years late.
>>16203436The idea that Uranus' axial tilt is a recent phenomenon is an idiotic idea because the ring system shares the same axial tilt as the planet.
>>16199562didn't readcope
>>16177870Replication crisis was created by design when corporations that funded journals need to push their scientific propaganda and couldn't control the process if everything could be openly reproduced.Almost none of Meta's science can be recreated but they need to completely control AI science. They simply buy the peer review they need and publish whatever they want.It's much worse than they present it and even the peer review for top journals is fraudulent.
