Idiots are often filtered by technical vocabulary.

>Statisticians call the most trivial things “significant”
Sheesh!

wait til this nigga learns about how we do qed calculations

As a particle physicist, if you compare QED calculations (or even worse, QCD calculations or Standard Model [of particle physics]) to what goes on in cosmology, it’s literally so so much better in particle physics. We have these equations with weird path integrals and shady ways of “renormalizing” away infinites that crop up, but when all the shenanigans are said and done those calculations make remarkably accurate predictions that we can test in hundreds of different ways with massive datasets that allow powerful statistical analysis.

OTOH in cosmology they have a dataset that is N=1 universe and because the universe is too big for them to do any “experiment” on, they just look at equations and ponder the “beauty” of the math and come up with total speculation with basically no hope of detailed tests. That is why LambdaCDM is a “toy model” — they have the equivalent of one fragmentary record of like the Bar Kokhba Revolt and they need to construct some elaborate theory around data that absolutely cannot constrain the model.

As much as people complain about particle physics, at least it is built on mountains of empirical experimental evidence. Cosmology OTOH is based on autistically theorizing about something you can not do experiments on with a sample size of 1. It’s like theorizing on evolutionary history of all life on earth where all you have to go on is a single sea urchin