3 ms·

The former issue will be easier to fix than the latter. After all going against the establishment generally results in failure. Quantum Mechanics and General

The former issue will be easier to fix than the latter. After all going against the establishment generally results in failure. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity may not agree with each other but they both have destroyed mountains of attempts to disprove them. I am not being rosy I am on the side of "we have to do something" contrasted against "all science is bad". Not saying you are saying that but some posters are. We can certainly improve things on many vectors but throwing away all existing science isn't the way forward either.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
> Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity may not agree with each other but they both have destroyed mountains of attempts to disprove them. I agree. Unfortunately for all of us the rest of published literature is nowhere near as battle test as these two theories, nor would they survive such testing. > Not saying you are saying that but some posters are. I didn’t mean to imply that you were. But the it doesn’t sound like the personally you replied to was on the side of “all science is bad” either. I am closer to the “much ‘science’ is junk”. There is much good work a being done, but the garbage is very much there, more so in some fields than others. The null hypothesis at this point for most new papers one reads is certain fields (looking at you nutrition & health) is “this won’t replicate”. It’s certainly also true for much work primarily involving modelling; the null hypothesis as a read should be “if this doesn’t have code, I won’t be able to reproduce/replicate it”. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water, but we should be frank about the current state of things.
brutusborn 3y ago
No one (in this thread) has suggested science is bad or we should throw it away, that is your own straw man. I have suggested we throw away a part that is causing problems. You seem to be rushing to defend scientific failures by saying “it doesn’t matter that a lot of studies don’t replicate, we should follow the status quo regardless.” We can throw out the status quo and keep (the good parts of) science intact.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

> Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity may not agree with each other but they both have destroyed mountains of attempts to disprove them. I agree. Unfortunately for all of us the rest of published literature is nowhere near as battle test as these two theories, nor would they survive such testing. > Not saying you are saying that but some posters are. I didn’t mean to imply that you were. But the it doesn’t sound like the personally you replied to was on the side of “all science is bad” either. I am closer to the “much ‘science’ is junk”. There is much good work a being done, but the garbage is very much there, more so in some fields than others. The null hypothesis at this point for most new papers one reads is certain fields (looking at you nutrition & health) is “this won’t replicate”. It’s certainly also true for much work primarily involving modelling; the null hypothesis as a read should be “if this doesn’t have code, I won’t be able to reproduce/replicate it”. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water, but we should be frank about the current state of things.

brutusborn 3y ago

No one (in this thread) has suggested science is bad or we should throw it away, that is your own straw man. I have suggested we throw away a part that is causing problems. You seem to be rushing to defend scientific failures by saying “it doesn’t matter that a lot of studies don’t replicate, we should follow the status quo regardless.” We can throw out the status quo and keep (the good parts of) science intact.