Is it safe to say that if I, a layman, come upon a study or information. It's probably BS?
>>16127840Start by learning basic logic and epistemology
>>16127840With few exceptions, when you find a paper written by people with all the right credentials and institutional clout, the chances are high that you can find a paper with a divergent view written by another set of people with all the right credentials and institutional clout.This is especially true the more 'practical' a field is, the more it strays from autistic pure math (which itself isn't immune from diverging views). So fields like economics, nutrition, psychology, and such are a shitshow.
>>16127840If a study involves anything related to humans or biological constructs in the loop, you can safely disregard it as probably bullshit meaningless research and 70-90% of the time you would be right.They dont know how any of the system really work, they dont have working theories either. all they are doing are monkey data collecting and p value harvesting.
>come upon a study or information.Most research still is applied and by private companies -and of low quality or theoric value-.If the methodology is good (that exclude most schizos) then the results could have some value.
>>16127840>come upon a study or information. It's probably BS?But the ones on 4chan, and on this thread especially, aren't?Are you legitimately retarded?
>>16127840as a layman you're better off following the advice of your goberment. even if they fuck you, they'd fuck you less than literally anyone else. but as a layman you will most likely get fucked, here and there as it were.
>>16128291>But the ones on 4chan, and on this thread especially, aren't? Yes. A shitposting high school dropout has no incentives to fabricate data, a scientist who needs to publish something yesterday does
>>16130747nta but everywhere else is either worse or just as bad in a different way. I probably just need to get offline though
>>16127840No. But many studies ARE bullshit, and it is safe to say if you as a layman come across a study, it is nigh impossible for you to tell whether it is bullshit or not.
>>16127840The Goonswarm!Based EVE player.Also I dont give a fuck about your post.
>>16127840In my experience, most studies are not bullshit. It's just that most of them are useless or trivial. And the data is typically real and correct insofar as cherry-picking, favourable presentation, and p-hacking allows it to be.
>>16132186>most studies are not bullshit>most of them are useless or trivial>data is typically real and correct insofar as cherry-picking, favourable presentation, and p-hackingsay most studies are not bullshittell us the exact reasons why most of them are bullshitlmao shill
>>16132197They're not wrong, and they're not lying, so they're not bullshit.
>>16127840>>16130900damn, anyone from A-O or Pupppers still around?Most were smart goys, maybe they lurk here.Hope they're doing well in and out of game.pic unrel but if you see this shithead, kick him back in the water
>>16133407>not wrong>not lyingvery debateable there, I'd say 50-70% of studies are absolutely lying in one way or other, small or big lies. possibly 90-95% of them include something that are wrong because the citation effects.also, your definition of bullshit is lax, maybe you haven't been in this game for so long.they're getting 250k-1000k for each of the shitty grant and producing nothing of values. they spend 40 hours per week on craps that are utterly meaningless with stamps of approval and prestigious from their "peers".I can that bullshit.
>>16133440never played the game but I've heard some crazy stories about what's going on in it. should be named betrayal online lol
oh, and the faggots are wrong or lying without even realizing they're doing the above, that's the absolutely state of sciences now.especially if it's a soft science or involve money. soft science researchers are too dumb to realize they're wrong. paid researchers are getting paid to not do proper science.
>>16127840Its good to assume at the very least that you don't have the full picture. Information is power. Some of that power is guarded by corporations, some by goverments and military. Some is also simply unreachable without years of learning.
>>16127840https://teams.microsoft.com/v2/?meetingjoin=true#/l/meetup-join/19:meeting_NjUyMGVjZjQtYTcyYi00NTVmLWFhMWQtMmY1MWJhZTJmYjI1@thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22f6cebe4b-bbd1-42d7-9203-61b26e878ad7%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22b14c9751-11be-486f-8f78-9e88efca0465%22%7d&anon=true&deeplinkId=ebfed65f-a78d-449f-9d39-4e6d13a89ee6
>>16133597>Its good to assume at the very least that you don't have the full picture.does anyone?
>>16133600Not on the whole, but on particular topics, probably.
>>16133461they're paid to produce fodder for propaganda, thats why the "mistakes" are always in the same direction
>>16127840>Is it safe to say that if I, a layman, come upon a study or information. It's probably BS?Yes, and that includes first and foremost anything written by a journalist.They will ask you not to do your own research but also to specifically read garbage written by high school dropouts. And when called out, they will say it wasnt written in a journal
>>16129840>A shitposting high school dropout has no incentives to fabricate dataHe's insane and thinks Bill Gates watches him touch himself at night. That's of course in addition to the fact he has zero test apparatus or knowledge about anything let alone highly specialized scientific topics - all he could do is lie.
>>16130900
>>16130747this, the people who come to 4chan to shit on the site and claim that everyone who posts here is a moron (except themselves of course) are clearly just some fags from reddit or shareblue (or both)
>>16127884I know... BECAUSE I KNOW OK? I JUST. KNOW.
>>16132138People with severe personality disorders often go through life presuming that they're better than every else, so when you see someone make a statement like the one >>16130809 did then its safe to assume you're dealing with an insane person who can't be reasoned with
>libshit-tier psychoanalysisIt's just that nobody with a head screwed on right wants to interact with delusional /x/pol/ refuse such as you, it's that simple. The science board shouldn't have to house your bizarre copes about reality.
>>16139611>everything I don't like is about politics you only see it that way because you're obsessed with politics, you probably spend hours every day on /pol/
>>16139611>everything I don't like is /pol/retard brain
>>16138946>People with severe personality disorders often go through life presuming that they're better than every elsethis is called "narcissistic inferiority complex", its common amongst total losers with no accomplishments of their own, they cope by trying to minimize everyone else's accomplishments
>>16127840Yes, the peer review system assures that the only thing that ever gets published is comforting lies
>>16127840yes
>>16127840can they kill pandahorde?
>>16135433This, science is just a big scam thats based on the "faith" of spineless atheists, who are people that have no faith and who are fundamentally dishonest.
>>16142719>the peer review system assures that the only thing that ever gets published is comforting liesand profitable ones
>>16144719Science would work a lot better if atheists were forcibly excluded from it
>>16127840Ideas spread based on how convincing they are, not on how truthful they are. The rest follows.
>>16145958wealth is comfort
>>1613986650% of all people are below average IQ, over 1/3 of all people have IQs under 85
>>16127840Yes. Your prior probability that any given study is bullshit should be considerably high.If you can't interpret a result yourself, or unless you're just looking at summary statistics from a large publicly available dataset, it's best to ignore it.https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
>>16149401>it's best to ignore it.Use confirmation bias to believe the ones you like and distrust the ones you dislike
>>16128455>they'd fuck you less than literally anyone else.
>>16127840Nobody altruistically circulates information for your benefit, they do it to manipulate you
>>16135460>commercial software isn't packed to the gills with spyware, especially not microsoft products
>>16152291Researchers do it to get paid. Journals do it to get paid. Universities do it to get paid.
>>16153460Nobody pays anyone to publish valuable information for free, nobody publishes anything like that for free. Just take a look at something like wikipedia, its nothing but lies contrived with the intent to be manipulative, thats what you get when you want something for free. Anything published in "muh soience journals" is either worthless, useless or a falsehood planted with the intent to deceive and misdirect
>>16128455>as a layman you're better off following the advice of your goberment.About that...
>>16127840>Can't judge the veracity of information for yourself, as a layman>Rely on experts to interpret information for you>/sci/ tells you the experts are wrong>Why should you trust them to tell you?>Well, they're the experts, see...
>>16154258this, if anyone discovers valuable information they keep it to themselves so that they can personally profit from it, why would anyone ever share info like that?
>>16154258all academic publishing is paid for by the government, those publications are all propaganda with their funding of it being laundered through academia via the research grant system so it doesn't look like its propaganda directly funded by the government
>>16127840100% yes
>>16153416The new version of Windows has built in wrongthink prevention
>>16127840The source of the information is always the biggest indicator of it's likely fraudulence. If the author is a woman or a shitskin then you should immediately disregard it and if the shitskin is a jew then you should disregard it twice as hard.
>>16127840>a study>informationYou likely wouldn't understand it, and you'd read it trying to have it prove your point, cherry picking the parts you think support your argument.Linking a study to prove a point is already not something a scientifically literate person would do. A single study is meaningless. It needs to be peer reviewed. It needs to be repeated over and over again by different people to make sure it is reliable.A scientifically illiterate person can't gain anything from reading a study, because it wasn't written for you. You literally do not understand it. You cannot.
>>16128050oh. you're the layman in question. lmao>hurr durr these things i know nothing about are wrong, because i dont know them so its wrong.Good thing you're no one.
>>16160268I wonder how many people actually follow the scientific method anymoreits become a complicated system of lying with statistics and/or computer models and gaming the peer review process
>>16153416they baited you on purpose
>>16127840am i filtered even if i check the citation counts to see if they're reliable?
>>16160337how does that mean anything?is goyslop good for you because its popular?
>>16127840
>>16162813lol, its funny, but soientists do that all the time. its almost as if they study probability and statistics hoping to learn new ways to lie and spread misinformation
>>16127840bee
>>16160337citation count is a meaningless metrics. there are many work that has thousands of citation count but are bullshit.one of my work got like >50 citations count and my afterthought about it is the method sucked ass and probably I got the result because some randomness instead of the method did anything meaningful.it's just the herd effect anon, 95% of the time I cite something not because it's right or I care about it's being right, I just need some background and justification for my algorithm.
>>16163424>its almost as if they study probability and statistics hoping to learn new ways to lie and spread misinformationThats pretty much how it is, they're like criminals who study law so they know how much they can get away with
>>16127840the question you asked is chaotic in nature. The answer you seek depends on too many sensitive variables which only you know of.Is the majority of information online intentionally false in order to mislead, overall? No, I doubt that, we're not quite there yet or the internet would no real value other than entertaining through fantasy.Are you frequenting websites, apps, and enduring habits which will expose you to misinformation more than otherwise? Only you can figure that out, but if you're getting your knowledge from 4chan, for example, you're doing it wrong. Completely wrong.
>>16165838>i hate 4chanwhy are you here?
>>16166279nobody can ever answer this question
How do the self proclaimed science experts on this board explain the conundrum in >>16149106
>>16163424>its almost as if they study probability and statistics hoping to learn new ways to lie and spread misinformation its almost as if they study probability and statistics hoping to learn new ways to personally profit by lying and spreading misinformationif you leave out their financial motivation you're not painting the full accurate portrait of them as paid prevaricators
>>16127840Definitely, if academia was worth 1% of what it claims its worth then we would currently be living in a miraculous future rather than a declining civilization. Reality proves that academics are toxic, harmful parasites
>>16169734This, published soiyence articles are all fake and popsci trash is all intentionally fake. If anyone is reading/watching popsci then you can guarantee that person is a neophyte, which means they're easy to lie and manipulate and at the same time they're open an receptive to new ideas. they're pretty much asking to be raped by a propagandist
>>16128033That kind of controversy allows greater levels of employment in those fields
>>16127840The media likes to exaggerate research results because it sells more paper.Adults are still children.
>>16172197stop blaming the media, thats antisemitic
>>16173124
>>16127840why would you believe anything from cringe scyence faggots who are always wrong?
>>16175816>"""scientific"""" doomsday predictions.more proof science is a religion, the only other group of people known for incessantly incorrectly predicting the end of the world are insane wackos who do so on a religious basis
>>16127840nearly all published academic journal articles are false
>>16127840Probably. I've recently been self-studying economics and it took me about 2 weeks to realize that the entire field in its modern form exists to prop up oligarchies and justify policies that the secret government were going to implement anyway. The research papers and popular views of mainstream economists are honestly hilarious to read. Even "heterodox" economists are generally polarized ideologues with dark money funding serving to prop up the fake and gay system of divide and conquer.
>>16177629
>>16178037good book
>>16178972Its been widely banned for wrongthink on the demands of influential financiers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnn2HWb8iVQ
>>16127840yeah probably
>>16156953They wouldn't be trying to hide whats going on like that if they thought they were doing something decent, they'd be open and proud of what they were doing if they were doing something good
no one on this god forsaken board has read picrel
>>16180793>no one on this god forsaken board has readYeah.
>>16180793>one on this godforsaken board has readYeah.
>>16180793everyone who has ever taken a class in science history has read it, snowflake
>>16128050>70-90% of the time100%
>>16181924>everyone who has ever taken a class in science historyI reiterate, no one on this board.
