/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16038069
reddit tier. chad scientists use pendula to decide what is true.

>>16038069
That's retarded. A coin flip should usually be enough.

>>16038069
Most people go meta and engage in rule 10 to cherry pick which of the other rules they want to apply and which they prefer to ignore.

>>16038069
if its jewish its fake
if its funded or ZOG controlled or influenced in any way its fake

>>16039475
tsmt
zoggers don't communicate other than to spread lies

>>16038069
bump

>>16038069
with respect to #12, the most citations there are the more likely it is that some of the citations have been or will be retracted

>>16038069
Its pretty good, but missing some things, such as >>16039475

>>16038069
You post a picture for ant and expect us to respond. You act like you can edit it but cant even source a legible copy. Your OP is bad and you should feel bad.

>>16043415

>>16038069
>What would you add to or remove from the list?

>>16038069
conjectures about things which are so remotely located that the conjecture is impossible to disprove.
theres whole fields of useless wasteful trash science that are based on this concept

>>16044725
Nondisprovable conjectures are ruled out by the scientific method in theory, but in reality nondisprovable conjectures are the backbone of most soiyence

>>16045456
right, but thats the difference between science and soiyence

>>16038069
>#3 only the private sector can have conflicts of interest, the government and academia never have agendas to push

>>16038069
many of those criteria are usually applied to soft sciences (sociology, psychology, neuroscience, medicine...)
from my experience on /sci/, soft sciences are all bad and junk.

>>16046963
>everyone else's fields of science are all laughably stupid
>my field is pristine and perfect
common sentiment amongst people who are too low IQ to have developed self awareness

>>16041574
>right side
>step 3 "find data"
should read "fabricate data"

>>16049363
Thats how science works these days

>>16048156
yep

>>16038069
>nothing about the falsifiability of the experiment
this anon is right. go back
>>16038084