Falsifiability is a meme. You can always pick whether the result actually falsifies your thesis or some auxillary assumption.

!goomblers

!slots2000

!slots300

!slots200

!slots100

GOOD science

!slots175

A lot of r-sluration in higher ed can be placed on the emphasis on writing your thesis on an 'original idea.'

So instead of something sensible, like writing your thesis on a detailed analysis of a complex subject to demonstrate mastery, people work overtime finding an obscure angle to tackle an even more obscure issue. To do this you, well, have to work backwards.

Step one: Come up with an 'original thesis.'

Step two: Confront the fact nobody has done the thesis before not because you're a genius, but because it's probably wrong

Step three: Figure out how to aggressively bullshit and work backwards so your thesis can still turn out appearing like it had merit. Write simple ideas in the most convoluted way possible to avoid scrutiny and remind the higher ups you're part of the club (and that failing you would be rude).

Step four: Stare at it all for so long that you eventually convince yourself your own bs actually has merit (it does not) and teach it to undergrads

Step five: Graduate and turn further exploration of your bs into two books and forty articles. Your idiocy is now 'known fact.' It is still idiocy and can never be replicated.

Congrats, now you know how academia works and why it's so r-slurred.

Edit: It's also how you can end up with professors who are only really knowledgeable in niche areas of their subject, and seem to work every single class around (blank) theory—because it's all they've studied in sincere depth.

And, it's also why idiotic new trends take hold so deeply and so fast in academia. A new theory that provides a new angle to write papers on will be jumped on hard whether or not it's stupid, simply because it's novel and can provide previously unwritten thesis topics.

Just because they teach it in school doesn't mean people will agree. That's especially true in a field full of foids who don't understand the scientific process at all and just want to confirm their headcanon.

Because "I went and researched X and it was super boring and nothing came from it" is not a great paper.

!nooticers What do psychology and biology have in common? What are the replication rates like in neuroscience??

@Corinthian to address your concerns, the sciences are continually held hostage by domineering politics.

My BIO 101 prof, the first day, drew the chemical equation of water into wine and drew an X through it.

H2O =X=> C2H6O

He said that this isn't a legitimate chemical reaction, and that miracles exist as one-off events. He said that we were here to talk about the evidence and not the exception of miracles.

Many American scientists have to make this address in their publications and courses to ward off the Evangelicals.

Likewise, they have started attaching similar statements in their textbooks and lectures to ward off the Transgender Lobby.

Example: "Most multicellular plant and animal life has evolved into two discreet sexes which are required engage in reproduction. However some people identify as a member of the opposite s*x."

!chuds !transphobes this is what s mean when they say "your textbook is outdated." This is the only addition.

Biology has the largest error bars of the sciences due to the hard physical things it studies -- and it does attempt to account for averages across billions of non-sentient self-repicators.

I know a biology major and he had to take Calc 1-3 (differential, integral, gradient) and Ordinary Differential Equations (something about deriving e that I passed a test on, and population growth stuff) and is like smart and stuff.

Well and also some zoologists and biochemists and other nerds.

!ifrickinglovescience !biology !chemistry !mathematics

@KatserKitty1987 didn't you just debooonk that?

!bookworms he referenced Michael Crichton (whom I love) and we have a historic first (?) upmarsey from maybe our biggest resident STEMcel atheist towards the resident Christcel.

We're about to sleep but I hope for further positive engagement after first taking time to acknowledge and celebrate this momentous occasion.

Who thinks Feynman did something wrong?

It's worse than meaning nothing. If you actually consistently score >130 on properly administered IQ tests you have less of an excuse to be a failure in life.

Based.

What's up with the EQ cope, do redditors use it? The times I heard about it irl they were talking in a context of socialization and networking, which makes me think high EQcels couldn't care less about EQ testing, let alone IQ.

!mathematics and written language (!bookworms) are inventions derived from immediate necessity, and constantly developed through time to quantify and record how many of things there are for when a purpose arises.

• How many fingers do I have? How many eyes do I have? Good thing I don't need to write that down because that's how many we all have of them.

• How many sheep did I trade this year for chicken meat? Was the trade good, bad, or neutral? Better write that down on clay tablet contracts.

• What are shapes? Let's draw lines and shit.

• Do shapes relate to reality in any way? Let's write gay butt books like The Republic !sophistry.

• What is the slope at any point of a defined curve? Let's write hella gay books like Principia Matematica !physics.

Invented. Math is a language created to describe real principles of the natural world. The principles described exist independent of us, but the language we use to understand them does not.

science is when you pop out things to consoome