🧵 “Science”
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:47:47 UTC No. 16195533
>Come up with some arbitrary opinion (“Hypothesis”)
>Do some weak statistics to provide “evidence” of my “hypothesis”
>Write an overly long and complicated explanation of this process. Use a lot of big words to make sure I sound smart.
>Publish in “academic” “journal”
Is this what “science” is?
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:51:58 UTC No. 16195538
You can verify your hypothesis by using the scientific method. Let us know how it works out and publish your results.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:55:35 UTC No. 16195541
>>16195538
>Let us know how it works out
The way it works out is that you use the scientific method like a good goy and shit out your result, then someone else does a little different procedure and shits out contradictory results. Then 100 other academoids do the same and you get 100 different and mutually contradicting results, meanwhile everyone is using the scientific method just as instructed. It's almost like the scientific method is inadequate for answering any complex question.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:57:46 UTC No. 16195545
>>16195533
>Come up with some arbitrary physical activities ( "exercise routine" )
>Do some exercise to make it seem like you're following the "routine"
>Write an overly long and complicated explanation of your "progress". Use big words to make sure you sound smart.
>Post it with updates simultaneously on 4chan, reddit and your "microblog".
>Why is the OP still obese?
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:59:58 UTC No. 16195547
>>16195545
>muh unique brand of the totally real scientific method has never been tried
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 10:01:32 UTC No. 16195551
>>16195541
>OP is too stupid to follow the recipe in a cooking book.
>Argues that recipes are terrible and useless for cooking on 4chan.
>Wonders why nobody takes him seriously.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 10:03:05 UTC No. 16195556
>>16195551
Ok. OP stupid and bad. What about your actual scientists doing le actual science and it going exactly as I just described?
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 10:13:41 UTC No. 16195569
>>16195538
>Come up with 20 completely wrong “hypotheses”
>test each of them using p-value < 0.05
>one of them is now likely to be “””verified””” thanks to the nature of randomness
I heckin LOVE science!
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 10:53:20 UTC No. 16195605
>>16195556
>Ok. OP stupid and bad
Yep, you're stupid OP.
You are stupid.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 10:57:52 UTC No. 16195606
>>16195569
>>Come up with 20 completely wrong “hypotheses”
>>test each of them using p-value < 0.05
>>one of them is now likely to be “””verified””” thanks to the nature of randomness
>I heckin LOVE science!
Haha, you need a way higher P value for that you dumb fuck.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 10:59:44 UTC No. 16195607
>>16195605
Take your meds.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:01:03 UTC No. 16195608
>>16195607
That's not a valid argument idiot OP.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:01:36 UTC No. 16195609
>>16195608
What arguments do I need when you're having a psychotic episode?
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:03:14 UTC No. 16195613
>>16195609
OP has no argument for anything.
Sad...
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:06:59 UTC No. 16195620
>>16195613
He didn't but I did. I rubbed your nose in some empirical facts that clearly BTFO your ideology, since your only recourse is to pretend it never happened.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:13:28 UTC No. 16195629
>>16195620
>He didn't but I did.
Lol, you're the OP samefagging dumbfuck.
>>16195620
>I rubbed your nose in some empirical facts that clearly BTFO your ideology, since your only recourse is to pretend it never happened.
Like what OP?
Where did that happen?
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:16:05 UTC No. 16195636
>>16195629
Thanks for demonstrating my point. Imagine being so invested in a failed ideology that you go into psychosis every time someone mentions its faults.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:18:35 UTC No. 16195640
>>16195629
I’m the OP and you have provided no argument to my fellow anons very valid point about the “scientific method” producing contradictory results. This is very common in medicine, psychology and social “”””sciences””””.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:23:14 UTC No. 16195646
>>16195636
>>16195640
Lol samefagging autistic psychopath OP.
Still no valid argument.
Too stupid to even elaborate on anything.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 11:57:35 UTC No. 16195680
>>16195541
So why are you asking if you've already done your research?
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 12:02:06 UTC No. 16195684
>>16195680
I'm not asking anything, though.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 12:05:42 UTC No. 16195688
Dumb frogposter
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 21:50:41 UTC No. 16196593
>>16195688
>Dumb frogposter
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 22:41:38 UTC No. 16196680
>>16195533
>Is this what “science” is?
No, that's only part of the process.
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 00:26:19 UTC No. 16196838
>>16196680
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGD
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 01:13:13 UTC No. 16196888
>>16195551
>thinks science is about following simple algorithms or recipes
You have a simplistic and normie tier understanding of science. There isa no fixed "scientific method". Scientists are the people who create the recipes, so to speak. Engineers and doctors are the people who follow them.
The job of the scientist is not simply to "follow" the scientific method, as if this were some unchanging Platonic form handed down to humans by some omniscient being. The scientific method is a process that was made up by humans - in particular, by scientists themselves. There is no fixed scientific method. The methods and tools differ from one subject to another, and even from one research paper to another.
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 05:55:10 UTC No. 16197152
>>16195533
>dumb as fuck
>pretends to know shit
>fails
>posts frogs
Checks out
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 16:07:58 UTC No. 16197822
>>16195684
Then don't put question marks at the end of posts.