Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:14:07 UTC No. 16462524

who tf watches this old crone? thirsty jeets? i can only assume so from the regular spam.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:29:25 UTC No. 16462546

>>16462521
Some of what she says is valid but as with most YouTubers who slowly become "more extreme" they're just playing to what the algorithm wants.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:35:16 UTC No. 16462556

>>16462521
People always say le sour grapes, but there's a difference between leaving the academia on your own volition and leaving it because you just couldn't manage it. Sabine appears as the former case. I genuinely believe her because the problems she brings up are manifest to you if you ever dealt with the academia.

However, playing the devil's advocate here, she really is deep down the youtube rabbit hole. 90% of her videos are clickbait. There's a difference between her and serious academicians like Richard E Borcherds who make educative yt videos as a hobby. Her main goal is attention (she is a woman after all). People like Borcherds are just autists who want to share their autism with others.

goes in all fields at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:50:56 UTC No. 16462586

>>16462521
>What's going on with her
>physics hater
have you tried watching the videos where she explains why she hates the statu quo, you fucking retard? why do you even come and ask retards in this board something that you could have found yourself?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:51:56 UTC No. 16462590

>>16462521
this is one of her best videos I think I've seen so far. Physics has been retarded for a long time.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:59:27 UTC No. 16462605

So, what's the greatest breakthrough of theoretical physics in the last decade?
>inb4 Higgs, that was the decade before the last one

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:18:22 UTC No. 16462627

Sabine won Dave lost

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:23:12 UTC No. 16462633

>>16462605
>So, what's the greatest breakthrough of theoretical physics in the last decade?
tl;dr none concrete, but many speculative ones
It really depends on your own perspective. This may sound like dodging the question, but this underlies the problem with modern theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is "decades ahead" of experimental physics in some sense. It takes a decade at most for a theoretical idea to solidify itself. A modern experiment, on the other hand, takes multiple decades. The LHC was conceptualized in the 90s had been based on the concepts in the 70s, but was only realized in the late 00s.

There are no real breakthroughs anymore because for a breakthrough to occur, an empirical result has to test it. Imo the biggest breakthrough in modern physics has been the neutrino masses. It is something not predicted by the Standard Model, yet something we have solid evidence of. Neutrino masses have been known since the 90s, but the models date back all the way to Pontecorvo in the 1957. Various mechanisms for neutrino mass acquisition have existed since Ramond's seesaw mechanism proposal in the 70s.

The greatest breakthroughs in the last decade, imo, were in the loop quantum gravity. While string theory has has piling evidence against it (the negative cosmological constant, the landscape problem, the absense of minimal supersymmetry), LQG has had vast theoretical advancements and empirical results that could be tested in the near future. The most promising one is matching future CMB low-l measurements to LQG models. If we see that the low-l measurements contradict Lambda-CDM, but are in agreement with LQG, then we would have the first definite empirical evidence of quantum gravity. Of course, these are all looking into the future, which requires some new superduper complicated space telescope a la James Webb^2.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:36:44 UTC No. 16462644

>>16462633
Why do you consider LHC a success story? How could their results be repeated when they aren't sharing all parameter data? Why should I care about them firing 30 quadrillion atoms?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:44:02 UTC No. 16462646

>>16462521
She's gone full blown poltard. She's being paid by Russia, China, and Iran to spread anti-science disinformation.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:18:32 UTC No. 16462685

>>16462644
Because it's several separate experiments (see pic). They are all governed by separate groups obliged by law to not communicate with one another. This was one of the ways to address reproducibility. Of course, the Superconducting Supercollider (a very American name btw) was supposed to be its direct competitor, but the US government has basically given up on funding research ever since the USSR had no longer posed a threat. Should tell you a lot about how mutt view science as opposed to enlightened yuropoors.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:26:57 UTC No. 16462703

>>16462521
She's based and correct.

>>16462524
Sexist pig.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:34:11 UTC No. 16462715

>>16462556
From talking to people that knew her when she was a postdoc, she was kind of a cunt.
She didn't make it in academia, but now doesn't need to with the youtube money

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:50:59 UTC No. 16462737

>>16462715
>She didn't make it in academia, but now doesn't need to with the youtube money
That's not relevant at all to the criticisms she poses. I would argue that being a cunt is a good thing for science. (Actual) Science is supposes to be skeptical. The Nu-Science you see propagated has more similarities with a religion than with science, ie trust the clergy and never ever believe that you understand things better than them. Modern science traces its roots to Descartes, for whom such a method of thought was madness.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 22:14:33 UTC No. 16462758

>>16462521
I wonder how many posts ITT were made by the same person (the OP). I bet half of them.
isn't it sad that 4chan removed the IP count indicator?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 22:24:26 UTC No. 16462772

>>16462715
>From talking to people that knew her when she was a postdoc, she was kind of a cunt.
you mean she was a german

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 22:33:27 UTC No. 16462781

i like her. i don't agree with her on everything but i also don't need to and don't care anyway. people are so fucking precious these days.

honestly it's worth it just to have some autisitic german (same thing lol) woman swear a lot on youtube. that's entertainment enough to give worth to her videos. i mean it's fucking hilarious.
>why the fuck is it my fault that cranks think i'm their best friend
lol, say the word again sabine lol. it's funny. it's like an anime girl doing stupid things. you won't convince me otherwise.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 00:14:55 UTC No. 16462923

>>16462546
this

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 00:28:17 UTC No. 16462931

>>16462521
She's stopped being a scientists and started a life as a paypig rancher.
Based of her.
No scientific "educator" ever did anything for the world.
But as a paypig rancher, she can tan in the Seychelles.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:04:35 UTC No. 16462995

>>16462521
She knows her paycheck now relies on being a professional contrarian.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:29:56 UTC No. 16463021

>>16462644
Lhc was built to find the higgs. It found the higgs. How is that anything but a success

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:31:55 UTC No. 16463026

>>16462633
>The most promising one is matching future CMB low-l measurements to LQG models.
>Conform experiment to model
That's not how science works. Wtf.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:35:27 UTC No. 16463032

>>16462521
OP, i will give you $1000 to go to your uni's astrophysics department and demand someone do a complete error propagation on the latest paper published through the department.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:42:20 UTC No. 16463432

>>16463026
That's how science works, retard. When I said "matching", I meant comparing theory and experiment. You make an observation, in this case all the quantum mechanical phenomena and all the gravitational phenomena we observe. You then create a model, quantum mechanics and general relativity in this case. The models are incompatible, so you create a consistent model called quantum gravity. You then derive predictions from this new model and test them against empirical evidence. If the empirical data doesn't match predictions, you throw the model away and start over.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:43:47 UTC No. 16463435

>>16463432
That's not what your word part says. It says you make a model. Conduct an experiment. Fit the experiment to the model. It's the opposite of what you're saying now.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:51:28 UTC No. 16463480

>>16463435
nta, but even in properly designed endeavors, the assumptions of the system just keep popping up. This is why they keep running into particles. They also delude themselves with terms like incomplete when everyone else knows that just means wrong.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:57:02 UTC No. 16463481

>>16462521
Willem Deschizo weighing in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SyZuJGI3BU

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:01:40 UTC No. 16463483

>>16462521
I'm done watching that crazy bitch, fuck here. What exactly is she expecting other than testing ideas? Is she stupid? If she isn't she sure sounds stupid.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:32:52 UTC No. 16463504

>>16463481
>willhem (scream) the schizo

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:16:27 UTC No. 16463549

>>16463480
I genuinely think they don't believe it's wrong. They sincerely believe it's an incomplete model and will stake trillions of dollars in proving it (never disproving it). I remember in grad school around 2015, a few faculty members were hypothesizing whether the null results of the data implied SUSY was dead. Rather I should say just one of them hypothesized it, the rest said no, there are other tests that can be conducted on other versions of SUSY. It's a religion.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:37:05 UTC No. 16463563

>>16462715
>From talking to people that knew her when she was a postdoc
And.. are these "people" in the room with us right now?

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:05:12 UTC No. 16463593

>>16462521
Half the time she talks about physics is clear she has zero idea what she is actually talking about. the other half the time its clear she is regurgitating someone elses publication in the most monotone boring way.

Talking about how "physics is dying" is just click bait youtuber bullshit for clout.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:15:18 UTC No. 16463608

>>16463593
If it's bullshit, why are so many academic physicists agreeing with her?

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:43:45 UTC No. 16463753

Very very thinly veiled thread to post cheerleaders

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:01:27 UTC No. 16463782

>>16463593
source?

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:22:27 UTC No. 16463812

>>16463435
>Fit the experiment to the model
Please give me the exact fucking line where I said this, you pedantic asshole. I said "matching", which is the same as comparing. You clearly don't have a science degree because that's just the standard jargon.
>Does the data match predictions?
>HOW DARE YOU FIT EXPERIMENT TO MODEL?
This is how massively retarded you sound.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:51:08 UTC No. 16463843

>>16463812
Matching A to B means conforming A to B. Your anger betrays your argument. You know I trapped you.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 20:11:08 UTC No. 16464026

>>16463549
It sounds like you weren't a very good grad student. Particle physicists have no stake in SUSY, it's just one idea among many. Some very nice plausible ideas like the SU(5) GUT have been ruled out by experiment.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 22:20:25 UTC No. 16464165

>>16464026
>very nice plausible ideas
>SU(5) GUT

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 22:38:08 UTC No. 16464185

>>16464165
Imagine there had been no search for proton decay yet. What's implausible about it?

🗑️ Singularitarian at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 01:02:21 UTC No. 16464305

Jewish genocidal child molester
Stop wasting your time

J o h n C L a s h e r a s
W o r d p r e s s
C o m

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 03:06:17 UTC No. 16464369

>>16464185
What's implausible about SU(5)? The fact we live in three dimensions and not five.
What's implausible about proton decay? The fact that protons have never been observed to decay.
This isn't complicated. Yet somehow theoretical physicists have, along the way, forgotten how reality works.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 06:17:27 UTC No. 16464532

>>16462781
this

>I don't give a shit what others want me to say, or not say as it were, but then I also eat instant coffee powder with a spoon, so maybe I'm not a good sample group.

Fucking KEK

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 06:22:28 UTC No. 16464541

>>16463608
They are simping her, obviously.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:14:02 UTC No. 16464819

>>16464369
SU(5) is a gauge theory just like the standard model, except it has a simpler gauge group with one coupling instead of three. The 5 in SU(5) has nothing to do with dimensions.

You also missed the point of my post. I was not arguing for SU(5) today. I was saying it was a very attractive and plausible theory in the 70s, but the experiments on proton decay ruled it out, and physicists accept it is not true. This runs counter to the narrative you guys are trying to push.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:58:13 UTC No. 16464868

>>16464819
You're the one who didn't understand my post. I'm saying the experiments were a waste of time and money. It should have been expected the proton doesn't decay. Because protons don't fucking decay. I don't need billions in research funding to know this. Just like I don't need billions in research funding to know we live in three dimensions, not five. And yes, SU(5) does imply five dimensions. Don't play coy.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 13:03:14 UTC No. 16464875

>>16464868
>And yes, SU(5) does imply five dimensions. Don't play coy.
Why are you so stupid? You think SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) implies 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 dimensions? You are clearly too dumb to know what you're saying

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:17:42 UTC No. 16464986

>>16464875
Meaningless X operation. You've been fooled into thinking that cute looking formalism means anything other than a pseudo expression meant to present the standard model more mathematically

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:19:40 UTC No. 16464989

>>16464868
>>16464986
Sorry, I thought I was arguing with the former grad student not some random 4chan pseud

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:20:57 UTC No. 16464992

>>16464989
Weird way to say R1 pheno hep prof but yes I suppose I am technically a former grad student

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:21:57 UTC No. 16464996

>>16464989
*suddenly gets aggressive with you*

Yeah? You talking to us bro(sci)? Well you'll have to pay the toll by kissing the great Jew academia and maybe make a post admiring starship firework in sfg.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:23:37 UTC No. 16464997

>>16464992
Aren't you the guy that said he used to work on GUTs in some other thread a couple weeks ago? How do you mix up SU(5) with 5 dimensions?

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:24:51 UTC No. 16464998

>>16464997
Nope. I'm the one who said GR isn't a gauge theory.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:02:42 UTC No. 16465040

>>16463608
if you disagree with her thats a quick ticket to getting kicked out of academia

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 03:14:24 UTC No. 16465663

>>16462521
Have you considered that maybe she's right and science is f&g?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 03:41:21 UTC No. 16465681

>>16462521
The problems she mentions are very, very real, but she's just clickbating at this point.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 12:29:39 UTC No. 16465928

she's quite the sour kraut

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 12:47:08 UTC No. 16465938

>>16462556
> 90% of her videos are clickbait.
tbf that's her job now. It's what works to get the most views with the YT algorithm. Blame Google, not her for that.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 16:02:16 UTC No. 16466115

>>16462703
She has anti sex appeal. And it's deliberate.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 18:03:03 UTC No. 16466208

>>16466115
Those Germans, just give them some leathers and even a bookish type becomes scat queen.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 18:08:23 UTC No. 16466215

SHE'S FUCKING RIGHT.

PHYSICS AS A FIELD HAS SUFFERED FROM INCREDIBLE STAGNATION. NO OTHER FIELD HAS SEEN SO LITTLE PROGRESS IN THE LAST 60 YEARS. WE ARE STILL DEALING IN PARADIGMS THAT ARE 100 YEARS OLD, AND WE HAVE KNOWN THAT FOR ROUGHLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THOSE PARADIGMS ARE ALREADY WRONG ON A VERY FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.

PHYSICS AS A SCIENCE HAS BECOME ABOUT MATHEMATICAL MASTURBATION THAN ABOUT CONDUCTING REAL SCIENCE, AND THIS SICKNESS HAS BEEN EXCACERBATED BY THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF CONTEMPORARY ACADEMIA, CASE IN POINT: LAST FEW FUCKING NOBEL PRICES HAVE BEEN WON BY FUCKING COMPUTER SCIENTISTS, METEOLOGISTS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS.

THIS FIELD IS SUFFERING FROM A DEEP SICKNESS

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:54:51 UTC No. 16466407

>>16466115
She's a mother, she has had more sex than you.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:56:16 UTC No. 16466409

>>16464532
>I also eat instant coffee powder with a spoon
Unfathomably based.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:03:42 UTC No. 16466420

>>16466407
Wow, thanks for that thought. That's even more gross than thinking of my parents having sex.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 09:13:38 UTC No. 16466961

YouTubers try to remake their most successful video over and over again, that's how they carve out a niche.

>>16463481
>cowardcess

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 20:34:51 UTC No. 16467527

>>16463483
That you work on problems that don't need 10 billion dollar particle accelerators to fail and find any "predicted" particles. You claimed to have had a real reason to use all that money, but you lied.
Oh shit I have an idea, if you put 100Tons of gold in my house I will find a new particle here is the math aos;dfjaofdvjaoemfoqenfaofjaodjafmaf. did you read all that correctly mister EU politician. Oh shit no particle? I actually need 1000 Tons of gold my bad lol

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 20:37:18 UTC No. 16467529

>>16464819
>except it has a simpler gauge group
Ah, the naturalness argument!
It's also much simpler to say objects stop moving cause they are tired, should we spend a billion to disprove that too or what?

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 20:39:37 UTC No. 16467531

>sabine
Already debunked. I wonder what The Amazing Atheist and thunderf00t have to say on the subject. But Dave is enough.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 20:59:39 UTC No. 16467544

>>16467529
It has nothing to do with "naturalness" as used by physicists, which has to do with cooking up ways to avoid fine tuning of parameters.

It sounds like you are simply against experimental particle physics. If it is not worthwhile testing a theory which is like a simpler version of the standard model and which as far as anyone knew in the 70s was very possibly correct, then what is the point of doing particle physics at all?

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 20:59:56 UTC No. 16467545

Isn't the burden of proof on you to say why it is plausible? And if you aren't going to give any air tight reasons then you should focus on cheap experiments.
>>16467531
If by "just as most of academic research that your taxes pay for" she meant "the set of research/papers/experiments that take a majority or most government funding are mostly bullshit" then she is probably correct. Most academic research that isn't bullshit is usually funded by private companies after a paltry invitational investment by the government. Only people who know how to play the game or are entrenched organizations can get big bucks from the government, and as we've seen in the last 50 years they usually go nowhere. NASA and a few others are outliers and even they spend 5x as much as china for similar or worse results most of the time.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:01:12 UTC No. 16467548

>>16467544
>what is the point of doing particle physics at all
I'm waiting...

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:11:12 UTC No. 16467558

What is the point in asking for any money (let alone MORE THAN A BILLION DOLLARS) to test the equivalent of "what would happen if I used a newtons cradle, but from a bit higher than last time"
If you already have a model that can calculate the outcome given a set of initial conditions, and it says that the final ball won't morph into jay leno but will rather do the expected thing of moving in an arc, then, if there is no reason to test it, you shouldn't test it.

Said another way, if the only way you can stress test the standard model is in insane situations that cost billions of dollars to create, and you legitimately even with the brightest minds can't think of a way to test it on the cheap or in a normal situation, or come up with some new experiments that make some novel situations more common, then the model is good enough. But then again, it's not your money, huh.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:20:12 UTC No. 16467574

>>16467558
>learning or testing new theories of physics is not important to me and I would prefer that no tax dollars support this
Ok great, thank you for your political opinion. Some people agree with you and some don't.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:24:25 UTC No. 16467585

>>16467574
You misquoted me. These new theories are objectively not important to anybody without more than a 4 billion dollars, a team of scientists, and a penchant for burning money.
Also these new(1970?) theories aren't important to anyone who built a particle collider that happens to be, well, any of the sizes that have already been built.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:27:14 UTC No. 16467587

>>16467574
>I really care about the truth, that's why I prioritize massive projects that take decades and have a track record of going nowhere
Gee, I wonder why Trump is president.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:36:45 UTC No. 16467596

>>16467585
The theory I am discussing was made around the same time as the standard model and tested shortly thereafter. It predicted rare proton decay. And actually a lot of possible theories predict rare proton decay, and if you are willing to entertain the idea that particle physics is worth doing at all, this is a decent thing to test. If you are practically minded, somehow being able to catalyze and harness the energy from proton decay would be up there as one of the few possible applications of high energy physics research. But the experiments did not find any proton decay, and the scientific consensus is that the simplest grand unified theory I am bringing up is wrong. This is an example of healthy scientific research, which is why I brought it up.

The main experiment to test this in Japan did not cost a billion dollars. It cost the US only around $3 million. The experiment doubled as a neutrino detector and it was the experiment that first detected neutrino oscillation, which was not predicted by the standard model.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:53:22 UTC No. 16467613

>>16467596

Neutrino oscillation was predicted in 1957 you fucking lying nigger, actually kill yourself!

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:56:46 UTC No. 16467617

>>16467613
It is not part of the original standard model, and physicists are still debating what the mass term is supposed to look like. The experimentalists won the Nobel prize. I'm sorry you have no other response to this obviously successful bit of experimental physics.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:59:04 UTC No. 16467618

>>16467617
My response is clearly that literally 0 of the particles predicted to exist in the last 50 years actual fucking exist, you swindling kike!

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 22:47:02 UTC No. 16467657

Oh, god I wish they actually build a VHLC and find some random particle just to watch Sabine's head explode and all of the science denying simpletons who watch her go into super mental gymnastics mode.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 22:50:47 UTC No. 16467661

I still don't understand your critique. I guess it's fine that you take the uncharitable interpretation of her words, but by your same argument you can't know that most science isn't bunk either. Do you think the status quo is acceptable, do you want a system of checks and balances for scientists or something else?

Should one limit your voice to the platform that their are complaining about, so you can be sure that you won't affect any real change. Great plan! Is this a serious suggestion, do you actually believe this or did you suggest this in bad faith as a way to make her shut up?

Do you have any evidence at all that Sabine's viewers are science deniers? ,other than "number too big, eyeball statistics", If so you haven't presented any, unless that drawing is one of them? Since you make the argument that audience matters it seems like at least a screencap on some boomer facebook group would be a minimum bar, instead we got a 10 minute mini lecture on you misunderstanding sabine's argument and mansplaining elementary particle physics.

The point was that of all the particles that particle physicists have predicted to exist in the last 50 years don't actually exist and many of these particles were ruled out with the LHC and were infact the secondary reason the LHC was funded (supersymmetry). Pointing to the Higgs Boson as a gotcha is hilariously tone deaf when you know IT'S PART OF THE STANDARD MODEL! So I ask, what is the point in building a larger collider now that the Higgs Boson was found?

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 22:51:47 UTC No. 16467663

So the situation, according to you, is that particle physicists predict the existence of a particle with a model, the particle is shown not to exist, so the model was wrong. Is that correct? How is that anything but bullshit? Now is that antivaxxer-tier model thrown out or do they just randomly change 1 assumption and try again? That's the question you need to answer and which determines whether the field is full of bullshit or not.

In regards to the citation, fake papers etc this has been a annoying problem FOR DECADES and the solution, while obvious, cannot be implemented because the people with the power to make these changes benefit from the status quo. You claim that this problem is small (in one breath, while you talk about elsevier in the other) but you have no numbers on the percentage of MONEY that is stolen through this type of fraud and corruption. If only c% of the tax dollars going to scientific research actually end up producing any societal benefit then that is something that should be communicated to TAX PAYERS, no matter if they "believe in science" or not.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 23:40:27 UTC No. 16467731

>>16467657
Very Hadron Large Collider?