Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

826

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

Science is reproducible.

Pseudoscience is peer reviewed.

[–] • 1 pt

What reproducible results do social scientists generate? Social, umm, "ists" seem to mainly go around telling people what do to, not observing it.

[–] • 0 pt

Physics, chemistry, biology - science. Rest - not so much.

[–] • 0 pt

That’s a very succinct differentiation. Reminds me of those students who claimed they had achieved cold fusion but their experiment couldn’t be reproduced - careers ruined before they even started.

[–] • 0 pt

Sounds interesting, what students were these ??. Reminds me of a publicly held 'conscience' vote years ago of some leading scientists of the day about whether 'cold fusion' was actually viable and whether the group should endorse further funds or research into it, but it was really just an appeal to authority scenario where the chair and most well known (respected??) guy automatically voted no and then sat staring at each other person in turn until they inevitably voted no as well. Peer review in action ....

[–] • 1 pt

“Transgender women are women”

[–] • 1 pt

"yOU wIll nEvEr bE A rEAl wAhmAn " ....

[–] • 1 pt

peer review says: holy fuck, why is there HAIR in there?

[–] • 1 pt

so precise , Its sad !!! LOL

[–] • 1 pt

The one on the right is a CIA agent.

[–] • 0 pt

Needs a bigger nose.

[–] • 0 pt

Or, the experiment needs to be done again until it agrees with my expectations.

You could do a play on the old one about how a scientist met with an unexpected result is intrigued. A liberal met with an unexpected result is offended.