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

©2025 Poal.co

794

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

The origin of math-science and the aim of the whole field is "to be able to make predictions on things that will happen"

They have to be predictions that ACTUALLY happen, random wrong predictions do NOT count

Given the above, peer review is NOT something that makes anything valid or not, a testable prediction is

It wollows that "climate science" is NOT science since

  • I failed to make testable predictions (no, predictions on past events are NOT predictions)
  • The number of variables in the model make the model itself pretty much random
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Really well said.

This axiom is a really terrific way to help you sort things out in daily life as well. You don't have to be too precise about it but if you apply the necessary attention to a question or an idea, you can fairly quickly get an answer to "is the prediction true".

It is also useful to keep it in mind as part of normal conversation because normal conversation is kind of like peer review, it can help identify variables and permutations that you have not considered so you can update your ideas and test them as you go.

[–] • 2 pts

Slightly tragic that the first comments on that page were all from christ cucks ranting that Creationism is real...

I'm not sure the point being made here is that all peer reviewed papers are bunk? but rather that students are being taught to justify everything using other people's work, so what they end up doing lacks any originality.

Also the system of research grants tends this way too

We end up with 6 gorrilion papers saying 'niggers behave badly because they are oppressed by wypipo", and there is nobody to point out that low IQ explains everything they do

[–] • -1 pt

Meh. The fact of the matter is that . It's almost like 'scientists' find exactly what their funding wants them to find.

As far as creationism goes, intelligent design explains the world much better than random mutations do from an objective standpoint. Computers and cars didn't come about through random selection sequences, so why would it be that the most complex thing on earth, life itself, was just random chance.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Literally everything you just wrote is totally wrong. The least of which you misunderstood what your link is saying in order to justify your deep seated need to confirm that your religious views are correct.

That link wrote that 50% of all published papers cannot be replicated. What it did not say is that peer riview is complete garbage. What it actually said is this:

All humans lie all the time everywhere, and, it turns out that we just assumed that peer reviewed science was immune to this nature of the human species which was wrong.

Congratulations.

// EDIT: Re-read this, and it comes across too harsh. My apologies, that is my old athiest training.

[–] • 0 pt

In no logical context of my comment do I equate creationism with the article I linked. I made two distinct points, separated by a paragraph break. Your comment wasn't what I would call harsh, it was an illogical attempt to build up and tear down a straw man version of an argument I never made.

Your response reads as a knee jerk reaction to a world view which challenges your own religiously held belief against the existence of a Creator. It was a desperately flailing attempt to deny the obvious reality that things which you can touch and see existing are made manifest by the intelligent design of man. I believe it is no great leap to assume that, as intelligent design is an operable principle in practice (i.e. the intelligent design of a computer), it is likely that a 'being' beyond our comprehension created 'life' as we perceive it.

[–] • 0 pt

All humans lie all the time everywhere, and, it turns out that we just assumed that peer reviewed science was immune to this nature of the human species which was wrong.

Boy isn’t that the truth. I really used to think scientists were just better people who had a monk like devotion to uncovering the objective truth! Now that idea seems incredibly naive to me. Scientists like nice things! They also love to please their peers and superiors! Its like they’re regular people or something!

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

intelligent design explains the world much better than random mutations do from an objective standpoint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_fern

that's a fern, made from a computer algorithm. that's one of the simplest examples of life whose physically form is basically inevitable

you are only seeing evolution as improbable because everything that "failed" is now dead. everything continues to evolve in reaction to its environment, even today new things evolve. We have a whole fossil record of each stage developing, if this was an "intelligent" process then somebody clearly wasted a few billion years in trying out stupid chimp prototypes first.

Computers and cars didn't come about through random selection sequences

yes they did in a way, lots of prototypes were tried first, anything that worked was improved further. You can create AI's that basically do random stuff until something works, and when it works it's then called "intelligent"

if you want to believe in sky pixies then whatever, but the same process could equally occur on an identical planet elsewhere in the universe, they are not required for anything to occur

[–] • 0 pt

Provide one example of speciation. I'll wait

[–] • 2 pts

At this point peer reviewed content is a joke, it just means you got some faggot to agree with whatever retarded political narrative you're currently trying to push. I remember seeing that a majority of peer reviewed content has unreplicable results, in other words peer review at this point is nothing more than a political stamp of approval.