Experts use this term and I agree with experts

I trust real scientists over some stupid blogger. DoINg yOuR oWn reSeaRcH AgAIn? lmao

50% of papers are nonsense nobody reads, that's not science.

lel ALL shitskin names

published soyence has always been a massive grift if you are unable to comprehend that all real research is classified, it means you are a manchild midwit

Just hecking trust the Science™

You laugh now, but once we give AI the capability to test their hypothesis in the real world we are going to see crazy scientific breakthrough

I've published articles in Q1 journals and I can't see how that happens, like having a word in your paper that you can't define, that's a no-no.

>>25485336 It hasn't always been. Some time in the 80s or so, some American shitheads decided "let's measure how good scientists are!" and they started measuring... not what mattered of course ("scientific progress"), but what was easy to measure. Number of papers and reputation of journals (there aren't many, so you can calculate that somehow or pull it out of your ass) were easy enough. And here we are, science as competitive paper publishing. It's a fucking disgrace and I don't think it was very difficult to predict what would happen. By the way, these captachas are ridiculous.

>>25485685 you are wrong because you refuse to look at the big picture. you pick an arbitrary point at which science was not as bullshit as today according to your perception (such point is naturally best picked from a time before you were born), and of course you see a worsening trend. the flawed measurement system you are referring to was invented to try and remedy endemic problems that had existed at the time, which is sufficient evidence of things not being perfect. a grifter would occupy a position and there would be no way to call out his bullshit and sack him without some kind of objective evidence of his output being non-existent or garbage but look even further back and you will find bullshit research and grift all the way back to the times of robert boyle and francis bacon. the stereotypical 19th century scientist is a boisterous charlatan, that's a perception grounded in reality. spiritism was a legitimate branch of natural sciences for many decades, one of the earliest applications of radio was to listen for ghosts. the history of medical science in particular is 99% actively harmful grift, goethe summarized it nicely in the part where faust talks about his father's track record with iatrochemistry people have this idea of a triumph of science that was cut short by bureaucracy because of a series of outlier events during the early to middle 20th century, when a series of breakthroughs occurred in fields such as nuclear physics, chemistry, aerodynamics and ballistics. all of which happened OUTSIDE of the framework and infrastructure of published science. in many cases, results were eventually shared through the scientific journals, but they were obtained at military installations with even the identities of the researchers being secret, let alone their work. and the problem of grift and bullshit research was solved by hands-on chaperoning of scientists by security personnel. so when looking back at the perceived golden age of science, one must remember that those people did not compete for grants, they toiled in a bunker at gunpoint, the management systems are fundamentally different and the present system cannot be analyzed as a result of the other system's deterioration if you look further back such as the early days of electricity, you will find lots of bullshit and grift, it's just been forgotten for being useless and only the good parts are remembered. and you don't get less bullshit the further back you look, eventually you get to a scientific process that boils down to people trying to sell a projection medicamentum recipe to someone gullible enough and skipping town before the next sunrise. idk if that's better or worse than grant grift, the result is the same

>>25485272 It's time to hang those that commit fraud by pretending to have written what is instead AI output. Such people are nothing but scammers and thieves, and will only harm humanity with every breath, because they will never quit scheming to deceive people in order to steal monies.

>>25485643 It's called bribery. Did you try to bribe peer reviewers and journal editors? Successful scientists bribe them.

>>25485814 Can confirm. The present reality is that >60% of published research is irreplicable, and might as well be ipsum lorem gibberish. While I am not going to bother proving it, because my gut tells me I've got better things to do, I don't think that has ever been different. People are infinitesimal specks of obscene glop. There is a sense of hubris in those with genius IQ caused by their relative superiority to double digit morons, but that hubris is an horrific mischaracterization of their absolute incapacity to grasp even of fraction of the knowledge about the universe that is potential, and that even a supergenius human with a head the size of the Titanic would not be competent to grasp a statistically relevant larger fraction of. 'The more I know, the more I know how little I know.' is simply the only basis for wisdom humans can have, and the paltry knowledge of reality we're capable of is literally of no consequence in comparison to the laws of physics we cannot incorporate into our feeble fat globules we call brains.

>>25486784 Your post is, indeed, like one of these papers, with many words that say absolutely nothing of value. The concept of brevity is completely lost on you, like if William Tell missed his famous shot, and instead of rightfully hitting you in the brain, where the world could be disposed of such a nuisance as yourself, it shot over your head and ended up forever lost to time.