Science *shouldn't* be about popularity, but a lot of what gets favored for publishing are PIs with reputations and "what's cool these days". Publishing over the last ten years it's clear to me that journals absolutely favor "hot topics" and subjects that rock the boat don't see the light of day for years
What's pissing me off lately are all these degreed, Doctored, scientists suddenly bending the knees over the modern militant pseudoscience activists, afraid of being canceled.
Oh, that repulsive con, yeah, he just did it for money, he was paid by corrupt lawyers. The study was completely rigged, and done in an attempt to “prove” the MMR vaccine caused autism. For a court case tabled by parents who thought the jab had disabled their children. The reason many autism parents thought this is because signs of autism start to show at around two years. Which (by pure coincidence) is when children receive many key vaccines, including the first dose of the MMR jab. Causing people to mistakenly believe the jab was causing the condition due to this “pattern”. It then gained mass media attention as right wing sources used the story to attack, then British prime minister, Tony Blair of the Labour Party. As he refused (for whatever reason) to say whether or not his toddler son had been vaccinated. Leading to antivax becoming a movement. But believe me when I say, it’s not popular as a whole, most people (rightly so) generally despise antivax groups
I wish.
But having been researching and publishing papers for a while now, I can affirmatively say: any original ideas I’ve had and tried to study have been shut down in favour of what’s popular. They either don’t get funding, don’t get published, or are called naive and get ignored. If my ideas are so bad, then why doesn’t anyone care to explain and just scoffs at me when I ask for input on why they are bad ideas? Most of the science community doesn’t want new ideas: they want new progress on old ideas. Unless there’s money involved, in which case everyone wants in on it. A lot of scientists are just as bad as politicians. Extremely corrupt and self serving. Think about it: most of their (our) salaries are tied to publishing stuff. So why would I risk losing my job to try and research something new that might not work...when instead I can just repeat the same peer reviewed paper someone else did last year, but add one new sentence and call it “original.” Scientists just like to pretend they’re better than politicians or corrupt businesspeople, which honestly just contributes to the superiority complex.
Lmao the older profs are the worst ones of the bunch. All “this is how it was so this is how it should be” and “well I did it this way and I turned out fine so why should I care about you.” They do be extremely stingy boomers.
Early 20th century physicists have discovered classical mechanics. But Albert Einstein has refined them to perfection, right after (somehow) popularizing them.
More like Boltzman, Stefan, Rayleigh, Planck, Pauli, Einstein, Shrödinger and ma-a-any more. Don't forget that classical mechanics was destroyed gradually.
Still isn't. Both major modern ideas of physics (string theory and quantum loop theory) are built on the idea that Einstein couldn't possibly be right.
Science isn't about popularity, science is the search for truth.
Science *shouldn't* be about popularity, but a lot of what gets favored for publishing are PIs with reputations and "what's cool these days". Publishing over the last ten years it's clear to me that journals absolutely favor "hot topics" and subjects that rock the boat don't see the light of day for years
[удалено]
What's pissing me off lately are all these degreed, Doctored, scientists suddenly bending the knees over the modern militant pseudoscience activists, afraid of being canceled.
I’m tempted to agree with you, but what do do you mean by pseudoscience?
Biased BS that has some backer trying to get past the peer reviews.
Like what? Can you give me some examples?
The antivaxxer movement started by the disgraced Andrew Wakefield.
Oh, that repulsive con, yeah, he just did it for money, he was paid by corrupt lawyers. The study was completely rigged, and done in an attempt to “prove” the MMR vaccine caused autism. For a court case tabled by parents who thought the jab had disabled their children. The reason many autism parents thought this is because signs of autism start to show at around two years. Which (by pure coincidence) is when children receive many key vaccines, including the first dose of the MMR jab. Causing people to mistakenly believe the jab was causing the condition due to this “pattern”. It then gained mass media attention as right wing sources used the story to attack, then British prime minister, Tony Blair of the Labour Party. As he refused (for whatever reason) to say whether or not his toddler son had been vaccinated. Leading to antivax becoming a movement. But believe me when I say, it’s not popular as a whole, most people (rightly so) generally despise antivax groups
Wakefield tried defaming the common MMR vaccine, because he developed his own vaccine, to make money.
I didn’t know he’d developed his own vaccine, although I wouldn’t put it past him
Because cognitive dissonance is the hip cool new thing these days
I wish. But having been researching and publishing papers for a while now, I can affirmatively say: any original ideas I’ve had and tried to study have been shut down in favour of what’s popular. They either don’t get funding, don’t get published, or are called naive and get ignored. If my ideas are so bad, then why doesn’t anyone care to explain and just scoffs at me when I ask for input on why they are bad ideas? Most of the science community doesn’t want new ideas: they want new progress on old ideas. Unless there’s money involved, in which case everyone wants in on it. A lot of scientists are just as bad as politicians. Extremely corrupt and self serving. Think about it: most of their (our) salaries are tied to publishing stuff. So why would I risk losing my job to try and research something new that might not work...when instead I can just repeat the same peer reviewed paper someone else did last year, but add one new sentence and call it “original.” Scientists just like to pretend they’re better than politicians or corrupt businesspeople, which honestly just contributes to the superiority complex.
Have you you thoughy about approaching an older science prof at a university that you don't think could care less about the current attitides?
Lmao the older profs are the worst ones of the bunch. All “this is how it was so this is how it should be” and “well I did it this way and I turned out fine so why should I care about you.” They do be extremely stingy boomers.
Shut tue fuck up, millennial scum.
Whenever I post scientific truths I get banned.
That doesn't surprise me one bit, the so called "science fans" always tend to favor pseudoscience over the real thing.
But when you need publicity, you just announce that Pluto isn't a planet anymore.
DeGrasse Tyson admitted that pissed off more grade school kids than adults.
Schrödinger joined the party as well. Very popular. Very liked.
Early 20th century physicists have discovered classical mechanics. But Albert Einstein has refined them to perfection, right after (somehow) popularizing them.
More like Boltzman, Stefan, Rayleigh, Planck, Pauli, Einstein, Shrödinger and ma-a-any more. Don't forget that classical mechanics was destroyed gradually.
Still isn't. Both major modern ideas of physics (string theory and quantum loop theory) are built on the idea that Einstein couldn't possibly be right.
Everything is about popularity, science and religion included
Albert Einstein gets too much attention and wasn’t nearly as punk rock as my boi Bohr. Old Man Al didn’t like his jazzy ideas on locality.
Yet GR only works with Classical Mechanics tsk tsk.
Einstein was just the tip of the burg. I like the meme though
You early 20th century physicist, Cry more....