The people I’ve met who do their own “research” do so because they believe the scientific community as a whole is fake. They’d take great pride in not being published.
So publishing validates science? Check out the number of faked Science, *CELL *and Nature papers with hundreds of references. Basically, the whole amyoid hypothesis is built on fake data.
Lancet published Wakefield’s bullshit and refused to retract it for 12 years.
Yes, I am are aware that while publishing helps validate science, it is not infallible, nor is it presented as such outside of people who haven’t even tried to understand the process. There’s a pretty big gap between “all published ‘science’ is fake” and “all published ‘science’ is real.” that I, and most other rational people, fall under.
As I understand it, publishing lets others validate the science. You’re not just declaring what you’ve discovered, you’re showing your work - your sources, your data, your references, your processes.
After you’ve done all that, even if it’s crap, someone else expressing an interest in going through all that can be quite a compliment. Or, if you didn’t bother dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s, it can make you a mite defensive…
But yes, a lot of trash can be published. And since it is published, it can be shown to be trash, if someone goes to the trouble.
The people I’ve met who do their own “research” do so because they believe the scientific community as a whole is fake. They’d take great pride in not being published.
So publishing validates science? Check out the number of faked Science, *CELL *and Nature papers with hundreds of references. Basically, the whole amyoid hypothesis is built on fake data.
Lancet published Wakefield’s bullshit and refused to retract it for 12 years.
A lot of garbage is published.
Yes, I am are aware that while publishing helps validate science, it is not infallible, nor is it presented as such outside of people who haven’t even tried to understand the process. There’s a pretty big gap between “all published ‘science’ is fake” and “all published ‘science’ is real.” that I, and most other rational people, fall under.
As I understand it, publishing lets others validate the science. You’re not just declaring what you’ve discovered, you’re showing your work - your sources, your data, your references, your processes.
After you’ve done all that, even if it’s crap, someone else expressing an interest in going through all that can be quite a compliment. Or, if you didn’t bother dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s, it can make you a mite defensive…
But yes, a lot of trash can be published. And since it is published, it can be shown to be trash, if someone goes to the trouble.