• SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Signtist@bookwyr.me
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

    • 5too@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.