arteteco @arteteco@qoto.org

@rnitsch
I didn't read through the page, but the website seems interesting, thanks!

@realmattseymour @peterdrake

@realmattseymour
Hi,
I understand what you mean, I may not have been clear enough. Let me explain myself better. What I think is important to understand is the difference between a biased scientist and a biased science.

A scientist can and often is biased. He will want to prove his point, and bring forward is paradigm, that is, the thesis he is proposing. That will influence the interpretation of the data, the kind of experiment he is going to perform, and what data he is looking for.

And that is totally fine, as long as the methodology is correct. Methodology (what I meant by science) shouldn't be biased.

I'll give you an example. In the early days of geology there were two big groups of people: plutonists, who thought the core of the Earth is hot, and Neptunists, who thought is was cold and all rocks came from sea sediments. They performed research, each one to prove its point, and the sum of knowledge that came out of it is very precious. That is because, to prove the point, they did tight and hard measurements and observations. The data that came out was interpreted differently, but the data is there.

It's as if I wanted to prove that a medicine is really working. I may be biased in wanting to demonstrate it, and that should only make my research stronger: I'll take a large, randomized sample of people, make it properly double blind and so on, because I know that a weak methodology will only make my point less valid.
What comes out of the experiment is what it is, and will add up to what other scientists will discover.

If I outright lie about the results, that is falsification and another thing altogether, and it will come out (one research is not enough to prove anything, you need many independent studies to make something an acceptable truth).

Now, I agree, we don't have an objective definitive truth, but the Earth is spherical(ish)? We got that. How the air pushes a solid up? We got that. We have many things that are objective enough to base your life on it (and you do, when you take a plane or a car or use your phone, for example).

Evolutionary theory is also at that level of truth, which is in science called a Theory. Science has, in its methods, ways of leveling down the personal bias, by proper experiment reproduction, independent testing and so on.

What would have happened if we censored Darwin, or Hutton, because their researches may have brought "Political discomfort"? It would have been a shame, and a net loss for us as species.

Preventing a properly conducted research from being published, however biased can the scientist be, is against all of the good that history of science has thought us.

I am aware this is a bit idealized, and I understand your concerns. Unfortunately the academic world is far from being this pure, and scientific method is still struggling to be as pure as I described it. Still, I think is important to try to make it so.

Science, by its own nature, is rebel, doesn't care about what you think is true or who is in power: The Earth is not flat, as much as people in power or the majority may want to think. Accomodate this nature is a big but IMO a necessary step for a healthy society.

Sorry for the long post, it is a topic close to my heart.

@rnitsch @peterdrake

@ozer
"Guns don't kill people, I kill people with guns"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

@js290
Thanks for this link, I didn't know about Crane project, https://researchers.one/ . Seems interesting.

@realmattseymour @rnitsch @peterdrake

@js290 How did it work out for you?
I tried that in the past, I had a very poor yield... soil got somewhat better, but not better than with a properly done mulching/composting plan, which takes me less in terms of labour, being more designed. Maybe I did it bad though... I may try again if I find another unused small plot =D

@rnitsch Thanks for this interview... it is long, but it's engaging since the very beginning. Prof. Ridd sounds really reasonable and understandable.

I'm also so sorry for how many people lose trust and love for science because of those mechanisms...

@rnitsch

This. I understand going against a research or an hypothesis, trying to get it down or demolish it, but censorship on a valid research? We wouldn't have had Darwin, Newton, Wegener or Patterson that way.

And is not like fact go away just because you close your eyes, anyway.

What I think is disturbing is the technical possibility that is there for a majority to put so many obstacles on a scientific work.
There is a big flaw in the oligopoly of a few big research papers that owns the copyright of most of the researches right now, and that is something I find deeply disturbing.

Do you know of works being done to solve such a gigantic issue?

@realmattseymour @peterdrake

@realmattseymour
I have troubles seeing your point then. If you read it but don't understand it (as I do), why does it sound pseudoscientific to you?

If it were trash it wouldn't have been published in the first place. Personally I am very surprised to know of a paper accepted, published and then vanished. It's... weird, to say the least.

@peterdrake @rnitsch

@ziphi I think mastodon/pleroma would need channels for users. Having an account per topic is quite of a hack

@realmattseymour
I'm not strong in probability calculations, so can't say I completely understood it... what doesn't make sense to you?
@peterdrake @rnitsch

@realmattseymour
Did you read it?

@peterdrake @rnitsch

@snailix@scicomm.xyz
Are this basalt pillows?

I follow your updates with great interest, thanks for sharing!

'Where is the geology department?'

'Straight that way, don't worry, you'll recognize it'

https://qoto.org/media/Ko5gTl1RFhyCX4zWu1E

@skulljudenfreund

Oh, is nice to know more about people. Welcome.

In general any rational, respectful message is welcome on this instance.

In case of heated discussion, I'd say just ignore hate messages, or anyway never lower yourself to verbal abuse and lack of respect.

Report to mods if something goes sideways, and just mute users who you find troublesome.

I hope you'll never need this little tip!

@freemo

@imvectech Are you saying.. The humans are dead? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1BdQcJ2ZYY

@skulljudenfreund
I jump in the conversation, as I do not know you or why anyone should consider you evil, but I'd surely appreciate an introduction from you, telling us a bit who you are, why you are here... to know each other better.

Not mandatory, just something I'd like =)

@freemo

@js290 what do you mean? You mean you didn't plant anything and just gathered what spontaneously grew?

@js290

What was wrong with the other link?

@Wewereseeds@sunbeam.city

@js290
I was thinking exactly to him and his STUN principle while writing!