TheNinjaPro

TheNinjaPro t1_j6uh7e1 wrote

Its just a rule that a study is only as trustable as it is repeatable. Most meaningful science is repeatable, with potentially hundreds of scientists conducting the same experiments.

1

TheNinjaPro t1_j6tcgxm wrote

How the fuck is nobody reading my original comment.

Peer Reviewed + REPEATABLE Data meaning MULTIPLE studies from different groups came to the same result using the same parameters.

I am well aware of the abuse under the peer review system, but it does have an once of integrity and with the key word repeatable which everyone is overlooking, you can have some faith that it is correct.

−1

TheNinjaPro t1_j6tb1de wrote

Go be a scientist, go dedicate your life to actually understanding things because apparently nobody else can do it.

Or you can just bitch and complain and be somehow more uselss.

−1

TheNinjaPro t1_j6sy4tc wrote

Both repeatability and peer review were my clauses for acceptability.

You have simply states that articles are unrepeatable, and peer reviews can be scams.

We put the two together and we get…..

−4