Thread 16819406

FUCK YOU.

Sorry, the credibility of 'scientists' died on the hill where they claimed males are females and all humans are equally intelligent

>>16819406 (OP)
I don't. It's a nuisance that you do not understand my science. I'm working on doing it more comprehensible and I believe that every true scientist should strive to communicating his science even to children.

>>16819406 (OP)
>le direction of the current is from the cathode to the anode
>le direction of the electrons through the wire is the opposite, from the anode to the cathode
they're just being deliberately obtuse to confuse retards like you

>>16819477
Did he really say it or are you a faggot op?
I am a genius and I like him more than regular politician, because bourgeoisie is way better than government clerks (at least because business people take your money only when they produce something you want)

>>16819406 (OP)
Here's why. They need to explain it hard because scientists share their papers with other scientists and then it gets peer-reviewed. If they explain something easy, some inaccuracy could appear, and as a result, their reputation declines, and this is extremely important to get grants and connecting with other scientists. There are even some nit-picking scientists who will flag a paper only because they didn't like a single word and argue that someone could interpret it as something much more different although it was 99% clear what the scientist originally meant.

>>16819478
Of course he said it. Midwits hate him

>>16819531
And that is only one of the good reasons why peer-review should be abolished and substituted with something way more transparent, so that reviewers rejecting solid papers are known.

>>16819406 (OP)
its just gods chosen gatekeeping heaven from goyim

>>16819555
>abolished and substituted
This is easy. Papers published in reputable academic journals should be "communicated by" an elder statesman or emeritus of the field, like how it used to be.

>>16819406 (OP)
lmfao they use big words and shit in pure math and applied math esp in machine learning to make things sound complex quantitative finance too lmfaoooooo

>>16819568
That may save us from lots of bs papers, but it doesn't solve the issue with solid papers being rejected.

>>16819589
How could a paper be rejected by a journal if it wasn't communicated to the journal in the first place?

>>16819598
Ah, so you want to have an additional filter.
I'd rather remove all filters and publish everything, literally everything, and allowed the audience to rate and review it. Especially since now we don't need to waste paper to do that.

>>16819608
But that already exists.

>>16819611
Can you rate and comment on articles in arXiv?
What are you speaking of?

>>16819614
So like a filter on twitter that only shows papers?

>>16819626
I'd build it as a map of noosphere with all the papers in the world grouped by their topic and switched on or off on the map depending on your preferences: whether you want to see only academic papers or only non-academic papers, only papers from some specific year or within some boundaries, only papers with high ratings or papers with low ratings which ai recognizes as solid, etc.

>>16819430
Sounds like a strawman argument. Why are we acting like all “scientists” are the same?

I judged my math professors at uni by how their teaching materials look like. If they had a lot of complicated things with no explanation etc., I judged them as being retarded. Every fucking subject can be explained quite easily, step by step. If you feel the need to show off and stroke your ego by dropping tons of unnecessary data at people who are new to the subject then you can fuck off. The correlation between being a show-off and their h-index was inverted, like you probably can guess.

It's all obfuscation. If you don't understand your subject well, you try to hide behind complex and sophisticated explanations to hide your lack of understanding.

>>16819630
Sounds easy enough to set up. You could just scrape google scholar.

>>16819670
Yep. Alexandra Elbakyan also agreed to open her archive for such a project. Unfortunately, I lack the skills to build it myself, and am busy by my own scientific breakthroughs to refocus onto that potential better alternative to google scholar, arxiv and such.

>>16819406 (OP)
>writes articles as simple as possible (Occam for a starer)
>OP still gets filtered
Skill issue.

It’s ironic.

“If you can’t explain something simply enough, then you don’t understand it well enough” — Einstein

The scientific method is incredibly simple, or pure.

>>16819639
>Why are we acting like all “scientists” are the same?
sounds like you implicitly agree that science, as a whole, has low credibility?
You are implying there are 'pockets' of credibility, and not the whole thing?

>>16819406 (OP)
Obfuscation is good when its done to hide from censorship
Obfuscation is bad when its done to hide the censorship