The decay of Professional Science

[aoibhghaire]

The decay of professional science

Amazing implications:

1. Research whose results can’t be reproduced is more likely to be cited – even in cases where the lack of reproducibility was noted.

2. 16 times likely to be cited (compared to research that can be replicated).

3. 300 times if the failed research was in Science or Nature journals.

Some comments and examples:

Calling yourself a scientist in 100 years will probably have the same ring to it as calling yourself a witch doctor today.

At least engineers have a mechanism in place that gets rid of the fraud. Bridges fall down, factories blow up and phones stop working.

Physics has wasted 40 years on string theory, producing a mass of papers too numerous to count. Hard to top that.

Cosmology has blown a full century based on the ridiculous notion that stars are balls of plasma. They aren't; they're composed of hydrogen in a lattice. See youtube link here.

https://www.youtube.com/@SkyScholar

See link below that expands on the research evidence of this decay.

https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/the-decay-of-professional-science

[Rawhide68]

I have to agree and I feel your frustration aoibhghaire
Looked up Max Planck's original words

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,
but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[ThePythonicCow]

Calling yourself a scientist in 100 years will probably have the same ring to it as calling yourself a witch doctor today.
I hope that happens in less than 100 years, that I might have the fun of watching it happen.

[Agape]

The majority of today's undergraduate scientists , all with diplomas are mechanics, at the utmost , architects of modern science. The relevance of individual genius was nearly abolished in most democratic countries , giving larger platform to technocracy .

At some point in future we may only need "programmers" and engineers .

Doctors may be called out for witchcraft if they continue in current inhumane standards of treatment and humans will get repaired in "regeneration pods".

The Art of Medicine has also suffered deep prolapse from the time of Hippocrates.

Some physicians focus on "selling products" and earning from global obesity.

Others just serve "the system".

Much of their rights and sovereignty taken , alternative treatments are censored in many countries even while global science invests costly funds into researching natural and various traditional resources and methods of treatment.

[Johnnycomelately]

I knew the fix was in, when the pronouncement ”97% of scientists support banning plant food”.

“Climate change” is now popularly understood to be caused by humans, by our (VERY fortunate industrial-scale) production of that plant food. CO2.

The thing about scientists, and anybody mostly, is that they need an income ($). And he who pays the piper calls the tune.

[onawah]

A good example

Ben Davidson Cooks Astronomers on Micronovae in 10 Minutes
SpaceWeatherNews (S0)
834K subscribers
Jan 1, 2026

GivISIuHNg8

[Bill Ryan]

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
— Max Planck, 1950
(This is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time")

[rgray222]

It's much easier to approach this topic with a sense of humor, otherwise, you'll just be angry all the time. The fact that they had to change "global warming" to "climate change" should have been a huge red flag for everyone. I find it funny that some people have superglued themselves to streets or thrown paint at famous artworks in an effort to save the planet. But now, with the massive energy demands of AI, climate change seems to be fading away faster than a melting glacier.

Meanwhile, the "globalists" are playing the common sense card, claiming that the climate is cyclical and not primarily caused by humans burning carbon. Apparently, melting ice caps and rising seas are nothing more than the latest fashion trend.

For all things science follow the money.

[Wilbur2]

Calling yourself a scientist in 100 years will probably have the same ring to it as calling yourself a witch doctor today.
I hope that happens in less than 100 years, that I might have the fun of watching it happen.

I hope it happens sooner, so I can see Neil deGrasse Arsehole and his UK counterpart, Brian Cox, have to do a volte face and pretend that they "knew all along" that physics had lost its way.

[Wilbur2]

It's much easier to approach this topic with a sense of humor, otherwise, you'll just be angry all the time. The fact that they had to change "global warming" to "climate change" should have been a huge red flag for everyone. I find it funny that some people have superglued themselves to streets or thrown paint at famous artworks in an effort to save the planet. But now, with the massive energy demands of AI, climate change seems to be fading away faster than a melting glacier.

Meanwhile, the "globalists" are playing the common sense card, claiming that the climate is cyclical and not primarily caused by humans burning carbon. Apparently, melting ice caps and rising seas are nothing more than the latest fashion trend.

For all things science follow the money.

When I was a young kid, they were teaching us that there was going to be a global ice age. So it's gone from global cooling to global warming to climate change, all within my lifetime. Anyway, temperature is a hetero-normative, colonialist and racist concept, so at least they've had the sense to remove references to temperature from the name. Climate change is much better, because it reminds one of the other change that the owners of this planet have planned - the one that involves penury for all (except for the change agents, of course).

[Jaak]

The decay of professional science



1. Research whose results can’t be reproduced is more likely to be cited – even in cases where the lack of reproducibility was noted.

2. 16 times likely to be cited (compared to research that can be replicated).

3. 300 times if the failed research was in Science or Nature journals.



I became aware of it during the covid hoax thanks to Frances Arnold who made dozens of ¨discoveries¨ that could not be replicated and yet she got a nobel prize and was a science advisor for Biden during the covid scam .
I see her wiki has been mostly scrubbed clean from the bullsh*t she pushed as science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Arnold
F. Arnold also was a participant in ¨Mindshift conference¨ that took place on Epsteins Island
https://web.archive.org/web/20101120030028/http:/www.jeffreyepsteinscience.com/2010/11/jeffrey-epstein-to-host-mindshift-conference
Frances Arnold, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, publicly retracted a scientific paper published in the journal Science in May 2019 due to irreproducible results.
The study, which focused on the enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams, was co-authored by Inha Cho and Zhi-Jun Jia, with Arnold as a senior author.
The retraction was announced by Arnold herself on Twitter on January 2, 2020, where she stated that the work had not been reproducible and apologized for not doing her job well, citing being busy during the submission process.

The journal Science confirmed the retraction, noting that attempts to reproduce the experiments failed, and a review of the first author’s lab notebook revealed missing contemporaneous entries and raw data for key experiments.
This incident is part of a broader concern known as the "reproducibility crisis" in science, where a significant number of research findings cannot be replicated by other scientists.
A 2016 survey by Nature found that over two-thirds of researchers had failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half had failed to reproduce their own.

Bullsh*t science is a trillion dollar business like searching for dark matter etc . It is a black hole where billions can be poured with no results and at the same time they keep convinving/misleading people that the things that dont exist actually do exist , we just need more money to find it ...

[All is one]

I agree. Scientific norms and values are more for show than for progress or reliability.
In my case putting completely different implants in my head is a deliberate & shady act.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?130818-This-is-NOT-normal-----HELP-needed-in-exposing-corrupt-hospital-practices-&p=1696715&viewfull=1#post1696715
Not feeling responsible or considering any of the consequences of their researches can also very much be called decay of professional science.

[Agape]

There is very long listed webpage or two somewhere disclosing the (sheer) number of aka clinical trials run by clinics, and institutions for pharmaceutical companies, seeking volunteers at all times.
I've last happened upon that page about 10 years ago and the number of clinical trials ( thousands) left me in awe.
Some of the trials are payed though not always and there is 50/50 % risk of untimely side effects and consequences. Beware of those.

In scientific terms they are mostly insufficient - ran through insufficient number of people for insufficient time.

Fictive analogue : The study may focus on microdosing of daily aspirin in healthy volunteers and group of patients with arythmia. Third group receives placebo dosage . The controlled study is ran under medical supervision , as clinical trial where all receive the same amount of food and uncomplicated diet(s).

Result: 1/2 of allover participants improve in course of 6 weeks . Save for the arythmia patients group who worry too much so their improvement ratio is only about 1/3.

Conclusion: Microdosing of aspirin does not show significant improvement in cardiac patients with arythmia ( even while we all know "it's the other way around" and healthy populace SHOULD NOT try to use aspirin as "daily booster" because they will inevitably induce perforation to some cell membranes and will put themselves in greater risk of all from brain stroke to myocardial collapse).

So I also consider most of these trials "scientific reduction" and waste of our time.