Not The Onion

12189 readers

749 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

130

Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article (arstechnica.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Peer review depends on the seriousness of the reviewers. Sometimes they’re too busy to give af, sometimes they’re fucking dumb, sometimes they’re deferential to authority figures who they know to be wrong. Same as everyone else. 90% of the scientific literature is irreproducible shit.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And so are 90% of statistics

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

37.645% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Nice made up stat. For anyone upvoting this, take a look at this video refuting a similar science denier. It'll give you a real idea of how science works. The video also specifically addresses the so-called "reproducibility crisis".

https://youtu.be/xglo2n2AMGc

Yes, obviously this Chinese paper is garbage, but science is not.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You’d have to be a fucking moron not to recognize the colloquial use of 90%. I’ve been in the trenches. I’ve published (in Science, is that good enough?) and seen forced retractions due to fraud. A LOT of the literature is shit. I’m not saying science is shit. I’m a scientist, I assert there is no way to understand the world other than through science. I’m saying the majority of the literature is shit.