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

  • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

    • eran_morad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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.