What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?

[I believe in Harry Potter]

Okay guys, thanks

[Alex K]

The competition is precisely why it is difficult to get away with manipulation in the long run.
Things get replicated by other people, before that happens you *should* absolutely approach new results with scepticism.

It's a pretty poor researcher who takes the position, 'I've got this great theory that solves the n-body problem, but I'm not going to let you see it.'

Boru

That's exactly how all the frauds operate who want to attract investors for their fantastic free energy device etc. We have this awesome machine here which can make energy out of nothing, we're not going to reveal how it works. Give us money!

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that people would remember this, if they ever knew it..but there was a company based in Dublin called Steorn, formed in '01 for e-commerce..more prosaically, they were an internet credit card company..... that by '06 was marketing a perpetual motion machine called Orbo. Magnets and rotors, magnets and rotors.

They even put it on display at Kinetica in London, in '07, it failed. You could pay a fee to see the specs. They continued to collect investments, however, and by 2009 it came out in the wash that the panel of "experts" they hired to vet the tech really did exist....which people had strongly doubted beforehand...but that they had determined that the tech absolutely and conclusively did not work. Steorn had fooled themselves. This didn't stop them, they immediately released a statement saying that even if it didn't work then, it works now and continued to hoover up investment. Ultimately raking in 23 million euros before releasing their product, in December of 2015, a mobile phone charger......based on a lithium ion battery.

In 2016 the company was liquidated, and the ceo, Sean McCarthy, became a professional internet poker player. His assesment of the matter was this.

"We took their money. We raised their expectations and it fell flat on its fucking face. They've a right to be angry about that."

Well thanks, Sean...sooooooo..where did that money go? Certainly not into the invention of a lithium ion battery. Imma take "I put it in my poker pot for 500" Alex. What a cunt.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The competition is precisely why it is difficult to get away with manipulation in the long run.
Things get replicated by other people, before that happens you *should* absolutely approach new results with scepticism.

My impression is that research rarely gets replicated by other people. Many experiments are costly or impractical to replicate. The rest simply have no incentive to be replicated; journals tend to only publish novel findings and institutions aren't interested in funding duplicate studies that have already been done.

The only exception for this is in the field of psychology. Where psychologists established the Open Science foundation (if I'm not mistaken), and began testing reproducibility of their own field. Hence why the "replication crisis" was headlines a few years ago. As far as I know, psychologists are the only ones doing this. I think once other fields of science begin replicating their own research in similar fashion, we'll see that much research that is published, and that we think are foundational to modern science, doesn't pass replication.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you get that impression because it's true or because you need it to be true, and some specific scientific field to be false, to prop up a dearly held belief?

[Alex K]

The competition is precisely why it is difficult to get away with manipulation in the long run.
Things get replicated by other people, before that happens you *should* absolutely approach new results with scepticism.

My impression is that research rarely gets replicated by other people. Many experiments are costly or impractical to replicate. The rest simply have no incentive to be replicated; journals tend to only publish novel findings and institutions aren't interested in funding duplicate studies that have already been done.

The only exception for this is in the field of psychology. Where psychologists established the Open Science foundation (if I'm not mistaken), and began testing reproducibility of their own field. Hence why the "replication crisis" was headlines a few years ago. As far as I know, psychologists are the only ones doing this. I think once other fields of science begin replicating their own research in similar fashion, we'll see that much research that is published, and that we think are foundational to modern science, doesn't pass replication.

Your impression is maybe true for individual studies no-one bothers to redo for a while, but things which enter the scientific consensus of a field are usually vetted. I can certainly say that with confidence for my own field. Social psychology has had some troubles with some studies regarded as classics being problematic, but I'm not the person to defend social psychology here, I'll gladly defend physics and related areas which are extremely rigorous.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The competition is precisely why it is difficult to get away with manipulation in the long run.
Things get replicated by other people, before that happens you *should* absolutely approach new results with scepticism.

My impression is that research rarely gets replicated by other people. Many experiments are costly or impractical to replicate. The rest simply have no incentive to be replicated; journals tend to only publish novel findings and institutions aren't interested in funding duplicate studies that have already been done.

The only exception for this is in the field of psychology. Where psychologists established the Open Science foundation (if I'm not mistaken), and began testing reproducibility of their own field. Hence why the "replication crisis" was headlines a few years ago. As far as I know, psychologists are the only ones doing this. I think once other fields of science begin replicating their own research in similar fashion, we'll see that much research that is published, and that we think are foundational to modern science, doesn't pass replication.

I'm curious as to what led you to this impression.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Ten bucks says jesus.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Every time I see an announcement that someone has developed a "table top fission reactor" I smile and say "I'll wait for the reproducibles."

[Alex K]

Every time I see an announcement that someone has developed a "table top fission reactor" I smile and say "I'll wait for the reproducibles."

Achieving Table top fission isn't very difficult if you can get your hands on some >90% enriched Material and a neutron reflector

https://youtu.be/hh89h8FxNhQ