Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean. Shorter, more focused posts specialising in astronomy and data visualisation.

Saturday, 20 January 2018

The scientific method gone badly wrong


Pretty much. Needs stuff about popularity and highly funded grants.

I need scarcely remind readers that I do not think this indicates anything whatsoever about how common this is in practise.
at
Labels:

3 comments:

  1. Dan Weese20 January 2018 at 11:26

    Also something about p-values.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shaun Griffith20 January 2018 at 12:39

    And grant proposals to study the effectiveness of different grant proposal workflows.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James Garry21 January 2018 at 00:37

    I particularly like how there are no loops back once you hit the ''computer model' stage.

    "Sure our model's probably wrong and has a ton of bugs! Let's get that poster cranked out and then think about a paper!"

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

AI Can Help Us Publish Less, Says Scientist

Not really all that much about AI in this one , actually. I think everyone agrees that "publish or perish" is bad, but I don't...

  • ChatGPT-5 Versus Me
    It's time for another round of evaluating whether ChatGPT is actually helpful for astronomical research. My previous experiments can be ...
  • ChatGPT-5 versus... DeepSeek
    My excitement for ChatGPT-5 continues to defy the Will Of The Internet. Sod y'all, this is feckin' awesome ! This is the upgrade I...
  • A dark RELHIC of an earlier age
    The last time I tried to count the number of times objects had been claimed to be the first dark galaxy candidates, I stopped at ten becaus...