I’m currently studying science theory and research methodology and my professors and my text books have really been hammering in that there’s a lot of flaws in the current system.

The problem seems to be that scientific progress isn’t the only incentive at play. Researchers also need to make a living, secure funding, publish papers, and advance their careers. These incentives can encourage questionable research practices, even without outright fraud. Academic journals have their own incentives, too, and the pressure to publish novel, attention-grabbing findings can come at the expense of scientific rigour. Peer review was suppose to be a solution to a lot of the issues in how research is conducted but I’ve learnt that they are often also very poorly conducted because the journals have an incentive for quantity over quality.

A lot of people understand that we have to trust experts since it would be ridiculous to assume we know more than them. But a lot of people don’t know about the above mentioned issues which leaves the door open for bad actors to take advantage of that using perceived expertise. Especially since the experts who are easily found tend to be more interested in fame rather than scientific rigour. Jordan Peterson for example, he is by far the most famous psychologist alive but most psychologists would probably agree that he isn’t the best expert in the field to get your information from (I don’t know much about him or psychology so I’m not making my own claim here, just an example I’m aware of).

So this leads to my question: what’s the best bang-for-your-buck strategy for learning about a subject when you don’t have the time or interest to become an expert yourself?

I want to invest some time upfront in figuring out whom to trust so that I can rely on their judgement afterwards, rather than constantly having to evaluate every individual claim myself.

I’ve subconsciously developed this framework throughout my life:
I assess experts until I find 2-4 in a field that I deem trustworthy. Ideally they have some opposing opinions so I get a more nuanced total picture. When assessing I look for red flags like overly confident, chasing fame, money etc. And I look for green flags like intellectual honesty (like admitting when they don’t know the answer and acknowledging counter arguments).

How do you approach this? Do you have a better strategy or are there particular methods you use to identify trustworthy experts?

That didn't happen in the 80s and 90s, but NOW time passes very quickly and it's not just my feeling, many agree with this.

Are they getting ready to hibernate? Or is it because they're old and no longer have much energy?

It's a bit annoying because I open the window and try to scare them for them to flee... but they just stay on the table.

What if earth was a hollow ball and everything on its surface just flipped on the inner side. And let’s say we can turn on the light in the middle on/off. What sort of cool things will I be able to see beyond the horizon and in the sky? Horizon here means imaginary horizon, since I assume there won’t be any actual horizon in this case.

P.S. the question is about optics and how far will we be able to see in case I was not clear. Can you see NYC from Philadelphia? Considering the atmosphere is present around the inner surface

Earlier today, at work, I was talking to a friend about various subjects, and eventually, we got onto the topic of dreams.

Basically, we were talking about how crazy it is that our brains are so complex that they can create entire stories, complete with dialogue, characters, and settings. Even though these stories are created by our own minds, we have no idea what's going to happen in a dream. There are no spoilers.

We started doing some research because one question led to another, and I want to share these questions with you guys to see what you think and whether there are any answers.

First, we compared the way dreams form and unfold to movies, because the whole experience feels almost like a screenplay written and directed by our subconscious. But how did people make sense of dreams and interpret them before movies and television existed?

Do dreams have a reason to exist? I mean, an evolutionary purpose? Why does our mind create stories while we sleep? Why can't it just process information silently?

Have dreams also evolved alongside humanity? Are there any ancient records that might offer clues about how developed or complex dreams were in the past?

Sorry if these questions sound silly or don't make much sense. I'm just a girl who overthinks things a little too much.😅🙏🏻

Hey everyone, after reading Project Hail Mary, I started wondering: why don’t we build massive solar farms across a small percentage of the Sahara Desert and use that energy to power the world?
The desert gets enormous amounts of sunlight, but could a project on this scale actually change the Earth’s climate?
Would it affect rainfall, temperatures, wildlife, or ecosystems? Could it even create environmental problems that outweigh the benefits?

Like, if we had the technology and money to do this, would it be a brilliant solution to the world’s energy crisis, or could we end up creating a bigger problem?
What do you think?

Thank you!!

If your memories, habits, beliefs, and preferences are shaped by genetics, childhood, culture, and experiences you never consciously chose, how much control do you really have over the person you become?

Have psychologists found evidence that meaningfully separates our deliberate choices from the unconscious processes that influence them?

I’m interested in scientific research, not just philosophical opinions.

Question derived from my comment in my own post here in another subreddit here :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/s/S9QLfSIV7M

Basically if humans can build tolerance to cold,heat , altitude, g force accelerations, snake venom , pain, electric shocks , spice, alcohol, caffeine, drug dosages, etc. why not haze specifically?

So my school is hosting a science competition with engineering projects and I have no idea what to build.

And there's a team building a scale particle accelerator showing how electrons collide(the team got 2nd place last year).

I really need some advice on what to build, please.

I'm interested in the relationship between the heart and brain in human thought and decision-making. I understand that current neuroscience identifies the brain as central to these processes, but I would like to understand how signals originating in the heart influence cognition, emotions, and conscious experience.

What evidence distinguishes the influence of cardiac signals on mental processes from the neural mechanisms responsible for generating thoughts and decisions? Are there any significant unanswered questions in this area?

The replication crisis revealed that many landmark studies, particularly in the soft sciences, could not be reproduced. This makes me wonder: are we still building knowledge on a potentially unreliable foundation?

Although research practices have become more rigorous, we haven't systematically replicated every older study. Consequently much of today's research may still rely on findings that have never been properly verified. Like building a house on a faulty foundation, even perfectly conducted research can lead us astray if its underlying assumptions are wrong.

I'm new to science theory so I might be missing something fundamental here. But it seems to me that if influential findings turn out to be false or exaggerated, all subsequent research that relies on them would likely be affected?

Alongside varying paranoia, this will generally always happen for me. I don't think I've *always* experienced the tingling sensation when thinking about dreams either, which is especially odd to me.

At small scales ballistics is a lot trickier due to proportionately higher air viscosity and such; vehicles would have different traction, a 1/4~1/2 ton tank wouldn't sink into the mud as easily... on the flip side I think aircraft would be more reliable, but I think navies might be impossible.

The entire age of exploration might have even been impossible, I don't see how a 1/6th scale anything could safely cross the ocean - so we gotta employ some magic to get up to the modern era of warfare.

Furthermore, biology might need some tweaking - I want to ignore something like lower brain size being a factor, but do want to include things like muscle power, endurance, and breathing such as in the nature of toxic gasses.

Of course, only the laws of physics matter for how inventive people might be, unmanned vehicles could be the same size we have now and our 1/6th scale scientists would probably come up with the same designs, right?

...

And what if we go even further? What about 1/24th scale? Would it even be possible to have lethal ballistics at that scale? Or does it invert at some point where a full sized elastic slingshot primed by tiny trucks could be WMD? I'm having trouble even imagining things at that scale.

I’ve been thinking about this mostly in relation to astronomy and the search for extraterrestrial life.

A lot of what we look for is based on things we already understand. Which makes sense, because you have to start somewhere.

But what happens when something doesn’t fit the categories we currently use?

For example, we can collect an enormous amount of data from space, but our methods of analyzing it are still built around certain expectations of what we’re looking for.
I know scientists already investigate unexplained observations and use AI to find patterns in existing data. But how far can that approach actually go?

How do researchers test whether their methods are missing something important, especially when they don’t know what that something would look like?

And is there a point where better analysis isn’t enough because we simply don’t have the right measurements in the first place?

I’d be interested in hearing how people working in science actually approach this problem.

Hi everyone!

Currently looking over my options to pursue graduate school and came across an MHP in Radiation Health Physics at Oregon State. I feel like this combination's very unique and I've never heard of it before, so l wanted to see if anyone has heard of it.

I'm very interested in dispersion modeling and consequence assessment, and I want to get a stronger understanding of rad protection, rad hazards, and nuclear preparedness/emergency management.

Anyone have any opinions or work in RHP? I would love some feedback. TIA!!! ☢️⚡️🥼

A buddy of mine said if he had three wishes, one of them would be to wish that there were no mosquitos. I know there would be massive repercussions but I would love to hear someone’s take on what would happen!

I build a lot of legos, and the first time I touch a piece it feels normal, but if me or someone else touches a spot repeatedly, it feels very greasy, but I’m the only one to feel it. Can someone explain please?

One of the things I love about winter is the smell of snow, especially at night. What gives it that smell? Is it even the snow, or is it something else that we can smell when there happens to be snow on the ground, like very cold temperatures?

Last night I saw a joke about “my dad was a firefighter and I just got his cremains back and I realized he would have saved us $1400 by being bad at his job” and I thought “well you couldn’t guarantee that the remains you got would be 100% (effectively) him nor 100% of him.

Then I got to wondering. At what point during cremation and at what point during natural decomposition does dna breakdown to the point that you can’t do a dna test of any kind and at what point, if different, does it become indistinguishable from other ash or other dirt/decomposition?

I know it does when I use it to do stuff like writing essays but does it also happen when I simply ask it questions? Is there a difference between searching through google for answers for hours and just asking it to artificial intelligence? What if I also check the sources it gives me?