What does /sci/ think of r/science?

Topics that are actually about science that get answered correctly without anyone getting called a faggot or diverting into far right political rants. Boring.

>>7770481

There's a smugness and fake sincerity pervading the whole place. At least here people are honest about being egotistical cunts that need to constantly categorise people in categories of superior and inferior, of which they themselves are in the former, during every moment of every day.

>>7770456
>Implying I've ever visited a subreddit in my 18+ years of browsing the internet.

Not about to start now, faggot.

>>7770488
I feel that way about all of reddit. The whole thing exists to promote an e-penis. Here you have no personal gain from replying to any post, so people are more likely to be sincere.

>>7770488

That's true, but the fact remains so is >>7770481

>>7770554
This. It's all karma whoring.

A lot of the content and papers posted there are complete garbage and a lot of the people who post there have no backround in science. There are some interesting articles linked there but it is usually all papers that are non-technical and frankly only quasiscientific.

To sum up, there are a lot better academic subreddits that are not as popular and don't attract dumb normies browsing the front page of reddit.

>>7770791
Name them

>>7770481
Sounds incredibly boring.

File: 1439367055965.png (165KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 303x311px

>>7770807
Not him, but r/chemistry is pretty decent

>>7770456
I just looked at r/science and saw a single interesting paper on the front page, a peper on self-replication entropy bounds. Besides that it was a bunch of psychology shit, and surveys.

If there are better academic study subs I'd like to know about them.

if you want to discuss real science in a simple, public format, go to stackexchange; I don't understand why anyone would go anywhere else

/r/drugnerds

>>7770554
>Here you have no personal gain from replying to any post, so people are more likely to be sincere.
In science things fall in between the two. Peer review is anonymous but you sure want to build reputation once your papers are published. That is understandable in todays situation with publish or perish.

For the same reason I prefer the anonymity and find it strange to see some of the attitudes elsewhere. Wikipedia allows, supposedly, anonymity but frowns and looks down on anyone who is not registered.

Questioning global warming alarmism gets you banned, so it's as far away from science as it could be.

>>7770456
It's reddit, so I won't touch it.

>>7770814
i guess threads about virgins speaking about the beauty of "Mathematics" is much more entertaining