Why is mainstream science so impotent?

1) The incentives favour incremental advances of questionable utility over asking the truly difficult questions.
2) Statistics is hard, and most people don't get it. The people that do, generally don't do much empirical science.
3) Negative results are not published.

>>8530868
>Statistics is hard, and most people don't get it. The people that do, generally don't do much empirical science.

Stats suck!

File: 1481434532681.jpg (43KB, 371x372px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 371x372px

>>8530870
>>8530875
Corroboration, mainstream science is on the back-foot.

a good majority of philosophy of science being done at the moment is demanding a justification for science being placed on the top of the epistemological hierarchy. that isn't based in unsubstantiated pragmatism or similar things and it just can't happen in fact, it would have to be a claim exclusively from within the frameworks of the field. impossible.

File: 1481434945922.jpg (42KB, 371x372px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 371x372px

>>8530888
My rebuttal.

I came across this thread while listening to Hermeticism & Alchemy, full of such aphorisms, funny coincidence..

>>8530868
Because those aren't scientists, they're just people LARPing as scientists.

>why is a model based on ignorance, negativism, reductionism, individualism, and death impotent?

hmmm

>>8530868
So how'd you make that post OP?

File: 1481434680951.jpg (41KB, 371x372px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 371x372px

>>8531237
>>8531238
>>8531296
>>8532436
Like this.