undefined | Better HN

0 pointsncmncm3y ago0 comments

GPS would, in fact, work totally fine if the effects of general relativity were exactly zero. The software does, however, need to apply adjustments to account for effects of GR, in order to produce precisely accurate results.

A particle accelerator is a tool used for conducting science experiments. That they work, for that purpose, is purely a product of engineering.

At issue is not "whether science works". It is, rather, what percentage of published papers in science journals are crap, and advance the field not at all. The people in the best position to know say they are appalled at how many are.

Would they all say 80%+? Obviously not. Do any? Absolutely.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

synu3y ago

The specific statement I was responding to was this:

> I can say I believe 80% of science wrong AND not reproducible, 10% being an outright fraud (10% being legit).

.. which I interpreted to be a statement on "whether science works."

If we instead constrain that to 80% of science that was posted recently in journals, and mainly not in hard sciences, then I could totally get behind that. But I don't think that's what they said, and I think that's why I've been confused by this whole thread.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse