If somenthing works it works even the so.yentists say it is impossible.
If you manage to make it works it worked.
You can scream its a placebo how much you like it still worked.
This is why science "based" lifter will always underperform compared to bro "scientists"
If somenthing works it works even the so.yentists say it is impossible. If you manage to make it works it worked.
If somenthing works it works even the so.yentists say it is impossible.
The science you denounce made the computer you posted from.
And the computer made dyels like you.
lets make animals follow a rigid robotic procedure and write off the shitty results as an acceptable deviation and laud the genetically superior ones that were either subpar or mediocre as confirming your theory
soeyince nowadays is just adjusting the results so that it would look like its true
broscience is tried and true in the narrow field of bodybuilding
for example some basedfluencer says ppl is optimal, follow soeyince
broscience advocates for brosplits
turns out ppl natty is too much and brosplits were consistently producing desired results
again, you're conflating the scientific method (good) with published studies (garbage)
Studies ARE the scientific method. Science just means argument from authority, ie. here is an anecdote you have to believe because it's from someone with an academic title and other guys with academic titles said it's true (peer review). That is literally it. That's how science works.
>Nooooooo real scientific method has never been tried!!!!
Lmao shut the fuck up
You’re retarded if you think electronics and physical training are similar scientific domains
If computer scientists are leading the way in physiology, then OP is right.
Woah bro exercise and nutritional science made my computer??
OP is too low IQ to understand science so he had to invent his own easier version so that he doesn't feel stupid.
I look at the replication crisis in science and a society that gets more technologically advanced by the day, and yet gets fatter and stupider by the minute, and I begin to question the merit of science and technology.
Yeah its not devoid of value, but neither are the proven methods of decades of physical culture.
I will take reliable and robust over 'optimal' any day.
Lmfao at fags like you taking full advantage of technology to claim the 'old ways were better '.
Go and live in the woods and eat berries and squirrels no one is stopping you.
Wtf is wrong with Republicans?
Closet homosexuality and daddy issues
Im not saying the old ways were better, I am quite clearly stating that the new ways are not even close to perfect...
Of course you are too stupid to understand that which is why you take comfort in outsourcing your thinking to weak dweebs in positions of 'authority'
>no one is stopping you.
The only reason you don't do it is that you are too weak and scared. The only person stopping you is you.
Actually there are laws against it but you go girl.
>laws against it
Like I said, weak and scared.
The old ways are better. All technology did was put me in this conversation with slackjawed potbellied retard.
>the proven methods of decades of physical culture
they all have more evidence for working then whatever the latest study testing 50 people over the course of 2 weeks is selling
>the replication crisis in science
The replication crisis is mostly in psychology and shitty clickbait 'studies' neither of which really count as science.
Bio is more prone to it too (hence relevance)
And unfortunatley STEM has a bias for 'novel' information, so only the 'interesting' stuff gets published, even if its not repeatable lol.
>even if its not repeatable lol.
But if it's not repeatable it's not science, so your argument is worthless.
Well that is the issue, single studies can be published. Even if the method of the study is un-replicated, people still seem to think of it as evidence. Multiple studies showing similar results is where evidence begins. (Ignoring methodology and sample sizes etc)
>people still seem to think of it as evidence
That's because people are generally idiots.
>I look at the replication crisis in science and a society that gets more technologically advanced by the day, and yet gets fatter and stupider by the minute, and I begin to question the merit of science and technology.
Noooo you must trust studies and statistics instead of your own senses, t. scientist
I don't know why people complain about placebo tbh. It literally means that something worked just because you believed that it would work (eg people who think they're receiving medicine start feeling better when it was literally just a sugar pill). Why shouldn't we abuse placebo?
The scientific method is good. But the studies that are being published are mostly garbage, yet some people will treat them like the gospel. That's the problem.
Journalists don't care about how science works they just want endless clickbait. Unfortunately in the process they have undermined real science to the point where stupid people no longer 'believe' in it.
OP sounds stupid but actually he's not that wrong.
Scientific studies works with averages. For exemple, let's say a study tells you that 12 reps is optimal for hypertrophy. The study in question have done an average of 100 people, some of which had 15 reps as the optimal and some of which had 8, 12 being the average.
Given you're an individual and not a cohort, your optimal is likely to actually be something other than 12, so you're better of noticing what works with you rather than trying to replicate the optimal for the average person
>OP sounds stupid but actually he's not that wrong.
It's a shame that people have so few critical thinking skills that he comes across as stupid.
Even you, who explained very well why he's absolutely right, put the qualifier that he's not "that" wrong, implying he's somewhat wrong.
People can't seem to detach from their group mindset.
We live in a soi-ciety.
Artistotelian science, learning by observation. This is how we conquered the world.
Sports science OTOH is learning by extrapolating from data, which is basically just mental masturbation with no grounding in reality, meaning the results will usually not be applicable to reality ("In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.")
Learning by observation and extrapolating from data are the same thing retardo.
>Learning by observation and extrapolating from data are the same thing retardo.
This is what scientists actually believe. And that's the whole problem.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that most people don't have any objective criteria by which they could determine if something "works". If you can't quantify it, you can't prove it. And if you can quantify it, then you are basically doing science. So rather than being against science itself you should be against unscientific dogma.
Lmfao at Philosophers not understanding how science works.
If I have a strong correlation as well as a mechanistic explanation why that is the case, then I can be very confident that the trolley will always be redirected. Of course I can't know anything with 100 % certainty.
Take one look at the food pyramid and tell me you trust the science.
Shut up fatty
Enjoy your scientist recommended high carb diet.
>Enjoy your scientist recommended high carb diet.
I'm not a fatass, so l will.
How exactly is the food pyramid synonymous with "the science". There are many different food guidelines given out by many different organisations and governments. The fact that some of them are shit doesn't invalidate the scientific method.
because it serves to highlight the financial interests behind popular science.
Do you believe that science is no longer corrupt and entirely bought out by corporate and political entities? Why? What changed?
Saying that science is corrupt is a category mistake. Organisations or people can be corrupt.
How do you tell apart the scientists or studies that have been bought out from the ones that haven't?
If a study was intentionally misleading then eventually the scientific method will uncover it.
>How do you tell whether or not scientists are bullshitting you?
>Just wait for them to tell you 🙂
You could read the studies yourself and evaluate the methodology. You don't have to believe them blindly
>So do the research yourself
>But you are not a scientist so do what you are told
>But what you are told is not always trustworthy so do the research yourself
>Strawmanning that hard
I said read the studies and evaluate the methodology. That's what other scientists do as well. You don't have to buy any laboratory equipment or conduct large scale surveys to fact check something
> do what you're told
Said who exactly? And told by whom? "Scientist" is not a title, it just describes someone who uses the scientific method.
>le scarecrow boi
Yes, when people do that they are told 'hur dur you not science man no smart.' Many such cases.
>scientist is not a title
It is. One comparable to bishop in modern practice of science worship. If you truly belive that people should be doing their own research and coming to their own conclusions, then we agree. If you believe that people should take any pier receive 'study' as gospel, we never will.
>Yes, when people do that they are told 'hur dur you not science man no smart.' Many such cases.
Again, told by whom? If someone criticises your results with an appeal to authority you can simply dismiss them. So I guess we agree on that.
the food pyramid is correct
but the redpill is too big for IST to swallow
>This reply was brought to you by Kelloggs.
processed grains are at the very top, though
Paid off by the broccoli industry
>seed oils good
>still wants to load up on grains
yep, it's literally the diet of centenarians and top athletes but IST will call it bad lol
Why did you write ꜱoy like that?
It’s amazing the things you can think of and realise when you stop being told what to think
>Rollercoaster into the oven?
>Ovens working 24/7 just to hide the evidence?
Ufff it does fall apart remarkably easily