davidktr

>Science, since time immemorial, has relied on the systemic replication of any presented result or finding. Reproducing experiments and their reported results remains a cornerstone of the validation of any scientific theory.

No, no it really hasn't. It has relied on the ability to make predictions based on pusblished theories, methods, laws etc. Even for hard-science experiments it's not even clear how you could record all the required knowledge to replicate an experiment. Every configuration, every machine, every particle in the air, every bit of software.

I really wish people engaged more with the actual history of science instead of what they believe it to be.

edit. To give a little more meat to my rant here's a good reading (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reproducibilit...):

"If replication played such an essential or distinguishing role in science, we might expect it to be a prominent theme in the history of science. Steinle (2016) (...) claims that the role and value of replication in experimental replication is 'much more complex than easy textbook accounts make us believe' (2016: 60), particularly since each scientific inquiry is always tied to a variety of contextual considerations that can affect the importance of replication. Such considerations include the relationship between experimental results and the background of accepted theory at the time, the practical and resource constraints on pursuing replication and the perceived credibility of the researchers. These contextual factors, he claims, mean that replication was a key or even overriding determinant of acceptance of research claims in some cases, but not in others."

The history of replications is extremely nuanced. Empirical results and by extension replications are one line of argument in scientific discourse, but by no means the only one.

I personally hold that valid predictions in the context of interesting problems are where it's really at. In the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Kuhn argues that at some point paradigms cannot make THESE kind of predictions anymore. Revolutions do not happen because of failed or missing replications.

Therefore, stating science "has relied on replication" is historically and epistemologically false. It's also misleading because the replication crisis happens due to a lack of theory and misguided incentives, not because some discipline has left the holy path of finding truth.

There are several possibilities.

* There are people with generally higher energy levels, personally I suspect it's mostly about the dopamin/noradrenalin system. * People can choose different strategies how to approach their work. Some are very good at controlling the amount of attention they put into tasks. They might spend lower amounts of energy per task compared with other people, thus having more overall energy to spend. * The types of task you do. I can sit in meetings all day. Draining but not exhausting. However, difficult programming and data analysis, writing acamedic texts, having actually creative thoughts? 4-6 hours per day, tops. * Stimulants. Lots of them. Again, mostly about dopamin/noradrenalin. Amphetamines, modafinil, nicotine, caffeine, .... There's a plethora to choose from, especially if you live in the US.

> Ironicaly this is never mentioned

What are you talking about? That is mentioned everywhere. Have a look at the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis): "Note that the curve with the greater variability (green) yields higher values in both the lowest and highest ends of the range."

The evidence points strongly towards confirmation for the hypothesis regarding intelligence. Only the reason is unclear.

> This shows you how biased all of these critics are, zero scientific discussion, pure emotional and egoistic outbursts.

Pure projection on your part. You are not even familiar with the current discussion.

France has an insane system of hyper-elite universities, the Grandes écoles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_%C3%A9cole). I have a friend who was in one, it's even crazier than it looks from the outside.

We have nothing comparable in Germany. If that's good or bad I don't know, but regarding super-elite competitions like the Fields-Medal I don't think there is another way.

All of this so much. My problem though is that I just don't know which IRL community to join. I've tried a few, it was not for me. Our hackerspace is heavily into identity politics, which I'm not. So I end up reading books, which is fine too I guess. I'm just not really part of society.

Seems perfectly fine to me? It's R, for interactive data analysis and statistics. I love it, but would not use it for anything else.

I would love to know that too. Sure, rising interests, bad economy etc. However, what is the back-of-the-envelope calculation to explain such a huge move in liquidity? I don't have a finance background, so I have zero gut feeling about the orders of magnitude involved.

Why not? Cheap, Uni Magdeburg is pretty good in STEM, water (yes that is an issue!), close enough to Berlin and Wolfsburg (Volkswagen), good transportation.

And out of the entire work force, what percentage do you consider to be capable software engineers? 5%? 1%?

Do we actually know how the memory is coded specifically? Is it a specific firing of a neuron (or a neuron ensemble), is it the specific answer you get from exciting the neuron(s)? Or any combination thereof?

You told someone with AD(H)D to read that document to get a better idea about attention deficit disorder? You cannot be serious.

Drugs is the answer you are seeking.

Then how do you explain that there are systematic differences for certain film genres? The article has a graphic on it. The differences are by no means uniform. Crowds love Action and Thriller, critiques History and Documentary. D'oh.

That is not to say there is no selection bias. But the population of critiques and film-going crowds are almost certainly different in education, lifestyle etc. That has certainly an effect on the observed discrepancies.