EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.

  • tiny_electron@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Try doing some simple physics experiments with pendulum and stuff. It is quite simple to set up and will make you use many different physics concepts.

    For quantum mechanics, I suggest diffraction and the double slit experiment that are quite easy to do with a cheap laser pointer.

    That way you can rediscover scientific models yourself!

    If you are not willing to try it, then you don’t really have legitimacy criticizing thé work of scientists.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not criticizing work so much as all the things where the claim work is done but wasn’t.

      As a flow artist, I understand pendulums more than most. I heckin live pendulums! I play with them every day!

      Science is good. Science publishing is out of hand.

      • tiny_electron@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree with you that science publishing can be of variable quality. One solution for the reader IS to never trust one paper alone, scientific knowledge is established when many papers are published about the same topic and give the same conclusions.