A better example is the Stanford prison experiment. Guy purposely put cruel bullies as the “guards” and more submissive participants as the “prisoners” to sway the study preemptively. Not to mention all the funky things people do with collected data. This isn’t to say that when somebody with no expertise in a field doesn’t understand a study that that study is bs tho, and I’ll admit this is a fine line to walk as many pseudoscientists and crackpot theorists are created this way.
Well, sometimes there’s another step missing just before the Bullshit: “Use the small, narrow findings to inform a greater narrative beyond the data’s scope”
Well I’d like to think I’m not! I wanted to point to an actually dubious thing where we might call into question a study, so we could still respect the work being done while validating the importance of standards in research.
You’re right though that it’s disappointing how many responses seem to address only the flaws in modern science and not acknowledge the strength of the scientific process. I think a big part of it does come down to how scientific findings are interpreted and reported to the public, and even further an all-too-human misunderstanding of epistemic limitations. Our cultures should spend more time educating people about the limits of knowledge and fact, how they are constrained by other flawed systems, etc. That would be a half-decent start, if we could only fix the entire reporting problem too.
On jet engines the cowling/housing is suppose to contain the blade shrapnel.
On a piston engine, as seen in the picture, the cylinder is never suppose to become detached from the engine block. There are a few ways a cylinder can detach, but most likely is lack of maintenance.
I live in a tropical country. If I don’t refrigerate at least the vast majority of the vegetables I buy immediately, they will be rotten in like two days at max.
slrpnk.net
Active