Let’s be real here. If a scientist had an idea and it doesn’t work out, they’re not smiling. It sucks. And publishing negative results is really not a thing even if it ought to be.

If the scientist is attempting to make science their means of gainful employment, the realities of grants and publications heavily favoring positive results may make them reasonably disquieted.

We tend to idealize the individual endeavors of taking part in the scientific method. Far from reality, the scientific method usually works because it pits a lot of self-important nerds against each other trying to prove the other wrong, which is what allows us to get over individual biases, even if it sometimes takes decades.

I would even go as far as to say that we need the scientific method because it’s resilient enough against humans’ natural stupidity, provided we apply it well enough for long enough.

The best scientists go into very heated debates about their theories. They neither suddenly go downtrodden or suddenly smile. And yet the best science is acquired in an absence of emotion. Funny how it all works out.

deleted by creator

I literally just saw a billboard with that iconic image of man evolving from our apelike ancestors, with a big red X through the image, and in big bold red letters it said NO! GOD CREATED!

Religion and science are very much incompatible in every way shape and form, and I’m endlessly perplexed and dismayed by people who would claim otherwise.

You don’t have to look further than abortion rights to completely discount your straw man fallacy claim

Yeah, there’s a few accounts that just spam-post high-school atheist memes here like “Ha! Take that, religion!”

It really depends on the person. I’ve seen many other people from other religions do/attempt the same. I’ve also seen people from many religions including christianity that respects other people’s beliefs and people’s rights.

Doesn’t this prove the point? We’re aware there’s a problem when it comes to replicating some experiments, therefore calling into question their validity (i.e. our views on the science behind those experiments needs to be adjusted).

I suppose one can’t have a replication crisis in religion since they don’t rely on empirical evidence in the first place. If they did have compelling non-falsifiable evidence, they’d be incorporated into the sciences.

I want to see someone replicate the results of a prayer.

Look at you out here kicking own goals like the little trooper you are.

I know you’re just trying to prop up your own beliefs. Been there many times before it all clicked. I get it.

But let’s be fair. Let’s look at this with at least a hint of honesty.

Did religion enable us to create transistors? No. It can’t. Scientific research into theories of physics brought us, over the last few centuries to quantum mechanics. If not for the many researchers and the scientific process there would be no Internet for you to post this on.

Many other scientific topics have, over time, also been incrementally improved, on average, resulting in most of the things we take for granted, whether that’s roads, cars, medicine, clothing, etc.

Gps satellites wouldn’t exist without the general theory of relativity.

Antibiotics wouldn’t exist without discovery of microbes, penicillin, etc.

Evidence and sound methods are required to find out how things work, to develop, test and refine theories. That’s how you avoid the pitfalls of cognitive bias (goofy, irrational thinking everyone is prone to) and gain a better grasp of the truth.

The Wright brothers successfully flew because they applied the scientific method and lots of testing of different designs and scientific hnderstanding of aerodynamics. They didn’t get the airplane from religion.

Now, let’s also pose your question with regards to religion.

Does Christianity, say, have a reproducibility problem? Or more to the point, is there one denomination or many?

Several at least, with fairly crucial differences in beliefs.

Can you provide any evidence to suggest the number of denominations is decreasing? That belief is heading toward a single interpretation?

I suspect no. Because as far as I know it hasn’t shown any signs of this in the past 100 years.

Because there is no mechanism to definitively find the truth. No experiments, no evidence, no tests.

Generally, science (the processes and mechanisms) are designed to revise and refine our models of how things are so that, given time, humanity achieves a clearer understanding. It may do so in fits and starts with occasional steps backwards and stumbled (like the ether theory). But scientists have a proven set of tools to arrive ever closer to the truth. That’s easy to see just by looking back at the state of technology and scientific knowledge 100, 200, 300 or more years ago.

I’d be willing to bet all of my life savings you don’t even understand anything in that wiki article you posted.

Reading the Wikipedia it seems this (so far) really applies more to humanitarian science and not ‘hard’ sciences like physics and chemistry, etc. Hardly a reason to question scientific research and evidence. I look at it this way: science is objective and impersonal, religion subjective and personal.