British scientists have found that they have found out so much that there’s nothing more to find out.
British scientists never lie. They sincerely believe in their poppycock.
British scientists have proven that statements beginning with the words "British scientists have proven ..." have never been proved by British scientists.
British scientists are scientists from the UK. On the Internet, and sometimes IRL, “British scientists” are synonymous with researchers working on completely insane, idiotic, and pseudoscientific projects that have absolutely no practical value.
Previously, British science was considered (according to international classification), perhaps the most authoritative in the world (after German and Italian). And if scientists from foggy Albion said something, then one could safely believe in their correctness. This fact is particularly vividly reflected in the story of a certain British gentleman Swift about the highest Scientific Center located on the Flying Island of Laputa and about the impressions of the ordinary layman Gulliver who visited this temple of science.
It was the British scientists who created many scientific schools, which gave the world the greatest scientists of their time. The flowering of science fell on the reign of Queen Victoria and continued into the first half of the 20th century. However, in the late 80s (of the same XX century) there was a sharp roll in the shitty shit. The fact is that the Government of the United Kingdom decided to move away from the policy of "higher education must be elitist and inaccessible to the ordinary proletarian." With generous hand, British statesmen began to give university status to all kinds of vocational schools, whose main population consists of highly intelligent girls and boys. These actions had a beneficial effect on these frauds: the bosses began to roll over a sense of ownership, and the knights of scientific truth with a thousandfold zeal began to move their native science into a brighter future. Although this was not done with the purpose of ruining the native science, but because the development of science required not just smart single individuals such as Newton or Maxwell, but a well-structured and streamlined chain of groups of researchers, that is, to start with, they needed more. For example, today almost all discoveries are made by groups of researchers, and not by individuals.
However, a miracle did not happen. Scientists involved in issues of science, education and the development of state money for semi-scientific purposes participate in the allocation of money. The pluralism of opinions on this subject is enormous. On pseudoscientific nonsense they do not disdain to refer to reputable publications, as well as the bulk of people. As a result, they will protect their interests. The process of commercializing the scientific system of Foggy Albion, an observer in recent decades. During this process, short-term commercial projects are studied, research in the field of serious scientific research is carried out, but paid by the business.
Although at present the British science takes the first place in Europe, far ahead of Germany, and in British scientists (winners of the Shnobel Prize) wrote down, for example, the Andrey Game the discoverer of graphene, but in Britain there are enough also shit universities (where they are not there?), but freeloaders from science are everywhere.
A study conducted in 2005 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed that mentioning the work of scientists in the New York Times doubles the citation index, and if the scientist manages to get into the program on national radio and television programs, the number of links to his article in the works colleagues can grow by an order of magnitude! But the fact that stupid retelling of the results of pseudo-scientific work in the media is much more effective, including for obtaining grants, than publication in special journals, speeches at conferences and other traditional ways of presenting the results of scientific work is not the only explanation for the phenomenon of “Institute of Banal Research”.
Charles Spence, a professor of psychology at Oxford University, is one of two British scientists who were awarded the dubious honor of becoming the 2008 Shnobel Prize for proving that the more deliciously crispy chips, the more attractive they seem to consumers. Currently, the laureate is conducting a similar study on the features of the perception of bubbles in carbonated drinks. And six years ago, for nine months, he mastered a grant of £ 30,000 from the ICI chemical concern to study how people react to different colors. The results of the report were retold in four hundred articles in the media and fifty radio interviews.
Firms that pay for such research have their obvious profit: a relatively inexpensive “gray” advertisement of their brand in an article on the topic “scientists have established what time of day it is best to drink tea and how long to keep a cracker in it”. In the marketing departments of many large companies, there are lists of scientists who do not disdain to study anything for little money, despite the concern of university administrations about this unscientific activity and the fact that the results of such publications often fall into the lists of common misconceptions - such as heat loss from more than a bare head than from any other bare body part or that sugar makes children hyperactive. It is noteworthy that among the winners of the Shnobel Prize 2010, the first place in terms of number was taken by you know who.
In 2011, an senator Tom Coburn tried to denigrate the honor of American scientists by writing a report of an ennormous size. In this report, the senator tried to prove that American scientists are engaged in all kinds of garbage in volumes that far exceed the production volumes of British scientists. This caused the American scientists immediate boom and attempts to whitewash the glorious reputation of British and American scientists.
At the beginning of 2012, the truth triumphed and British scientists, after conducting an appropriate study, came to the conclusion that they have problems with the quality of their own science.
Truth triumphedThe vast majority of articles by "British scientists" give birth to the Department of Statistics. And this has a deeper meaning.
The fact is that statistics as a science has one interesting concept that is not characteristic of other sciences: it does not really care what to explore. The quality of beer (Student)? Wonderful. Victims in the Austrian army from hitting horses with hooves? From the point of view of statistics, the dynamics of mortality from cancer is fundamentally no different from such a vital issue as what right leg or left leg people when leaving the bus.
Somewhere in the second or third year for most students of British universities, these same statistics come. Just because the British education system believes that most students are required to know certain things, no matter what they do. Accordingly, on the table of these students and their teachers lies a thick textbook on how to conduct experiments - regardless of whether it is a question of the quality of beer or Putin's rating.
And by the end of the third year, the students (and their teachers) are faced with a rather interesting problem: although the textbook on statistics has been mastered, all knowledge remains absolutely paper. That is, no one has conducted such studies for the entire year, although it should.
The whole logic of further actions is explained not by the approach “what would be useful for humanity”, but “by what to occupy these young bastards, so that they do anything”, and the object of research is chosen according to the same logic as in the mathematics textbook for the fifth grade, Petya and Misha find out how many apples they have, if Misha has two more, although Kolya has three times more than they put together. That’s why students are being blown away not to study the effectiveness of cancer drugs (several thousand need to be spent on one patient), not to study the quality of beer (cash already going to the professors themselves) and not to study the ratings of Putin or Trump (since if a student If someone sends you three funny letters over the phone, you won’t get problems), but for something cheap and harmless. For example, on what foot people are getting out of the bus - you can just put the student to watch the people who get off the bus and go drink coffee without thinking about the consequences.
The result is a term paper that meets all the criteria of scientific research - in addition to knowing what foot people are getting out of the bus, nobody is completely interested. Therefore, this work is filled out and sent to some fourth-hand scientific journal - so that students have one more line in the resume. No one reads the article, of course - except for journalists who periodically issue headlines such as "British scientists have found that people get on their right foot when getting off the bus more often than on their left foot."
text by S.S.