Nostr Web Client

This one is key. Research funding tends to only focus on new ideas. The 20% funding for replication is a good number. Just like Nostr was coded over and over again in multiple clients, research findings need to be duplicated over and over again. Only after a replication, hopefully by people that have an interest to refute the findings, science is found. It's not sexy though. It feels like wasted time. Research journals don't want to publish duplicated studies as well. The whole field is tainted by one-and-done science.

https://cdn.nostrcheck.me/b1e4d5a455d180a2510e45397ca73b05cf0e63a402409bf9ff6f404bfc32918d.mp4

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Jean-David Bar 11mo ago

Absolutely. Especially as we shall not forget the who-paid-for-this-research tainted science.

Duplicate and adversary research should be done. Otherwise science is just a who-said-that-first truth announcement, until hopefully proven different (or not).

pam 11mo ago

yea, even the concept of atoms changed so many times by various scientists from Rutherford to Bohr to Schrödinger over a period of a century. Science is not absolute, its discovered. The journey of discovery matters and each step builds on the last

The Beave 11mo ago

Well, nostr is exactly like that since most of the supposedly core nostr devs are dumb enough to not bother testing anything before releasing it and then blaming others for it not working.

beejay 11mo ago

😂

*gaslighting