Mfw 8 months into my PhD

>Why do you have no confidence in your own results?
He probably made them up.

It's still early to consider this

>wat do?
>Post anime on Veeky Forums about it.

This is a fake story, like those frogposter stories.

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

people are wrong all the time.

Jesus half the articles I see in neuro are "this aligns with paper x, but is completely inconsistent with paper y. more work is needed"

it's fine. mention the paper,maybe, but don't flip about it

do science about it then
dont pander to academia, thats anti-science

> relevant image name

>3 months into my thesis
>after sporadic contact with authors of a paper im basing my research off, manage to replicate their fantastic results exactly
>a few days of weird inconsistencies, realize i made a rookie programming error
>realize the authors of the paper made the same error
>contact becomes even more sporadic
>scrap 90% of my code and change focus

This will work really well if you're female
if not just transition or wear a shitload of spray on tan.
Dont worry user, we're gonna be just fine.

Did you continue the research of your Masters thesis or why do you have relevant data already? Well, I guess 8 months is on the edge

Jesus, you're supposed to publish "Why Fool, Jerk and Clown [2012] are wrong people who are wrong; Smart user [2016]"

"I just got an opportunity to publish a controversial paper served to me on a platter, oh woe is me, better discard all results."

The dangerous but rewarding option would be to challenge it. Make sure you've done absolutely everything right, and documented everything to a compulsive degree though.
The safe route however is to bow out like a bitch.

>Jesus, you're supposed to publish "Why Fool, Jerk and Clown [2012] are wrong people who are wrong; Smart user [2016]"

I love this thread. You know why ? because it is easy to spot retards and other undergraduate like you.

IN SCIENCE, YOU NEVER EVER CRITICIZE ANYBODY UNTIL YOU HAVE A TENURE.

Why the hell would you do that?

>My results contradict yours so let me publish a paper saying you're wrong

This kind of thought process will do you well in American politics, but not science.

That this is the case is a discredit to the science community and its culture, and not to American politics. It's almost as if human beings are more concerned with staying comfy than searching for truth.

The civility (or lack thereof) suggested ITT is just a humorous aside, and we all know it. No, that guy shouldn't spend a paper ripping on Dickface and Shart-pants (nor would he get published with that type of matter extant). But the bold thing to do would be to publish the article which simply contradicts the above, and make mention of same fact once or twice.

he doesn't even need to contradict anyone. He just needs to present his method and his conclusions. Wether they contradict someone else is pretty irrelevant as far as he is concerned.

Reminds me of something:
if I tell you "find out how I compute terms in this sequence: 2, 4, 8". You can try to ask me about any sequence and I'll tell you if it's valid or not.

Most people will go something like "4,8,16", "1,2,4", "3, 6, 12", which are all valid.
But this does not give any information about the pattern exactly because they do not try to break the pattern.
If you say "1,2,5" (which is valid as well), and "4,2,8" (which is not), you understand pretty fast that the pattern is "a number, a bigger number and an even bigger number".

You get maximum information when you try to "break the pattern", rather than trying more of the same thing.
And this is how science should be. People trying to contradict each other (even if it turns out only one side was right) gives us more information than everybody trying to get similar results.

The prospect of being un-civil in a scientific document has one amusing, petulant historical precedent in Cardano's Ars Magna, which treats of elementary algebra, particualrly solving cubics and quartics. Back in the day, the Italian Cardano and others jealously competed with and ripped off one anothers' work, occasionally co-operating with one another and sharing techniques. As it turned out, Cardano came out on top, passing off certain results as his own and breaking agreements by publishing.

In all seriousness, the overtly competititve and un-civil culture of this small group of Italians would seem an object lesson in impeding scientific progress, where pieces of knowledge are held jealously like trade secrets. One would like to say that the culture has improved somewhat, but as Veeky Forums well knows, competition to be the first to do X is a major motivator in human endeavor, specifically science, where such is still possible. What follows is the sophomoric opening passage of Cardano's Ars Magna:

"In this book, learned reader, you have the rules of algebra (in Italian, the rules of the coss). It is so replete with new discoveries and demonstrations by the author - more than seventy of them - that its forerunners are of litte account or, in the vernacular, are washed out."

A far cry from "shoulders of giants"!

Just publish anyway, they're probably wrong.

You don't have to criticize them blatantly. You can do it obliquely in the conclusion or introduction where you frame your paper in the larger field. So, you can something down the lines of "So and so got results X, but here we find Y, in contradiction to their results, as a possible result of Z." You aren't saying they done fucked up terribly, just that you have made an improvement that alters the conclusion.

>being this much of a pussy
>muh .... muh academic tenure

undergrad detected. you correct their work dumbass

Not sure if you're a bot or just a persistent shitposter

maybe some people don't wanna see /a/ in boards that is not /a/. it might just be that simple.

I'm pretty sure it's just one guys that doesn't have anything better to do

>gets on Malasian model airplane appreciatiation board
>surprised when he sees model airplane pictures

maybe you should go on facebook instead of a weaboo website

That's like going to Reddit and telling them to quit upvoting puns. Sometimes a website just isn't for you.

you are the cancer ruining Veeky Forums

I think you're confused. This isn't 2005 and science or math has nothing to do with animemes.

You have around 10 boards to spam your infantile pedophiliac garbage, but Veeky Forums is not one of them.

take your childish non-sci autism back to where it belongs.

See
Also
>implying the pictures matter

fuck off with your anime autism

nobody wants it.

you can't give cartoonposters an inch because within a week they'll be doing their autistic role play everywhere on your board.

Fuck off

take your thinly veiled bigotry and shove it up your ass
it's not like people post loli threads here every day.

Contrast that with what people actually do post here, every fucking day:
>0.9999... = 1
>evolution is false, because god said so
>free will, because god said so
>guys what if *RETARDED THOUGHT EXPERIMENT THAT BETRAYS A FUNDEMENTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE MAIN ISSUES INVOLVED IN FRAMING THE QUESTION*
>lol niggers have smaller iq
>psychology threads

All of these cancer threads are absolutely pervasive and destructive to this board, yet I dont here you shouting them down.

>it's not like people post loli threads here every day.
I haven't done this in a long fucking time and anons are still talking about me, cool.

You're really not getting the difference between having in the picture and having it in the post.

Anime is posted on /g/ all the time and nobody discusses anime. You're as wrong as wrong can be, bud.

Also,
>muh slippery slope
I expect better from Veeky Forums

>Veeky Forums is made for anime
>discussion is still sci related
>sci complains

>anime < gorilla
apparently

Hello darkness my old friend...

Shh shh...its okay kawaii little Veeky Forums...person?

1 like = 1 respect

nasi, is that you buddy? do you post here?

Hopefully you're in math.

100 years ago, all mathematical knowledge could be condensed into 80 books. Today you would need 100,000+. Just make up some random axioms and pretend like there's a possibility your new field has an application. Just describe how it is similar to other fields and meme your way through it, buddy.

My friend literally just published a paper for his masters that says that three of our lecturers are wrong and one made incorrect assumptions.

One of the lectures interviewed him during his defence, questioned to an inch of his life.

His was awarded his masters

...

I've made an equation that predicts the numbers in your theory with 10% to 30% error, but the values are negative. Do I have anything good here, I've been told I should publish.

on top of that you post anime

fucking faggot you deserve it

What a madman

he cut it close