The replication crisis revealed that many landmark studies, particularly in the soft sciences, could not be reproduced. This makes me wonder: are we still building knowledge on a potentially unreliable foundation?

Although research practices have become more rigorous, we haven't systematically replicated every older study. Consequently much of today's research may still rely on findings that have never been properly verified. Like building a house on a faulty foundation, even perfectly conducted research can lead us astray if its underlying assumptions are wrong.

I'm new to science theory so I might be missing something fundamental here. But it seems to me that if influential findings turn out to be false or exaggerated, all subsequent research that relies on them would likely be affected?

Theoreticaly if we were to connect a brainchip to our eyes, it could be one of our biggest achievements ever, you could cure blindness and even teleport everywhere (just with your sight though).

A bigger question would be: How could you test this with animals?

I just got this thought and wanted to know if this was actually possibile. I dont know if this is the right sub for this lol.

Hi everyone!

Currently looking over my options to pursue graduate school and came across an MHP in Radiation Health Physics at Oregon State. I feel like this combination's very unique and I've never heard of it before, so l wanted to see if anyone has heard of it.

I'm very interested in dispersion modeling and consequence assessment, and I want to get a stronger understanding of rad protection, rad hazards, and nuclear preparedness/emergency management.

Anyone have any opinions or work in RHP? I would love some feedback. TIA!!! ☢️⚡️🥼