/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14213603]

>UHHHHH SOURCE?! GOT A SOURCE ON THAT?! GOT PROOF?!
I don't trust any study ever written.

Do you know how study's work? They go out and beg for grant money from organisations and the government. Do you seriously believe they're going to be 100% impartial and unbiased when their job relies on saying the right things? A study isn't proof of jack fucking shit, if there's even the small possibility they could be falsified then we have to assume ALL studies are falsified.

[Anonymous No.14213623]

Where's the sauce on that information brainlet. Give me statistics on falsified studies.

[Anonymous No.14213624]

Which one is you in the pic?

[Anonymous No.14213673]

I would add that econometrics is completely broken.

[Anonymous No.14213676]

>>14213673
How?

[Anonymous No.14213703]

>>14213603
Studies are flawed and shouldn't be worshiped but I think the point is that they're a cut above some faggot just saying shit in terms of verifiability.

[Anonymous No.14213746]

I've had people ask me for a source on a hypothetical before. I told them it doesn't matter if what I said actually happened or not and they couldn't comprehend what I was saying. Skepticism is extremely easy so it's one of those things stupid people will always fall back on when they don't have an argument.

[Anonymous No.14213753]

>>14213623
There was this thing a year or so ago where a bunch of people got mock studies peer-reviewed and published.

[Anonymous No.14213762]

>>14213753
Was that the one with a few chapters of Mein Kampf with some words changed?

[Anonymous No.14213859]

>>14213603

[Anonymous No.14213876]

>>14213603
Source. I need a source.

[Anonymous No.14213908]

>>14213746
t. Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.14213912]

>>14213876
well you could start with pic related
it's pretty well known that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't play fair with its trials. there is a movement to improve transparency in the industry.
however just because some trials have not been fairly reported doesn't mean there aren't any useful medicines that have been produced
and OP's statement:
>>14213603
>if there's even the small possibility they could be falsified then we have to assume ALL studies are falsified.
is just plain stupid

[Anonymous No.14213913]

>>14213603
Got a source for saying that?

[Anonymous No.14213914]

>>14213603
t. Feyrabend

[Anonymous No.14213917]

>>14213746
>Skepticism is extremely easy so it's one of those things stupid people will always fall back on when they don't have an argument.
yes everyone should just unquestioningly believe the stuff you pull out of your backside

[Anonymous No.14213918]

>>14213908
Did he say something similar or something? I don't know what you're saying. Posts like this are so fucking stupid. If you have something to say then say it, don't just do this.

[Anonymous No.14213924]

>>14213917
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Good job.

[Anonymous No.14213935]

>>14213912
>is just plain stupid
Explain why?

How can you trust anything they say when they could all easily lie or smudge the numbers to suit an agenda?

[Anonymous No.14213945]

>>14213935
this is why we have peer review anon
nobody would claim the system is perfect. after all there are humans involved. but it is the best system we have

[Anonymous No.14213948]

>>14213945
peer review just means some other retard glanced through it to see if there's anything politically controversial about the study, shrugged his shoulders and then gave it a thumbs up.

[Anonymous No.14213952]

>>14213876
>>14213746
>>14213603

The problem with citing sources is that a question is rarely asked that does not have some set of sources which are often presented as either good or bad. And the common theme that arises is that the sources are too often those from those in the business of setting their self up for economic profit, while the sources rarely themselves make much money in the venture. But even given that the question does have an obvious hidden agenda, it's really a big question about science, and I can't read minds to know what an opposing (harassed) source might be thinking. So what

[Anonymous No.14213965]

>>14213945
>this is why we have peer review anon
Their "peers" are people in the same or similar jobs who also benefit from lying. Are you fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.14213986]

>>14213948
>>14213965
are you people actually capable of discussion?
do you act the same as this in real life? or is this just something you reserve for 4chan?
i might write a study about it

[Anonymous No.14214016]

>>14213945
peer review is useful in a field like mathematics, for rooting out actual errors, but in any field where politics takes precedence (sociology, climate orthodoxy, psychiatry, economics etc.) it is less than useless, it simply reinforces the existing biases of the institution

[Anonymous No.14214020]

>>14213986
This isn't irl, I'm not going to pretend to be nice to you and pretend you're making good contributions when you're being a fucking idiot.

If your argument is "no but you can trust study's because ______" then just stop posting now, because nothing you say will change the FACT that study's are corruptible and you therefore can't trust any of them.

[Anonymous No.14214039]

>>14214016
>>14214020
ok i can see what kind of person i am dealing with here. take your meds. have a nice day

[Anonymous No.14214045]

>all the seething academics itt because Academia:tm: is put questioned

[Anonymous No.14214059]

The problem also is that a source isnt independent and needs its own source as well and if one of the older sources is found to be incorrect based on another source then the whole chain is broken. But the source for that source is actually bad too. There is no way to remove ideological blindness, I also have no source for this

[Anonymous No.14214069]

>>14214039
pfffft, fuck back to twitter you delicate flower

[Anonymous No.14214073]

>>14214045
kek

[Anonymous No.14214074]

>>14213918
lurk more newfriend

[Anonymous No.14214326]

>>14213603
Completely correct, I'm fucking tired of seeing scientists being treated as unquestionable clergy when most of them sell their "work" to the highest bidder. Nothing made me feel more disgust towards that mindset than actually being in a research dept

[Anonymous No.14214596]

>>14214059
That's why there should be a focus on producing original content instead of source fuckery. The real reason why referencing a thousand different authors is a thing is because it's agreed upon that if you scratch others' backs then they'll do the same in the peer review, this system's corruption is only ignored by those unaware and its beneficiaries.

[Anonymous No.14214657]

>>14213986
No. There's a reason everybody on this board is a neoplatonic christain, and it's because that's the only source material they can wrap their head around.

[Anonymous No.14214700]

>>14213603
My biggest problem with modern academia is the entire concept of peer review. It's literally just a formula for groupthink. If you want to dispute what a study says you should recreate the study and show that the original conclusions don't hold if it's done properly.

The replication crisis clearly indicates that peer review is worth nothing, it just serves to reinforce whatever dogma is current in a field. Science was formulated hundreds of years ago and didn't involve the concept of peer review, it just involved experiments being independently confirmed by different groups of people who recreated them. Peer review is a very recent thing, I think it came about after ww2, and it serves literally no purpose, and bars the publication of anything taboo regardless of whether the results can be replicated, while affirming garbage studies that say what the journal editors want them to.

[Anonymous No.14214715]

>>14213935
Not him, but if you carry treating things that might be misleading as though they were false to the end you just end up with solipsism.
Maybe a bit of a dramatic point, but honestly bad studies tend to be fairly easy to spot if you have a competency in the field. You'll find a pretty small cast of buzzwords and vagueries doing most of the heavy lifting for the really spurious shit

[Anonymous No.14214739]

>>14214715
And what about agenda pushing like climate change?

Regardless of whether you think it's man made or not, no scientist dares to speak out against it.

[Anonymous No.14214766]

>>14214020
Funny thing about psychology: They have done many trials of experiments (that you yourself can do too, look up a guide for how to run the trials) to test accuracy of memories, in both vague and specific details.
A it turns out, human memory, more often than not, is wildly corruptible. Our emotions, preconceptions, and expectations alter information, omit information, or even add information that was not present in the original stimuli. We're not even talking long-term here, this is just over the course of one hour.
Should we also distrust ALL of our own memories, just because no matter how accurate we feel they are, we never know which are real, or which parts of "real" memories are accurate?
Sometimes, in lieu of the best possible answer, you're forced to choose the best answer available. Take it with a grain of salt, but without personal experience, it's the only thing we have to base any further information/studies on.
This whole thing just reeks of
>WHY DO I HAVE TO READ BOOKS AND QUOTE SOURCES FOR SCHOOL WHEN ANYTHING COULD BE FAKE, WHY CAN'T I JUST GO TO WIKIPEDIA OR WRITE WHAT I THINK/BELIEVE?

[Anonymous No.14214777]

>>14214766
No, "better than nothing" is not good enough. I'd rather have nothing than a corrupt system.

[Anonymous No.14214788]

>>14214700
Requiring every single published study to be replicated would grind technological progress to a halt because good, competitive researchers have absolutely no desire to waste their time on advances somebody else's lab made.
>It's literally just a formula for groupthink.
Fuck your meme word. Consensus among professionals who are knowledgeable in a field is important. I work in physics, where most people take peer review much more seriously than in other fields, and it does work. Grad students read every single paper that comes out even tangentially related to what they do, and if one seems fishy after developing that strong of a background in it, it doesn't go unnoticed.
There are plenty of other problems with the publication process, and in dogshit fields like psychology that don't take themselves seriously it's much worse, but in actual scientific disciplines peer review functions the way it is intended. I wouldn't trust a single thing coming from psychologists or pharmaceutical researchers.

[Anonymous No.14214789]

[Anonymous No.14214794]

>>14213603
Private sector is more of an issue than public lad. But it's even worse than you think. Not only can't it be impartial but academia is subject to its dogma and trends, as well as its hierarchy/networks. Pretty much anything that isn't the natural sciences is worthless by default but they're little better.

[Anonymous No.14214805]

If you are making an a priori claim it can be evaluated in a rational way
When you start making scientific claims that's where you need to start sourcing some evidence

[Anonymous No.14214807]

>>14213603
Studies can be useful for some information and your total opposition is wrong. But you are correct when dealing with brainlets, especially when discussing something purely speculative or hypothetical in nature, and their immediate reaction is incredulity which leads to SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE, YOU DONT HAVE ONE? GUESS IM RIGHT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY HYPOTHESIS EITHER, CHECK MATE.

[Anonymous No.14214810]

>>14214788
In physics if someone produces some new surprising result isn't the reaction from scientists around the world to try to replicate it before just believing it? I understand that there can be value in knowledgeable people offering their opinions but that isn't actually the scientific method

[Anonymous No.14214856]

>>14214810
If it's unexpected, yes, but you seriously underestimate how many published papers there are if you think every single one gets replicated or is even deserving of it. Most papers published in physics are innocuous things like applying a specific mathematical method to something, tweaking the parameters of a simulation to see if it makes something fit better, etc., that are only meaningful to people actively involved in the field themselves. Most of it is drudgery, and even the drudgery is picked apart and slaved over for months.

[Anonymous No.14214861]

>>14214777
Sorry, if you want any degree of human freedom, then you have already accepted that the most basic human freedom can be corrupted, if any one human mind chooses to do so. Also, there is literally no alternative. There is no way to remove corruption between humans, some degree of it is inevitable, because that's one of the human mind's greatest survival instincts (compared to that of animals): Play pretend to achieve a goal. The only way to 100% remove all corruption or potential for corruption is to remove all humans.
Name any other way of knowing things, and I'll tell you how it can be corrupted.

[Anonymous No.14214903]

>>14214810
>In physics if someone produces some new surprising result isn't the reaction from scientists around the world to try to replicate it before just believing it?
String theory and related modern fairy tales which are taken at face value prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14214929]

>>14214045
Based MAGAbro shielding western civilization against (((Academia)))

[Anonymous No.14215010]

>>14214903
You think you're being clever, but this just makes it obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.
When string theory was first proposed a few decades ago, everyone else in particle physics called them on their bullshit, and when absolutely no experimental evidence ever backed it up they moved on to other things. String theorists are not taken seriously or even given a basic amount of respect anymore. If you walk into the office of any other physics professor and try to talk to them about string theory, they will laugh you out of it. It happens to at least one uppity undergrad freshman a semester at the department my lab is attached to.
Particle physicists are autistic about experimental results, open a basic introductory textbook and you'll see what I mean. They get in screaming matches over the tenth digit of a mass measurement of some specific configuration of particles because that sort of result is immensely important to them.
String theory took off in the media and pop science because those industries are full of illiterate retards trying to push "ground-breaking" and "controversial" theories regardless of whether they hold water or not, and today they are the only places where anybody actually listens to string theorists.

[Anonymous No.14215079]

>>14214739
>no scientist dares to speak out against it.
Why should they? You understand that some things are actually measurable right? Like the gold standard for truth isn't that you can believe whatever you want and find a scientist to write something that makes you feel good.
It's a matter of public record that even Exxon has known about it since the 70s. Honestly there really aren't any data sets you could use to make the case against without resorting to some pretty extreme cherry picking, which is almost insulting in this particular case because climate is a global system

[Anonymous No.14215100]

>>14214861
>Name any other way of knowing things, and I'll tell you how it can be corrupted.
Jimmy does an experiment and publishes a paper saying he knows how gravity works.

Dave says "fuck bollocks" and recreates the experiment but gets a different result and publish a paper saying so.

And so on until enough people either agree and it becomes accepted, it gets disproved or it goes on and on and on forever because nobody can figure it out yet.

[Anonymous No.14215108]

>>14215079
Climate science has never produced a model that can accurately predict anything and is full of people who have outright fabricated data

[Anonymous No.14215113]

>>14215079
>Why should they?
Not the point.

The very fact they're too scared to for fear of losing funding says enough.

[Anonymous No.14215125]

>>14215108
That isn't a compelling argument that it isn't happening. At worst its the totally unimpressive revelation that there are people in any given field phoning it in.
Most climate models since like the 80s have shown the trends we continue to experience today, and they continue to converge as we get new information. I'm curious what you think 'has never predicted anything' means, because so far the relationship between glaciation, atmospheric makeup, ocean currents, and weather patterns has been about what we expected since the instruments were developed. If anything they've been historically over optimistic

[Anonymous No.14215130]

>>14215100
This is literally how it already works you brainlet

[Anonymous No.14215133]

>>14215100
>until enough people
Woah woah woah, how are these people getting word of these studies? Did you know that papers have to go through publishers? Furthermore, papers don't gain popularity on their own, you'd better believe the news outlets will have a hand in which papers get seen and which don't. Whoever has the most money to control the media will gain the most exposure for their preferred studies (and researchers).
And/or, like you say, it will go on and on until we run out of resources to spend on the study, because no one can figure it out, and we get tired of running studies on it until we just accept it as "unknowable". Then, you know, repeat for every other study ever until "science" or whatever we call our way of knowing at that point is just one sentence reading: "We just don't know."

[Anonymous No.14215136]

>>14215113
Did you even read the post? It doesn't say anything bad that people won't print falsehoods for fear of their careers.
It's much more telling that industry money has been tempering results for decades

[Anonymous No.14215162]

>>14213986
What exactly is wrong about the two posts you've quoted? Peer reviewed means fuck all.

[Anonymous No.14215163]

>>14215133
jeez anon just give it up now
you're just too stupid. sorry

[Anonymous No.14215166]

>>14213603
This is more of a problem in the sciences than in the humanities.

[Anonymous No.14215189]

>>14213603
the ravage of humanism
brainlets will always repeat what scientists say

[Anonymous No.14215211]

>>14214039
I like how these guys always default to “you’re crazy!!” when they can’t come up with an argument

[Anonymous No.14215245]

>>14214788
Whats wrong with pharmaceutical / clinical research?

[Anonymous No.14215356]

>>14215245
Is /lit/ really contrarian enough to take the "pharma did nothing wrong" stance? Goddamn

[Anonymous No.14215357]

>>14215211
The premise of this thread appears to be that forming concensus on measurable phenomena is proof of a conspiracy
So yeah, call me when the shuttle lands

[Anonymous No.14215375]

>>14215357
yeah non-brainwashed people prefer evidence to consensus

[Anonymous No.14215379]

>>14213603
Based postmodern retard

[Anonymous No.14215395]

>>14215356
I asked about the academic research, not what the industry does in pharma.

[Anonymous No.14215423]

>>14215375
The entire goal of the sciences is to gather evidence and form a consensus on the interpretation of it. That's what they're all doing, quietly, in their little corners. Open any reputable scientific journal and you will find pages and pages and pages of evidence, none of which you will have any idea how to parse because none of the faggots who prattle on like this know the first thing on what they're making their sweeping generalizations about.

[Anonymous No.14215433]

>>14215395
The two are intentionally muddled to the point that they can't truly be looked at as separate entities.

[Anonymous No.14215455]

>>14215423
The goal of science is to produce results that can be independently confirmed by other people, that is the process that matters. 'consensus' if it doesn't refer to that process of replication means nothing to science

[Anonymous No.14215469]

>>14213945
What makes you think it’s the best system we have? I don’t remember there ever being a scientific study comparing the efficacy of peer review to other systems in finding the truth (although there have been some studies of the efficacy of peer review and many have found that there are many serious flaws with peer review). It seems that this is the system that just so happened to come about rather than being the product of some concerted effort to create the best system for finding the truth.

[Anonymous No.14215477]

>>14215211
If you are continually hearing that about your ideas maybe you should pay attention, because that is not the common experience

[Anonymous No.14215487]

>>14215477
It's not an argument lmao, it only works on people lke you who are terrified of shaming tactics

[Anonymous No.14215515]

>>14215357
the existence of this thread would suggest that there IS no consensus

[Anonymous No.14215572]

>>14215455
That's what scientists are doing every fucking day. That's what I do every fucking day.

[Anonymous No.14215579]

>>14215515
The consensus of people who thoroughly understand their field and have spent their entire lives working within it is not the same as the consensus of every retard on earth that thinks their opinion matters

[Anonymous No.14215623]

>>14215487
If people are saying that to you it means your argument is so below the threshold of coherent that it isn't even worth treating with respect

[Anonymous No.14215635]

>>14215623
Like the guy who was accused of being insane for suggesting people wash their hands for hygiene? Calling people insane is a common tactic of power structures regulating discourse to suit their ends

[Anonymous No.14215642]

>>14215579
>deviating from the thoroughly debunked blank slate model of human biodiversity is professional suicide
>only 1% of economists are from the austrian school
>it is illegal in many countries to question the provably impossible set of circumstances which are defined as the holocaust
>climate science grants are given only to alarmists
the only consensus is that all you dogmatic professionals know what is and what is not politically correct. you probably wear a plastic name badge with your title on it, kek

[Anonymous No.14215699]

yeah why don't you put up the months and years to form an eloquent study only to be shamed in conferences because your conclusions are too far from the consensus some sack of shit established on unsubstantial proof some time ago. so fuck you buddy, its only done for the highest bidder now.

[Anonymous No.14215814]

>>14215642
>deviating from the thoroughly debunked blank slate model of human biodiversity is professional suicide
In "cultural anthropology," sure, because that field is run by retards. Biologists would agree that this is silly but are also smart enough not to be vocal about it because that would get them crucified by the media. They have better things to do than to correct talking heads.
>only 1% of economists are from the austrian school
Economics is not a science and never has been. Most economists don't even know calculus. Trust nothing that any of them say.
>it is illegal in many countries to question the provably impossible set of circumstances which are defined as the holocaust
Nothing even remotely close to science, why is authoritarian thought-policing the fault of physicists?
>climate science grants are given only to alarmists
All climate scientists are alarmists because climate science is alarming. If you could conclusively prove that our current climate models are wrong and humanity is not in danger of permanently fucking the biosphere, some of the most powerful lobbies in the world would give you obscene amounts of money to get your results out there. I promise you that climate scientists are not the fabulously wealthy side of that argument, I know them.

[Anonymous No.14215841]

>>14215814
Climate change is real, it's not man made.

It's happened constantly as a cycle of heating up and cooling down for billions of years. You really think 200 years of humans burning oil and coal affected this even 1%? Seriousl?

[Anonymous No.14215868]

>>14215841
You really think releasing hundreds of billions of tons of inert carbon into the atmosphere over an incredibly short timescale does absolutely nothing? Do you know why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the Sun?
>even 1%
A 1% change in the climate would cause the greatest mass starvation humanity has ever seen and the greatest extinction event since the dinosaurs died. We're talking an order of magnitude smaller, and it is still an existential threat.

[Anonymous No.14215998]

Deductive proofs > inductive data

[Anonymous No.14216025]

>>14215868
TWO HUNDRED YEARS OUT OF BILLIONS

Get a fucking grip and stop swallowing the propaganda.

[Anonymous No.14216055]

>>14216025
When you notice the same change that normally takes a cycle of a few hundred thousand years suddenly taking place over only a hundred, that is a very big red flag, yes.

[Anonymous No.14216058]

>>14216025
>BILLIONS
wow, usually you fucknuts think it's only 6000

[Anonymous No.14216077]

>>14213945
Just a few weeks ago one of my profs told me that you can pay journals to allow you to "suggest" who should peer-review your paper. Many people who want to get started in academia do that and just "suggest" their friends

[Anonymous No.14216090]

>>14216055
But it's not the same change idiot.

It's impossible to accelerate the natural cooling or heating of a planet at our current technological level. You're vastly overestimating humanity's power. Where's your proof of all this shit? From studies. Studies done by cowardly wankers who when they saw which way the wind was blowing all made a mad dash to agree with each other to get funding. You have no other proof at all, you're just putting your faith in a bunch of lying faggots who have been proven to lie time and time again.

The end of the world is not coming, if the worlds climate heats up or cools down then there's nothing you can do to stop it and it's nothing to do with what humans burn. Be reasonable, 200 years NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO IN THAT TIME is not enough time to throw a multi billion year old system out of balance.

[Anonymous No.14216128]

>>14216055
Hey man, i don't know enough to refute climate change or have an opinion about it but what is your take on the "we'll be underwater in 20 years" studies that have been going around for decades now?

[Anonymous No.14216180]

>>14216090
You're just wrong, man. I'm sorry.
If you want to dispute all of these studies, they're publicly available for you to do so. If you succeed, every energy company on earth will throw more money at you than you could spend in a lifetime and you will be one of the most famous men of the past century, so please try.
>if the worlds climate heats up or cools down then there's nothing you can do to stop it and it's nothing to do with what humans burn. Be reasonable, 200 years NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO IN THAT TIME is not enough time to throw a multi billion year old system out of balance.
Why do you think this? What are you basing it on? It's misplaced faith in something that's much more delicately balanced than you think.
Hundreds of billions of tons of burning carbon have consequences, even if you don't believe in them because the consequences upset you.
>>14216128
Most of those interpretations don't come from scientists themselves, but from idiot journalists trying to harvest clicks by misinterpreting them.
Sea ice cover is definitely melting and arable land is definitely shrinking, which are quantifiable omens of things getting worse. Seasonal temperature change in temperate climates is getting much, much worse, meaning hotter summers, colder winters, less tolerable springs/falls. Climate is a complicated enough nonlinear system that things like ocean currents are affected in ways that are hard to predict - the Gulf Stream, for example, will shift unpredictably, and western Europe depends on that to be as mild as it is. The raw sea level change isn't enough for us to notice that yet, from what I understand.

[Anonymous No.14216190]

>>14213703
/thread

[Anonymous No.14216196]

>>14216180
>You're just wrong, man. I'm sorry.
Yeah, whatever retard. Keep being delusional and gullible.

[Anonymous No.14216227]

>>14216090
>>14216196
do you ever wonder why nobody ever takes you seriously?

[Anonymous No.14216279]

>>14216227
Because we don't automatically believe everything fed to us by the news?

[Anonymous No.14216330]

>>14216279
Yes you do. Your kneejerk reaction is just a slightly different taste in news.

[Anonymous No.14216333]

>>14216330
you underestimate the depths of contrarianism present here

[Anonymous No.14216452]

>>14216330
Name one news outlet that pushes climate change is real but not man made, just one.

[Anonymous No.14216486]

>>14216452
Fox, the largest cable network in America.

[Anonymous No.14216548]

>>14216486
I'm not American

[Anonymous No.14216555]

>>14216548
Sucks to be you

[Anonymous No.14216558]

>>14216555
I'm glad I'm not a mutt actually, it's nice having history and culture and an actual heritage.

[Anonymous No.14216603]

>>14216558
>there is no american history, culture, or heritage
Imagine being this delusional

[Anonymous No.14216611]

Isn't it basically common knowledge that most science nowdays is mostly unreplicable, one-off bullshit? Inb4 muh peer review

>mfw I read the words "a recent study finds..:"

[Anonymous No.14216616]

>>14216603
Big Macs and Mel Gibson movies don't count as culture

[Anonymous No.14216768]

>>14216616
>there is nothing else in the histort of America than mcdonalds and mel Gibson

[Anonymous No.14216783]

>>14216616
Mel Gibson has some pretty good films tho

[Anonymous No.14216791]

>>14216768
Yes, now you're getting it.

[Anonymous No.14216851]

>>14216791
Okay retard

[Anonymous No.14217138]

>>14213623
>UHHHHH SOURCE?! GOT A SOURCE ON THAT?! GOT PROOF?!
the post. bravo anon

[Anonymous No.14217170]

>>14213917
>skeptic """"""""""""""""""reasoning""""""""""""""""""

[Anonymous No.14217198]

>>14215868
>Do you know why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the Sun?
Do you know why we're the Summer season despite the Earth farthest away from the Sun in its orbit, and in winter when the Sun is closest to it? Distance don't mean shit in this context.

[Anonymous No.14217729]

>>14217198
please tell me you're not this stupid anon

[Anonymous No.14218607]

>>14213603
I agree 97%

[Anonymous No.14218645]

There's very few things that you can't doubt. It's all conditional based on assumptions you are willing to agree with others to check if conclusion is compatible.

[Anonymous No.14218658]

>>14213945
I wouldn't trust a scientist, much less 10 other scientists.

[Anonymous No.14218690]

>board full of people who have been Christian for a year and a half and see themselves as the defenders of western ideals also vehemently opposes the fundamentals of scholarly inquiry that made the west great
imagine my shock

[Anonymous No.14218696]

>>14218658
you trust a scientist, in fact many scientists, every time you shitpost on here

[Anonymous No.14218755]

>>14218696
Nah I just trust retarded anons.

[Anonymous No.14218808]

>>14213753
But that was in SJW/Grievance Studies journals which dont count for shit in terms of scientific value.

[Anonymous No.14219199]

completely agree, at this point the only thing to go off is your own experience

[Anonymous No.14219484]

>>14213603
I can report that academic International Relations is stuck in a loop of endlessly restating its core assumptions.

[Anonymous No.14219677]

>>14218690
UNESCO declared in 1950 ("The Race Question") that race science is off the table. because of this we have spent several decades pretending that any variation in outcome is due to various institutionalized "isms". in this model, evolution exists when it comes to attacking christianity, but does not exist when it comes to heritability of genetic traits. james watson demonstrated this taboo neatly when he was stripped of his titles for uttering a heresy. is this what scholarly enquiry looks like to you?

[Anonymous No.14219683]

>>14219677
It's off the table for the same reason cryptozoology is off the table.

[Anonymous No.14219701]

>>14219683
then explain this. one would imagine that scholarly enquiry could shed some light on this mystery, no?

[Anonymous No.14219707]

>>14219701
>income
Wow, such a mystery

[Anonymous No.14219731]

>>14219707
blacks with the highest house-hold income perform only as well as the most impoverished whites. this proves that socio-economic conditions are not the reason for the 15 point gap in racial IQ between blacks and whites which has been demonstrated exhaustively and yet it is completely taboo as far as "scholars" are concerned to question whether heritability has anything to do with this.

[Anonymous No.14219803]

>>14219731
>this proves that socio-economic conditions are not the reason for the 15 point gap in racial IQ
No, it doesn't. There are numerous environmental factors which account for the racial gap in test scores (which are not even predictive of intelligence), and the overwhelming consensus is that this gap is not immutable.
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662962
https://www.nber.org/papers/w15078.pdf
CTRL+F for "test score"

>yet it is completely taboo as far as "scholars" are concerned to question whether heritability has anything to do with this.
No one is questioning the heritability of intelligence. What scholars rightfully question is the idea that blacks have an innately lower intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14219829]

>>14213603
More often than not, the people who pretend to be skeptical and big-brained about peer-reviewed studies are the same people who will then unquestioningly buy into any YouTube conspiracy channel bullshit that fits their biases. I'll stick with flawed expert consensus until people offer a better alternative than ideology + anecdotes.

[Anonymous No.14219864]

>>14217138
>Not having the mental capacity to deduce that the comment is ironic even with the given context.
Bravo, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14219868]

>>14213676
The statistics models behind are shit and the hypothesis can never be respected.

[Anonymous No.14219874]

>>14219803
your links only demonstrate what i gave you in the chart, which is that environment plays a significant role in maximizing genetic potential. but your claim that blacks do not have an innately lower intelligence and throwing money and kindness at them will fix everything only holds up under a blank slate model. that this is impossible to even speculate on in the world of academia proves that they are not interested in scholarly enquiry, but in ruthlessly enforcing communist dogma.

[Anonymous No.14219882]

>>14215125
Why would someone fabricate data? That requires more effort than phoning in.

If I remember correctly, Michael Mann said in a leaked email that if a FOIA request court order compelled him to give up the raw data that he would destroy it. You understand that publishing reproducible results is part of the scientific process.

Mann's actions strongly suggests that the he believes that an unbiased process would produce a different conclusion. If he had worked for a private company rather than a university he would have been fired and sued for fraud.

[Anonymous No.14219983]

>>14219829
>he thinks science isn't an ideology
>he thinks his scientific studies have never been manipulated
Those guys watching the youtube videos are smarter than you.

[Anonymous No.14219994]

>>14219983
Do you go to the doctor when you're sick? I hope not, since medicine is an ideology and medical studies are a hoax. Might as well go to a voodoo priest.

[Anonymous No.14220040]

>>14219829
>Your personal beliefs and experiences are not valid as data
>But scientist man's study funded by a 3rd party is

[Anonymous No.14220053]

>>14220040
multiple data points > one data point

[Anonymous No.14220054]

>>14219994
If you have mental problems then fuck no don't go to a doctor. They answer to everything is pills and paying a Jew $500 an hour to listen to how mommy didn't hug you enough.

[Anonymous No.14220058]

>>14220053
My own lived experiences > Some faggot I don't know or trust

[Anonymous No.14220081]

>>14220054
What non-scientific alternative do you recommend for people with mental problems?
>>14220058
What happens when you get a disease you haven't had before? A doctor is just a faggot you don't know or trust, so that's not an option.

[Anonymous No.14220115]

heh yeah scientists are pretty fucking stupid you got that right kid. now come over here and let me show you some nice properties of finite dimensional associative algebras.

[Anonymous No.14220233]

>>14219994
>Do you go to the doctor when you're sick? I hope not, since medicine is an ideology and medical studies are a hoax. Might as well go to a voodoo priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis

[Anonymous No.14220294]

>>14213603
>Do you seriously believe they're going to be 100% impartial and unbiased when their job relies on saying the right things?
No, literally no one believes this.

[Anonymous No.14220323]

>>14220081
>What happens when you get a disease you haven't had before?
Either my body overcomes it or pic related

[Anonymous No.14220331]

>>14220081
>What non-scientific alternative do you recommend for people with mental problems?
Leave the environment that's doing this to you. Trapped in a shit job, caring for an elderly parents, shit relationship. Just pack up and go, I know it's not easy but that's the only cure.

It's like sitting in a pot of boiling water, there's only one real choice.

[Anonymous No.14220368]

>>14213876
Got a source for that need? Didn't think so.

[Anonymous No.14220372]

>>14220233
Nobody is saying that medicine or science in general are always flawless processes. Biases, side effects, and lobbying are realities of the field. But I want to know if you literally believe that the scientific method is no more effective than voodoo. Again, who do you go to when you're sick?
>>14220323
Godspeed, anon.
>>14220331
Careful anon, many peer-reviewed studies confirm the advantages of environmental and life changes over medication, looks like those ideologues got to you.

[Anonymous No.14220577]

>>14220372
>Careful anon, many peer-reviewed studies confirm the advantages of environmental and life changes over medication, looks like those ideologues got to you.
A broken clock is still right twice a day

[Anonymous No.14220604]

Just the fact that getting published is a prerequisite for a continuing career in academia and that the perceived prestige of one journal over another effects the trajectory of said career lays bare the farce that is academic journals. The idea that the quality and innovation of a particular paper has more than a tangential effect on it being published in a more prestigious journal is a farce that no "scientist" would claim to believe while among their peers.

[Anonymous No.14221274]

I give sources all the time because I'm not a lazy fag like you.

[Anonymous No.14221826]

>>14218808
It's been done in more reputable fields before

[Anonymous No.14221883]

>>14221274
I'd like to slice your fucking face off

And before you fags start implying,
it's a gif, and if you load it and wait long enough (5 1/2 minutes), it turns into a Spike pepe.
Or if you open the gif in Photoshop, GIMP, Preview, EZGif, etc. it can show both frames immediately.

[Anonymous No.14221920]

>>14221883
cringe

[Anonymous No.14221976]

makes me remeber of this video of a guy talking about fake news (desu his conference was just "on internet there's so much fake news look at this newspaper funded by finance and state who debunk it" kinda) but at one moment he did a kind of survey and there was a numver that surprise me : on this survey (i think n=500 so not that much) there was 2/3 (so around 66%) of researchers who thought that in papers and studies there was big problems of methodology and especially about how most of studies don't take account about studies who don't go on their ways or who show different "trends" and so different conclusions.
+If you have talked to some people who work at universities (especially in social sciences) they will all tell you that there's a political-correctness and that you can't state propositions who wouldnt go in a certain way or your career will be ruined...

[Anonymous No.14222206]

>>14220115
State em.
Gimme proofs, math-daddy.

[Anonymous No.14223171]

>>14221274
I'd like to slice your fucking face off

And before you fags start implying,
it's a gif, and if you load it and wait long enough (5 1/2 minutes), it turns into a Spike pepe.
Or if you open the gif in Photoshop, GIMP, Preview, EZGif, etc. it can show both frames immediately.

[Anonymous No.14223306]

>>14213603
good post. the thing about scientific studies is that a study can be found to support pretty much any conclusion.

[Anonymous No.14223661]

>>14213603
OP is right, everyone has an agenda. Foucault wins this one, lads

[Anonymous No.14223678]

>>14213603
Based.

[Anonymous No.14223753]

oh god is this stupid fucking thread still going

[Anonymous No.14224742]

>>14221274
kys

[Anonymous No.14224776]

>>14220372
>But I want to know if you literally believe that the scientific method is no more effective than voodoo
Yes. Read Feyerabend. There is your source.

[Anonymous No.14224796]

>>14220372
>peer reviewed studies confirm something that ancient sages, poets, and grandmothers knew

wow thanks SCIENCE!

[Anonymous No.14224824]

>>14219803
Why are you people living in coockoo land
It's evident to anyone outside the first world as it was evident to anyone in history that races are different and blacks especially so

[Anonymous No.14224908]

>>14223306
This is why peer review and being able to judge an author as reputable within a field is seen as the core of empiricism.

[Anonymous No.14225710]

>>14224908
to accept the academic consensus in the current year requires a dogmatic adherence to blank slate critical theory. you can't rely on this peer review system if they are not your peers

[Anonymous No.14225763]

TLDR: A proper study of anything is necessary but not sufficient. The word of some retard online is always worth zero.

[Anonymous No.14225781]

>>14225710
>you can't rely on this peer review system if they are not your peers

unironically gave me a think

[Anonymous No.14225792]

>>14213603
You have just taken your first step to wisdom, congratulations.

However, you are still stupid.

[Anonymous No.14225800]

>>14213603
So if one organization gets paid and lies in their study. Why wouldn't their peers who aren't paid disprove it?

[Anonymous No.14225843]

>>14225800
Because they do get paid. If not for the exact same study then one related to it. There's an unspoken agreement that everyone does each other a solid and everyone benefits.

[Anonymous No.14225878]

>>14213603
Got a source

[Anonymous No.14225880]

>>14225878
Your mom

[Anonymous No.14225885]

>>14225880
You should have heard what your mum told me

[Anonymous No.14226843]

>>14221274
I'd like to slice your fucking face off

And before you fags start implying,
it's a gif, and if you load it and wait long enough (5 1/2 minutes), it turns into a Spike pepe.
Or if you open the gif in Photoshop, GIMP, Preview, EZGif, etc. it can show both frames immediately.

[Anonymous No.14226871]

>>14226843
Seething incel.

[Anonymous No.14226970]

>>14226843
That's kinda sad, honestly.

[Anonymous No.14227240]

"What does the science say? Frankly, whatever you want it to"

Arthur Jones, nautilus and medX. He was talking about the shockingly p4p nature of research in the field of exercise physiology and nutritional science but really it extends to science as a whole. Jones was inundated with mail from researchers more or less telling him theyd find whatever results he desired. In the end Jones funded all the research for nautilus and subsequently the med x company out of his own pocket, at considerable costs since most of his projects failed. Millions down the toilet over the decades. But such was the price to actually get reliable consistent data. And Jones findings would later be shamelessly stolen without any credit at all, many prominent names in EP made their bones off the back of things originally discovered by nautilus Inc. Ethics for most people, seems to be a joke.

[Anonymous No.14227389]

>>14213603
t. low IQ conspiracycel

[Anonymous No.14227835]

>>14225710
Justify this.

[Anonymous No.14228958]

>>14221274
I'd like to slice your fucking face off

And before you fags start implying,
it's a gif, and if you load it and wait long enough (5 1/2 minutes), it turns into a Spike pepe.
Or if you open the gif in Photoshop, GIMP, Preview, EZGif, etc. it can show both frames immediately.

>>14226970
BLEED TO DEATH JUSTPASSINGTHROUGH

[Anonymous No.14228965]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k

great video on the peer review process

[Anonymous No.14228971]

That’s why studies also show how they reached their conclusions, retard.
They don’t make a claim without explaining evidence and reasoning behind it.

[Anonymous No.14229643]

>>14219874
Notice how he has avoided replying to this post.

[Anonymous No.14229722]

>>14228971
>That’s why studies also show how they reached their conclusions, retard.
Any retard over the age of 12 can write something any way they like to suit their agenda.

[Anonymous No.14229729]

>>14229643
No but racism bad, the news said so, you're not allowed to say we're different all humans are the same

[Anonymous No.14229938]

>>14213603
I agree to an extent. I met some cool academics, but the majority of their work is to produce bullshit for it's own sake. Especially with literature. How can anyone be passionate about a critique of a critique of a writer that will never be read by anybody aside from the journal's editor

[Anonymous No.14229962]

>>14223306
lol that fucking picture. all its missing is some nigga getting merced by "anecdotal evidence"

[Anonymous No.14229981]

>>14213603
>Do you know how study's work?
>study's
opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.14230009]

>>14213603
I DON'T WANNA TALK TO A SCIENTIST
Y'ALL MOTHERFUCKERS LYING, AND GETTING ME PISSED

[Anonymous No.14230956]

>>14213603
Thank you, jesus christ I am sick of redditors and their appeal to authority. Look, the fuckfaces who pay to play a phd and push a few papers through by shotgun method are NOT intelligent people and I do NOT take their word on anything as some almighty word of god. Retards like that probably think CNN is unbiased and always correct.

I went to school with people who went on to become "figures of authority in their field" and let me tell you about the room temperature level of their IQ, m9.

Fuck your studies. Modern "studies" are no more legitimate than clickbait.

[Anonymous No.14231267]

>>14230956
The absolute worst are the studies that try to integrate grievance studies into legitimate fields. They literally read like a tumblr SJW yelling "ayo wypipo, literature racist, not enough niggers in the cannon"

[Anonymous No.14231356]

>>14231267
>whinging loudly about made up grievances is "scientific studies" in 2019
lmao

[Anonymous No.14231853]

>>14231356
Yes, it shocked me. The first time I used my university's database to look for scholarly articles, I found that if you don't have a very specific results you find shit about altering STEM curriculum to be fair to women or engineering everyday objects so that they are more suited for people of different racial and economic backgrounds. Mind you, none of this stuff is backed by any form of data

[Anonymous No.14232653]

>>14215814
>but are also smart enough not to be vocal about it
Isn't that the point of the thread?