/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14790656
Yes.

>>14790656
Yes, definitely.

>>14790656
Many do, yes.
There are debunkers who over-power covert hypnosis as an explanation for certain experimental results in parapsychology, yet if you were to become some NLPbro selling a $2,999 course on covert hypnosis, the same debunkers would change their tune and say that covert hypnosis is bullshit.

>>14790656
Engaging new information with the express intent of "debunking" it is not engagement at all. They're ideologues who larp as being interested in the truth to give themselves the semblance of a moral high ground and make themselves seem trustworthy to the naive. It's as evil as you can get short of killing people.

Yes. Too much posturing and appeal to authority even when the authorities don't actually support their position.

>>14790686
What are some good sources to become redpilled on parapsychology? Are there really experimental results that provide good evidence that there is something spooky happening, and factors like bad methodology / publication bias have all been ruled out/accounted for?

>facts
Define what a fact is, exactly.

>>14790656
no, only way you can beat them is to debunk them

>>14790721
I haven't seen anything compelling, but I just don't like the laziness and double standards of some debunkers.

>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST DEBUNK MY FAVORITE BELIEFS NOOOOOOOOOO

Lmao at all the triggered schizos in this thread. Where did the debunkers touch you?

>>14790788
Debunking itself is just a cope. None of them ever provide evidence, they just grasp at straws to reinforce their own indefensible positions. Hell, most of them are run by the lowest bottom-barrel idiots. Journalism school dropouts and (in the case of snopes) a high school educated adulterer and a prostitute.

>>14790803
>Debunking itself is just a cope. None of them ever provide evidence,
This narrative has been debunked by snopes.

>>14790803
>Debunking itself is just a cope. None of them ever provide evidence
Sweeping generalization that's obviously false. I debunk retards like you all the time with scientific evidence. Show me what you think debunkers got wrong. What flavor of schizo are you?

>>14790820
Snopes fact check rating: Pants on Fire.

>>14790820
>Sweeping generalization that's obviously false.
Can I have a peer-reviewed source on that?

>>14790837
>>14790839
So you can't even give one example. That's what I thought. You're an angry little schizo throwing a tantrum.

>>14790856
The burden of proof is on you to provide a source. Preferably one from a peer-reviewed journal.

>>14790856
>You're an angry little schizo throwing a tantrum.
Can I have a peer-reviewed source on that?

>>14790864
>>14790866
>The burden of proof is on you to provide a source.
For what? You're the one who can't provide a single example of debunkers being wrong. And you're deflecting again. Thanks for admitting you're a schizo.

>>14790881
>You're the one who can't provide a single example of debunkers being wrong.
Source for this claim?

>>14790820
>I debunk retards like you all the time with scientific evidence.
Fact Check: False

This dangerous misinformation comes from a right-wing Nazi CHUD.

>>14790839
>>14790866
>>14790889
r e t a r d
e
t
a
r
d

>>14790820

>>14790928

>>14790939
what? Did you just provide me with a verifiable source?

>>14790933
nice
saved

debunking is important. however, most "deboonkers" of the internet are grifters and spergs who are scared of the unknown.

>>14791162
This, they do it out of fear of what could be rather than doing a service to science.

>>14790656
People who claim about "debunkers" shouldn't be allowed on the internet.

>>14791162
A lot of them aren't even knowledgeable. "Professor" Dave has a B.Sci and barely passed his classes, but pretends to be a Ph.D in fields he's not actually well-read in.

>>14790656
Debunkers are psychics in disguise. Haven't you seen Red Lights?

Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fPOplL8KTI

Very moving reveal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCbzte60lug

>>14790656
No, if you disagree you're a schizo

>>14791545
How's your evening mick? Any alien nightmares lately?

>>14790933
The funny thing is that image was probably made unironically
State of y'all

>>14790656
I will destroy my own thread

>>14790721
Funny enough, a lot of the statistical meta-scientific stuff for science, such as methods of measuring publication bias, were straight-up created by parapsychologists to give evidence to the statistical rigor of parapsychology. The process is very similar to how statistics was largely developed to further and defend intelligence research.

>>14790820
I think sister fucking is good
pls debunk it

>>14790656
No. Debooking triggers pseud polcucks, because they hate to be reminded that they live in a fantasy world

>>14790656
yes.

At this point I am pretty sure nobody gives a fuck about studies except if you are arguing about some product you can buy. Lol why the fuck I need a study to practice my religion? I don't give one shit about whatever crap you found in your study. Not like you will be there at my funeral BITCH

>>14795406
>it went up
What the fuck? I thought were trying to fix this issue.

>>14790656
Yes because they are only selectively sceptic. They buy whatever horseshit that is the official narrative, and only deboonks alternative explanations. If they were honest, they would find inconsistencies on both theories, and then make the judgement what theory is the most plausible.

>>14790788
>Where did the debunkers touch you?
I dont have a peer reviewed source on that, so i cant tell you

https://youtu.be/6hOFuQfNcwc

>>14790721
>What are some good sources to become redpilled on parapsychology?
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Psychic-Phenomena-House-Skeptics/dp/159477451X
Probably the best book on the topic. I also recommend his other two books.
But if you really want to become redpilled, nay, blackpilled on NDEs specifically then I enthusiastically recommend that you consider that we should take NDErs seriously, because they are representative of the population as a whole, and convince everyone that there is an afterlife once they have a deep NDE themselves. Therefore, deep NDEs convince 100% of the population that there is an afterlife, and just like everyday life is more real than our dreams, so too do NDErs say that the NDE world was vastly more real - and self-evidently so - than everyday life: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

>>14795406
>falsely claims, without evidence
Of course it's rated as false, the claim is true and backed by evidence. Are you stupid?

>>14790788
>NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BELIEVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN I DO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
this is you

>>14790656
"debunkers" should rope themselves.

>>14790656
Yes it's literally pseudoskepticism. But they'll just tell you that criticizing their methods is itself pseudoskepticism so there's no point in even doing it.

>>14801133
One thing I've always wondered is where it originated. There's a fair bit of paid shilling of course, especially in "fact checking" websites, but deboonkers have been around for a long time before then.

My pet theory is that it grew out of New Atheism when that grift started to dry up. Once it was no longer tenable to be one (after the fedora meme made atheism uncool again) the most adventurous midwit atheists moved on to another grift on youtube.

See: thunderf00t, etc.

>>14799150

Snopes CEO, king of all fact checkers and self appointed arbiter of what is and isn't real science - David Mikkelson - suspended for plagiarism, lying and other dishonest, unethical and possibly illegal tactics and abuses.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/deansterlingjones/snopes-cofounder-plagiarism-mikkelson

>>14790656
Someone said objectively yes but it was deboonked

>>14801323
Snopes is just a case of inflated ego. It was never meant to go beyond debunking chain emails about trivial bullshit, that's why >>14795406 happens.

>>14801317
That was a scary jumpscare fuck you

>>14790656
I'll put it to you like this OP: if Joe Biden pissed on your leg and called it "rain", debunkers will twist and strawman your side of the story by saying "OP's claims Biden urinates rain water is false" if not accuse you of making it up even if you got Joe Biden on camera taking a nasty yellow piss all over your leg.

>>14801335

>>14791388
Eh, his water videos were ok.

>>14804438
The majority of his content is condescending and usually wrong on several fundamental levels. He might be at least correct when he's discussing basic high-school chemistry, but he's woefully out of his depth at everything else but acts smug about it.

>>14801323
wow, so all of snopes' ridiculous leftist propaganda was all lies, what a massive surprise
>/pol/ was right again
also tire sum

>>14805232
What's wrong with condescension? Why does everyone think that it ONLY can be done as an insult? "Explain it like I'm 5" is all about condescension

>>14805729
He's not trying to explain complex topics to a layman audience, he's butchering simple topics to pretend he's smarter than other people.

>>14805842
So what's wrong with the Water 3 parter?

I like thunderf00t
Maybe it's because I'm a millennial and so didn't grow up surrounded by 'debunkers' like a lot of you zoomers were but I still enjoy it
Also as I've gotten older I've become more and more impatient with people posting claims without backing any of it up or even worse, posting fringe websites as if they had any semblance of credibiltiy
This is probably because of my experiences as a teenager seeing a lot of bullshit that creationists have posted but also climate change denialists

>>14806236
Thunderfoot's videos about kickstarter scams are interesting, low-hanging fruit or no. But I remember his cringe atheist fedora days so I can't really take him seriously. Dude's like 45 years old and still say stuff like "sky daddy."

They're pretty annoying but they're mostly a response to the sheer amount of dumb bullshit that people try to pass off as factual information online. Don't hate the sympton, hate the cause.

>>14790820
I have seen deboonkers shit on acupunture despite some studies that support it because "it just cant be true". These people don't understand the scientific method, experiments and observations are the ultimate judge not muh smarts

>>14790656
yes they should be publicly flogged

>>14790721
Dean Radin and the noetic institute

>>14791557
You mean Ironically
State of you

>>14795466
No, their numbers went up slightly but the crime rate came down slightly, meaning they are around 0.01 percent less violent than the evil chud nazis would have you believe.

>>14806594
What about shitting on studies with Chinese funding that imply more that China is trying to suck itself off because acupuncture is Chinese?

>>14807546
Thats also not a scientific argument

The lack of skepticism will lead to the end of the society that was meant to be by our founding fathers. Last time no one was skeptic about anything, we burned people alive because someone pointed a finger at them and call them witches.
Education leads to knowledge, and that knowledge is the power that the people can use against those who are in power, pressuring all those who lack the knowledge, while using them as tools to deal with those who have it.
Skepticism and Knowledge are what makes a government work for its people, and not the opposite.

>>14807623
>Last time no one was skeptic about anything, we burned people alive because someone pointed a finger at them and call them witches.

And now we know they were cleaning the gene pool of autist and schizo genes, so were they really wrong just because their explanation was retarded?

>>14790656
I don’t look anything like this and I don’t have a Twitter and I never post on YouTube. I have no idea what metabunk or skeptoid is.
The only thing on this list I sometimes do is go to /x/ to shit on the craziest stuff. They need deboooonked hard.

>>14790656
"professional skeptics" are just as retarded as someone who blindly believes everything