[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 59 KB, 780x520, nat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10417963 No.10417963 [Reply] [Original]

>he thinks most scientists from all around the world engage in conspiracies with one another to cover up real science and instead promote fictitious science
it's amazing how many people on this board resort to this, and no, i don't mean just climate change, other examples are relativity, space, the thread where the guy says giants existed, aliens, you name it. reminder that if your argument relies on "science is a conspiracy/hoax" then you clearly don't have the first concept of how scientists do their work

>> No.10417971

Believing you have a hidden truth that no one else knows or understands is a powerful feeling for many.

>> No.10417994
File: 108 KB, 575x387, 1421874412548.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10417994

>>10417963
Transgenderism, trans-trenders, black iq

>> No.10418028

>Implying the scientific community is immune to dogmatism

>> No.10418064

>>10417994
Watson was an asshole long before he got famous. He made fun of everyone for wanting to do science for the sake of science instead of going for the Nobel prize

>> No.10418068

>>10417994
>Watson makes his arguments, which he earnestly believes in, known to the world.

>Timeline 1:
>The scientists from all around the world are shocked that he would defect from their secret club of making up fiction science. Watson disappears during a flight through the Bermuda Triangle, during which period he is put into the scientists' Clockwork Orange machine to brainwash him into reversing his earlier claims. This fails, so they find a look-alike to pose as him, who then restores the integrity of false science.

>Timeline 2:
>Scientists read what he says, go back over the literature, publish some review articles, everyone reviews the findings, and science continues. Normies and politicians maybe skim over a review article and go back to reeeeing about identity politics. Scientists put in their earbuds to block out the normies and politicans autistic screeching, and continue their work.

which sounds more believable to you?

>> No.10418072

>>10418028
Or fucked up incentive systems. This is why they should teach kids about the scientific method. Otherwise faggots like >>10417963 end up believing that science is "anything scientists do".

>> No.10418108

>>10418028
>>10418072
dogmatism and fucked up incentive systems 1) aren't a conspiracy and 2) if you find scientific evidence that goes against it, and if your evidence is strong enough, you win. the CIA doesn't abduct you for a scientific discovery that goes contrary to dogma or incentives.

cherry-picking examples of biased science is fine, and it's actually good for scientists to be aware that certain scientists are not having scientific integrity or that e.g. funding for one thing is favored over another. but when you say "hurr durr therefore conspiracy/hoax" you've made a fallacy in your reasoning

>> No.10418130

>>10417963
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_science

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
>note the edits on this one

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

The CIA is known to falsify research for numerous reasons. Its funny how hard it is to find information on that though. Now I am not claiming GR is fake, but sugar manufacturers in the 1950s were found to be manufacturing research about the health effects of sugar. If sugar companies were confirmed to have done it for potential profit, imagine what a government might do to hide military secrets or to wage intellectual warfare on other countries. Imagine the amount of money to be gained by being the only people in the world with proper knowledge about a subject. I believe in most science, but to claim there are no conspiracies or cover ups in the scientific community for the sake of spreading false information is to be willfully ignorant of the facts.

>> No.10418149

I believe in climate change but the earth is still flat.

Prove me wrong.

>> No.10418150

>>10418130
shill science isn't a conspiracy. just because some people push their own slanted scientific results doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy. examples: the tobacco companies lost about lung cancer even though they tried for years to muddy the science, same thing with oil companies, same thing with pharmaceutical companies. this is why scientists value academic jobs more than industry jobs; all scientists know that an industry science job makes you look like a shill scientist. and if you're funded by the CIA, for sure no scientist is going to miss that when they look over your paper. basically my point is that the way science works basically has a self-correcting mechanism against shills -- objective truth eventually wins. the only way it couldn't is if you're insane and believe there's a secret club of all scientists where they make a pact to keep real science secret and replace it with fiction science, which is a schizophrenic thing to believe if you understand how scientists work

>> No.10418157
File: 198 KB, 337x434, jabbasyappylilpet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10418157

>>10418150
I just tuned into this conversation you're having and you are either immature or just plain stupid. I'll be surprised if the other guy even dignifies this with a response.

>> No.10418172

>>10418150
>Get told by someone in fossil fuels that I should go work for an oil company because the pays great for biologists
>Told him I didn’t want to be a biostitute

>> No.10418173

>>10418157
thanks for the (You)
as is to be expected, you, the conspiracy theorist, has no argument and contributes nothing

>> No.10418179

>>10418173
>contributes nothing
what and this>>10418150
is a contribution?
The entire post clearly went right over your head, and you just rehashed the same bullshit post you've been posting over and over agian in this thread. FUcking moron. Fuck off.

>> No.10418193

>>10418179
it is a contribution. aside from the two links he posted with no actual discussion, the only substantive thing he posted was about sugar companies promoting bad science. i addressed that point (the only actual point) by explaining how in science, shills always lose out. right on point dissecting his only argument.

>> No.10418206

>>10418193
don't argue with these guys, let them fail, they'll self correct eventually

>> No.10418240

>>10418108
>CIA doesn't abduct you for a scientific discovery that goes contrary to dogma or incentives.

Of course not. What happens is that you get ostracized by your peers and cut off from all funding or projects of note. Cheaper and easier than an abduction and doesn't lead to inconvenient investigations.

Why do you think there has been no definitive study that will answer the question of race and IQ once and for all, one way or another? Because it would be career suicide, even though such a study could be carried out entirely in line with the scientific method.

>> No.10418264

certain topics of science can sometimes be nothing more than a religion because everyone is just parroting or basing their research on compromised information

to think that anything pouted by 'scientists' can never be wrong is to deny that power dynamics and conflicting personal/political interests don't exist

that, in itself, is unscientific. Science has always been about non-prejudice and open mindedness.

>> No.10418291

>>10418240
>What happens is that you get ostracized by your peers and cut off from all funding or projects of note. Cheaper and easier than an abduction and doesn't lead to inconvenient investigations.
who else got ostracized for their scientific work? Boltzmann, Einstein, Everett, Galileo, Copernicus. but guess what, they all won out in the end. because even if you're not popular, if you made a big enough stink that it caused you to get ostracized, somebody is bound to check whether you had something going and they'll find it's right if it's right

>the question of race and IQ
these are social science questions. IQ and race can't even be objectively defined (well i guess in IQ you could say "this is how well you do on this test of questions" is objective, but after all the questions were arbitrarily cooked up by a psychologist based on more scientifically questionable stuff they do). nevertheless many MANY studies have been done, and the data is out there. i guess maybe the reason you feel it hasn't been done is because you don't see a clear answer, and the reason is because, as i said before, the validity of those studies is questionable because of arbitrary nonscientific definitions they use, and also the interpretation of the data is confounded by lots of stuff (uncontrolled for systematic uncertainties and biases) that you can't get rid of practically.

social science has its problems, but none of it is a conspiracy. it's just that the science is questionable in the first place. hard sciences, OTOH, basically don't have those problems, and keep in mind that scientists actually do have a certain amount of inter-disciplinary stuff going on, so hard scientists keep the social scientists honest when they start going into pseudoscientific concepts like race and IQ

>> No.10418294

Game Theory tells me they have every incentive to.

I don’t even see why they wouldn’t

>> No.10418302

>>10418291
you don’t know how to calculate a p-value or what multivariate analysis is

>> No.10418304

>>10418291
>who else got ostracized for their scientific work? Boltzmann, Einstein, Everett, Galileo, Copernicus.
pretty sure boltzmann and einstein didn't
never heard of everett and cant remember what copernicus did
only galileo got ostracized.
and some comfort to him not knowing if his lifes work will ever be recognized in the future while under house arrest for the latter half of his life

when it comes right down to it you're basically just making excuses for the ostracizers with every single one of your posts. congrats on that.

>> No.10418322

>>10418291
>social science has its problems, but none of it is a conspiracy
A collective of people committing fraud with taxpayer money isn't a conspiracy...

>> No.10418335

>>10418322
i assure you that they not only do their work in earnest (i know a couple of economists) — they aren’t in a secret club of fabricating fake science — but they also recognize the limitations of their methods and care about improving their science’s foundations. you should make friends with some and see for yourself

>> No.10418343

>>10417963

It's no conspiracy, but climate scientists are brainlets.

>> No.10418397

>>10418150
>the tobacco companies lost about lung cancer even though they tried for years to muddy the science
Tobacco causing lung cancer is a lie invented by the government to justify increased taxes and to shift the blame away from themselves as well as their bedfellows like Dupont, Dow, Monsanto etc. for cancers caused by chemicals and radiation. The fact that they've been completely unable to show mechanistically that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer experimentally or even in a randomized epidemiological study says it all.

>> No.10418410

>>10418397
>Tobacco causing lung cancer is a lie invented by the government
kek, no that's silly

>The fact that they've been completely unable to show mechanistically that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer experimentally or even in a randomized epidemiological study says it all.
1) just because they don't have a biochemical model worked out in full detail is a bad criticism. we also don't have a detailed model of how formaldehyde causes cancer, but it's supported by studies on rats and mice
2) did you know that tobacco leaves naturally accumulate polonium (a radioactive element)? it's not too hard to imagine tar containing polonium building up in the lungs of a smoker

>> No.10418424

implying the real issue is taking the journalists on their word when reporting on scientists.

>> No.10418433

>>10418410
>it's supported by studies on rats and mice
Yes it is, the problem is just that the same has not been done with tobacco, in fact every time they've attempted this they've failed miserably.
>did you know that tobacco leaves naturally accumulate polonium
Yeah, thanks to the fertilizers used in tobacco production, particularly in the US.

>> No.10418445

>>10418433
>Polonium fertilizer

>> No.10418447
File: 47 KB, 648x422, 1549274493956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10418447

>>10418433
Forgot pic

>> No.10418465

>>10418445
>what are calcium-phosphate fertilizers
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1001074209602473
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21174970
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3003925
> in modern tobaccos grown since 1950, and in high-phosphate fertilizers used for tobacco farming in industrialized countries
>Critical support for this thesis is based upon experimental animal studies in which lung cancers that resemble adenocarcinomas are induced with as little as 15 rads of radioactive polonium
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14202456
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5914751
It's like blaming the rising rates of bowel cancer on the oats themselves rather than the fact that they're sprayed with roundup.
>>10418447
What?

>> No.10418490

>>10417994
None of this is wrong, seems like a balanced fair, opinion. I can't believe people, especially scientists lost their shit over this

>> No.10418494

>>10418335
the problem with conspiracy theorists, in the case of economics, is their extreme lack of understanding opportunity cost - let alone reservation price or the law of supply and demand.
for example most idiots, even some who have taken econ courses, think a budget line is nothing but managing financial income. Or they think opportunity cost is talking about some accounting cost.
in actuality a lot of the fundamental problems associated to econ comes down to economists inability to accurately determine what opportunity costs people are facing. too many factors, and it becomes redundant; too little and the model doesn't line up. Thankfully most situations you don't have to worry about it, because the price indicates the relevant opportunity costs - hence the "don't mess with the market prices" arguments. Yet when the model does not line up, or unintended consequences arrive because economists tampered with things, they proclaim society is wrong and needs to be corrected - not the model. After all, THEY are smart and people who are living their lives are dumb (for some reason).
Econ is easily managed on a micro scale (households/firms). MUCH harder on a macro scale (entire nations over 4 to 5 year periods).
Moreover, there is a difference between positive econ and normative econ - which people fail at distinguishing the difference.
Econ, at its core, is the study of opportunity costs - everything follows from it. All other topics are just corollary to opportunity costs. Econ is about trying to put yourself into other people's shoes. To do so accurately is where econ becomes an "art".

>> No.10418500

>>10418490
It's pretty filled with bias and malice. You're a /pol/ shitposter which puts your i q at around 60-70, which is why you have no reading comprehension.

>> No.10418643

>>10418240
>Why do you think there has been no definitive study that will answer the question of race and IQ once and for all
Serious question, who do you think would be willing to provide the funding for such a study?

>> No.10418656

>>10418304
>pretty sure boltzmann and einstein didn't
This has to bait, no one could be this stupid and still capable of breathing

>> No.10418725

>>10417963
>>he thinks most scientists from all around the world engage in conspiracies with one another to cover up real science and instead promote fictitious science

No, but if you publish certain shit, they literally ruin your career, and people tend to notice that sort of shit, so certain subjects are taboo...

questioning Einstein for example will get your life destroyed.