Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Thot Leader · 10-15-2018 10:33 PM

Roosh has talked about this and I think it merits some discussion. I constantly see fake news headlines boldly declaring that some bullshit leftist talking point has been "scientifically proven" (to be fair, the right does the same thing, but they don't have anywhere near the influence in the media or academia, so the societal damage is far less).

People seem to be invoking science as if it is truth beyond question, making it the new religion. All it takes are some basic critical thinking skills to take these "scientific" claims to the wood chipper of reason and evidence, yet almost no one is. This nonsense is being peddled by major publications (and schools, of course) and as a result, I'm hearing it more and more in my personal life. People point like monkeys at these headlines, showing deference to false idols, and will scorn anyone who dares criticize. Scientism represents the apex of the inversion of reality I've heard red pillers and right wingers talk about the cultural left foisting upon society.

An example in today's news is Elizabeth Warren's DNA test "proving" her Native American ancestry. Here's how Time spun it:

Quote:Elizabeth Warren Just Shared a DNA Test Showing She Has Native American Ancestry

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren published a DNA test on Monday that she says shows that her claims to Native American ancestry have a basis in fact.

President Donald Trump has alleged that Warren, seen as a potential presidential competitor in 2020, used false claims about her heritage to advance her career as a lawyer. He has dubbed Warren the “fake Pocahontas.”

“She used the fact that she was Native American to advance her career,” Trump has said. “Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud. I know it. Other people who work with her know it.”

“I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” Trump said in July. “I have a feeling she will say no.”

Warren shared a video and a website of testimonials from her colleagues at Harvard University and elsewhere saying her ancestry had no impact on her hiring. Those testimonials support an investigation done by The Boston Globe which concluded, “At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.”

Dr. Carlos Bustamante, a professor of genetics at Stanford University, said an analysis of Warren’s genome turned up evidence of Native American ancestry.

“In the senator’s genome, we did find five segments of Native American ancestry, with very high confidence, where we believe the error rate is less than one in 1,000,” Dr. Bustamante says in a video shared by Warren on Twitter.

“This isn’t just about casual racism,” said Warren. “Native communities have faced discrimination, neglect and violence for generations. And Trump can say whatever he wants about me, but mocking Native Americans or any group in order to try and get at me? That’s not what America stands for.”

Notice the structure and wording. Most of the article is spent explaining how Trump = awful racist. As for the actual science cited, despite sounding very official it doesn't prove anything: "five segments of Native American Ancestry" apparently means she had one Native American ancestor that lived six to ten generations ago, meaning she's less than 2% Native American, which isn't enough to qualify for status with any Native American tribe. So, the actual science proves Trump's point and disproves the liberal narrative (i.e. Warren's and her supporters' claim). And of course it isn't just Time. CNN's headline: "Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with 'strong evidence' of Native American ancestry".

Other examples of mainstream scientism:

Forbes: Why Women Are Smarter Than Men (it's because women have greater EQ, which of course isn't an actual thing)

Newsweek: Women are better athletes than men, study about gender fitness finds (it's because women's bodies use oxygen more efficiently than men's do. I'm guessing this difference is because women's bodies have less muscle, pound per pound, and so they need less oxygen to perform at max. output. So because women are weaker, they're more efficient, and thus greater athletes)

It's often the case that the science isn't just questionable, it's being used to convince people that unreality is reality. Elizabeth Warren's DNA proves she's NOT an Indian (assuming a real Indian is more than 2%) and women's athletic testing proves they are NOT better athletes (assuming athleticism has anything to do with strength and power). But with a population as dumbed down as ours, you can really get them to believe anything.

Please find and share examples.

BeardedMastodon · 10-15-2018 10:51 PM

I have read a lot of scientific papers where the discussion and conclusion contradict the title of the paper... Chinese ones seem to be the worse.

Caduceus · 10-15-2018 11:22 PM

Most people blindly believe most claims of the modern day "scientism religion" without testing anything themselves.

Obviously you cannot test all the claims that the crazy "science priests" constantly make all by yourself without enough and money and resources, however there are many things you can verify all on your own. One of the most obvious is your own body's reactions to medecines and nutrition/food and removing or adding certain medications/supplements and/or food groups or fasting altogether either part time or long term.

Relations between men and women and interactions between different classes/types and races of people is another type of thing you can easily test yourself. Many of us are here on this forum cause we collectively figured out that the modern "scientific" claims about male-female relations were absolute bullsht, and designed to destroy the natural balance between the 2 sexes.

Built to Fade · 10-16-2018 12:33 AM

Here's a phrase I've heard from a website whose name I've since forgotten. You may choose to believe this statement or not.

Quote:"The modern pharmaceutical industry is nothing more than glorified witchcraft."

_______________________________________________

(10-15-2018 11:22 PM)Caduceus Wrote: Most people blindly believe most claims of the modern day "scientism religion" without testing anything themselves.

Obviously you cannot test all the claims that the crazy "science priests" constantly make all by yourself without enough and money and resources, however there are many things you can verify all on your own. One of the most obvious is your own body's reactions to medecines and nutrition/food and removing or adding certain medications/supplements and/or food groups or fasting altogether either part time or long term.

Relations between men and women and interactions between different classes/types and races of people is another type of thing you can easily test yourself. Many of us are here on this forum cause we collectively figured out that the modern "scientific" claims about male-female relations were absolute bullsht, and designed to destroy the natural balance between the 2 sexes.

It's a known secret that the results of most scientific experiments can't be reproduced. This is one of many articles about the "replication crisis".

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 | Mirror Link: http://archive.is/HM8Gu

Quote:Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'

By Tom Feilden
Science correspondent, Today programme

22 February 2017

Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests.

This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

From his lab at the University of Virginia's Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

"The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results."

You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.

The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.

After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies' findings.

Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.

"It's worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity," says Dr Errington.

Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.

According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.

Marcus Munafo is one of them. Now professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, he almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety.

"I had a crisis of confidence. I thought maybe it's me, maybe I didn't run my study well, maybe I'm not cut out to be a scientist."

The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo's science, but with the way the scientific literature had been "tidied up" to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.

"What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what's actually happened," he says.

"The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.

"What I think of as high-risk, high-return results."

The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."

She says it's about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.

"Everyone has to take a share of the blame," she argues. "The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes."

For its part, the journal Nature is taking steps to address the problem.

It's introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to improve reliability and rigour.

"Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper," says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.

"It is a big problem, but it's something the journals can't tackle on their own. It's going to take a multi-pronged approach involving funders, the institutes, the journals and the researchers."

But we need to be bolder, according to the Edinburgh neuroscientist Prof Malcolm Macleod.

"The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process."

Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper's central hypothesis before publication.

"Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don't know if the facts out there actually represent what's happening in biology or not."

Without knowing whether the published scientific literature is built on solid foundations or sand, he argues, we're wasting both time and money.

"It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments. It's a regrettable situation, but I'm afraid that's the situation we find ourselves in."

_______________________________________________
"The trinity of science is progress, *progress* & `progress`." #124

~~J_Sway~~ · 10-16-2018 12:51 AM

(10-15-2018 10:51 PM)BeardedMastodon Wrote: I have read a lot of scientific papers where the discussion and conclusion contradict the title of the paper... Chinese ones seem to be the worse.

While I personally believe the peer review process to be the best we have for reporting and validating scientific studies, I will also say that it's largely a massive self-congratulatory circlejerk. Chinese peer review... it's a confirmation-bias ridden, manipulated data driven, self-congratulatory orgy that never addresses the fact that most of their studies seem to be mysteriously irreplicable outside of Chinese laboratories.

Simeon_Strangelight · 10-16-2018 03:52 AM

Science and the term scientism is very fitting. Essentially what Scientism does is cherry-picking results for their own political gains.

Scientism works on multiple levels:

+ suppression of unwelcome scientific topics and directions - regardless whether they can be proven and can be replicated or not
+ promotion of agenda-driven elite-desired topics - results are often exaggerated, even faulty, but still get promoted and funded en masse
+ consensus - that is a bullshit term that should not exist - at best it can exist when a hypothesis is as of yet unproven - besides science can always prove an old concept wrong or expand on that - consensus should not even be used in science

Examples of that even if I will get shit for some of the topics:

1) Gender - biological differences between man and woman - unalienable differences
a) this is not only relevant with the current trans-bullshit, but also feminism and strong mental and psychological differences between men and women. IQ distribution is different between the sexes and thus women will never be able to compete with men at the top. But there are also other metrics like risk-taking, mental infatuation with tech subjects, non-people related etc.

2) Climate change / global warming - utter bullshit - pure propagaganda

3) Suppression of a shit-ton of alternative energy generators like geo-magnetic generators, Nitinol (also likely geo-magnetic) etc.

4) Vaccines - there is such a shit-ton of data out there, countless studies, hardly any double-blind comparisons with unvaccinated comparable population groups (there are some and all the studies that publish those data-sets are terrible for the vaccinated populations), faulty study designs, insanely manipulated historical data sets etc.

5) Suppressed medical standards like the axiom of health = nutrients - toxins and not virus being everything - Bechamps - the true inventor of pasteurization was way ahead of that.

That means that in return the medical scientism suppressed important metrics like the need for higher nutrient-density than assumed in the old RDA-studies form the 1950s. Orthomolecular medicine addresses this and is suppressed to this day.

Other suppressed medical technologies:

+ Rife frequency machine for medical treatments - 100% cancer cure
+ Various other cancer cures suppressed

6) Game and psychology of seduction/ relationships - utterly suppressed and should be easily rolled out - when applied, then human couples should have a much more happy time together, but that is what the elite does not want, so no wonder.

You could go on and on - what is suppressed is actually more numerous than what is manipulated and known.

rottenapple · 10-16-2018 04:25 AM

Simeon is there any good source of information, perhaps a website or an author that in-depth details some of those examples of misuse of science and research with concrete examples and analysis?

The problem to me seems that those scientists that do go against the grain of the mainstream do not have platforms to voice their opinions in an effective manner, or at least I don't know of them.

So, if I, for instance, want to investigate the latest science on vaccines in detail, where do I go? I'm not looking for a short article or a forum with discussion, but an actual in-depth non-biased analysis of all the latest evidence generated by a reputed scientist. Where does this exist for those topics you mentioned? If it doesn't, how come there is no rebellious rich guy that finances that with a couple of million? It would be hard to believe there are no more neutral scientific establishments left that are willing to tackle the controversial topics.

ilostabet · 10-16-2018 04:38 AM

Simeon_Strangelight · 10-16-2018 06:17 AM

flanders · 10-16-2018 10:27 AM

(10-16-2018 04:25 AM)rottenapple Wrote: Simeon is there any good source of information, perhaps a website or an author that in-depth details some of those examples of misuse of science and research with concrete examples and analysis?

The problem to me seems that those scientists that do go against the grain of the mainstream do not have platforms to voice their opinions in an effective manner, or at least I don't know of them.

So, if I, for instance, want to investigate the latest science on vaccines in detail, where do I go? I'm not looking for a short article or a forum with discussion, but an actual in-depth non-biased analysis of all the latest evidence generated by a reputed scientist. Where does this exist for those topics you mentioned? If it doesn't, how come there is no rebellious rich guy that finances that with a couple of million? It would be hard to believe there are no more neutral scientific establishments left that are willing to tackle the controversial topics.

I believe Nassim Taleb rails against scientism pretty frequently and if you read his books he'll likely teach you how to spot it properly.

BlueMark · 10-17-2018 05:39 AM

Another aspect of scientism: when scientists and other STEM people leverage their professional status to call for public policy to shape society in ways that they deem appropriate, with no regard for how much of a cost it puts onto the average citizen. Such as:

Doctors who label gun violence a public health issue and then call for more laws on gun ownership, while repeating all the usual misinformation about gun violence (conflating suicides and homicides, ignoring predominance of urban/gang violence, etc).
https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-calls-gun-v...lth-crisis

Quote:"With approximately 30,000 men, women and children dying each year at the barrel of a gun in elementary schools, movie theaters, workplaces, houses of worship and on live television, the United States faces a public health crisis of gun violence," said AMA President Steven J. Stack, M.D. "Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, the Congress prohibits the CDC from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence and determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries. An epidemiological analysis of gun violence is vital so physicians and other health providers, law enforcement, and society at large may be able to prevent injury, death and other harms to society resulting from firearms."

Scientists and engineers who call for the US to adopt the metric system, without any mention of balancing the benefits against the switching costs:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu...-on-board/

Quote:But the metric system is another matter. “I don’t understand why y’all don’t use the metric system” is something I’ve heard too often. I don’t argue with them because there is no technical argument for why we haven’t adopted the Système Internationale – our refusal is based on emotion and familiarity.

Our choice of unit system is perhaps more important now than in recent years. Science is conducted using the language of SI units. If we want to have a scientifically literate populace, we should make sure that scientists and non-scientists speak the same language. In terms of national competitiveness, Americans are competing on a global market of information now more than ever. We are at a disadvantage by not speaking the international language of science at a time when we are struggling with truly global issues like climate change and resource depletion.

Hypno · 10-17-2018 05:47 AM

Homosexuals often point to the idea that their behavior is genetic. But its also non-reproductive, which just demonstrates that its not natural and is a harmful mutation.

[Image: il_570xN.1016257037_cyo6.jpg]

~~J_Sway~~ · 10-17-2018 05:59 AM

Am I the only one that is capable of seeing through Zelc's uncanny ability to post leading questions that, when answered, results in text ad infiintium, the amount of which hardly anyone on this forum has little if any time to peruse.

Are you capable of saying anything novel, or unrelated to baseless quakery?

~~J_Sway~~ · 10-17-2018 06:14 AM

You post your bait, and wait with baited breath until you can post an answer straight from the Zelcorpion Bible. You never say anything new. It's always the same schtick.

~~J_Sway~~ · 10-17-2018 06:16 AM

In the words of Sandler... "You little son of a bitch...! Why you don’t you just go HOME? That’s your HOME! Are you too good for your HOME?"

~~J_Sway~~ · 10-17-2018 06:32 AM

Your goal is to persuade, but you can't, except for brainless newbies.

I've done my research, and, unfortunately, read and watched through most of that nonsense that you linked, years ago. And the only thing any of it convinced me of is that people who think scientism is a thing are the worst possible excuses for real progress, and that this falsity is the worst thing this world could ever face, second only to feminism and Chinese Socialism.

Kona · 10-17-2018 06:36 AM

J-Sway rejects Zelcorpianism.

Aloha!

IveBeenFramed · 10-17-2018 06:39 AM

Damn JSway you could've at least consolidated all of that into a single post.

~~J_Sway~~ · 10-17-2018 06:48 AM

Would've done that if I was on my PC.

Leonard D Neubache · 10-17-2018 06:48 AM

(10-17-2018 05:59 AM)J_Sway Wrote: Am I the only one that is capable of seeing through Zelc's uncanny ability to post leading questions that, when answered, results in text ad infiintium, the amount of which hardly anyone on this forum has little if any time to peruse.

Are you capable of saying anything novel, or unrelated to baseless quakery?

(10-17-2018 06:14 AM)J_Sway Wrote: You post your bait, and wait with baited breath until you can post an answer straight from the Zelcorpion Bible. You never say anything new. It's always the same schtick.

(10-17-2018 06:16 AM)J_Sway Wrote: In the words of Sandler... "You little son of a bitch...! Why you don’t you just go HOME? That’s your HOME! Are you too good for your HOME?"

(10-17-2018 06:32 AM)J_Sway Wrote: Your goal is to persuade, but you can't, except for brainless newbies.

I've done my research, and, unfortunately, read and watched through most of that nonsense that you linked, years ago. And the only thing any of it convinced me of is that people who think scientism is a thing are the worst possible excuses for real progress, and that this falsity is the worst thing this world could ever face, second only to feminism and Chinese Socialism.

Looks like your goal is to artificially inflate your post numbers and try to win brownie points with the local PC mafia, who are getting pretty desperate at this point.

Sad!

p.s. But since you reject scientism and anyone who suggests its existence as "the worst possible excuses for real progress" it's nice to know we have someone on the forum who believes that there are dozens of genders and that 12 year old boys can choose to become 12 year old girls, complete with chemical castration. After all. That is the modern consensus.

66Scorpio · 10-17-2018 06:50 AM

@Bluemark

I tell people "I'm Canadian, so I'm bilingual."

The say: "You speak English and French?"

Me: "No, I speak metric and imperial."

I said that to a young American girl inline and she asks, "What's imperial?"

I say, "Yknow: feet, inches, pounds, miles, gallons. . . "

"Oh", she says, "we call that the standard system."

Only fucking country in the world that uses it and they call it the standard system.

Older measurement systems are based useful, realworld units: feet, fathoms and cubits, for example. A mile is a thousand paces of troops in the march. A furlong is the distance a horse can pull a plow before resting. The Farenheit scale was based in the idea of the hottest and coldest temperatures you would usually encounter in a temperate climate.

The two related measurements that simply refused to to base-10 attached to a rather abstract unit are time and angles. Multiples of 12 are easier to manipulate for normal people in normal settings because 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are all factors. Then 60 is also divisible by 5, and then a year is roughly 360 days long.

Radians have supplanted degrees for some trig calculations but the world resisted calendars and watches going decimal.

IveBeenFramed · 10-17-2018 06:55 AM

(10-17-2018 06:48 AM)J_Sway Wrote: Would've done that if I was on my PC.

Makes sense then.

Thot Leader · 10-17-2018 07:47 AM

(10-17-2018 05:59 AM)J_Sway Wrote: Am I the only one that is capable of seeing through Zelc's uncanny ability to post leading questions that, when answered, results in text ad infiintium, the amount of which hardly anyone on this forum has little if any time to peruse.

Are you capable of saying anything novel, or unrelated to baseless quakery?

Am I the only one who doesn't see where Zelc posted in this thread?

IveBeenFramed · 10-17-2018 07:59 AM

(10-17-2018 07:47 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:
(10-17-2018 05:59 AM)J_Sway Wrote: Am I the only one that is capable of seeing through Zelc's uncanny ability to post leading questions that, when answered, results in text ad infiintium, the amount of which hardly anyone on this forum has little if any time to peruse.

Are you capable of saying anything novel, or unrelated to baseless quakery?

Am I the only one who doesn't see where Zelc posted in this thread?

Zelc is now Simeon_S

debeguiled · 10-17-2018 10:52 AM

(10-17-2018 06:14 AM)J_Sway Wrote: You post your bait, and wait with baited breath until you can post an answer straight from the Zelcorpion Bible. You never say anything new. It's always the same schtick.

You are putting a respected member's contributions in a strange light.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode The Scientism thread
Author	Message