Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

439

Trust science, actual science, an epistemological process that you know how it works and why you should not trust some magazine report of the results of a single study.

Most study results are going to be false or misleading, this is why we have peer review and meta-data analysis.

One study could be done 100% honestly and with a good methodology (including a large and varied sample, with subgroups within the sample marked so that their results could be isolated, and uses control groups to measure the results against) could result in a body of data that is not actually representative of the actual reality.

You could have an anomalous result, and so you need to do the same study, over and over, to vindicate your findings, and conclusions, and you need to have others replicate your study in order to vett your work as authentic, not flawed, and lacking misconduct.

Over 70% of studies on any subject in any field of science will have their findings and conclusion overturned soon after they are submitted and published, peer-review and meta-analysis are the best tools that science has, while science is guess and check (make a prediction, and perform an experiment to attempt to falsify your own predictions), peer-review is both a guess and check of guess and check, and a way to keep people honest by DOUBTING THE EXPERTS (NOT ""TRUSTING THEM").

TRUST AND FAITH HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE.

Trust science, actual science, an epistemological process that you know how it works and why you should not trust some magazine report of the results of a single study. Most study results are going to be false or misleading, this is why we have peer review and meta-data analysis. One study could be done 100% honestly and with a good methodology (including a large and varied sample, with subgroups within the sample marked so that their results could be isolated, and uses control groups to measure the results against) could result in a body of data that is not actually representative of the actual reality. You could have an anomalous result, and so you need to do the same study, over and over, to vindicate your findings, and conclusions, and you need to have others replicate your study in order to vett your work as authentic, not flawed, and lacking misconduct. Over 70% of studies on any subject in any field of science will have their findings and conclusion overturned soon after they are submitted and published, peer-review and meta-analysis are the best tools that science has, while science is guess and check (make a prediction, and perform an experiment to attempt to falsify your own predictions), peer-review is both a guess and check of guess and check, and a way to keep people honest by DOUBTING THE EXPERTS (NOT ""TRUSTING THEM"). TRUST AND FAITH HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

Science is 100% co-opted. I always like to pretend how modern "science" would handle emergent health problems in the past, like asbestos. I can imagine "conspiracy theorists" online saying a modern asbestos is dangerous and causes all these problems, with modern "science fans" saying there's no proof it's dangerous and saying it has all these benefits.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

We really got to do something about that, it's sure sign of the decline of our culture and how far it's fallen when people deny science and consider it as an act of fighting against science denial.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

The problem now is the system is corrupt as hell and when others try to replicate results and fail they don't report it and peer review supports papers based on leftist ideology now. Modern science is dead. "Scientists" work for corrupt government and megacorporations and the "scientific" journals are all owned and controlled by jews.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Yes, which is why we need to build a university in our places (be they the ethnostates or innawoods off-grid communities), and do the research ourselves, we make our own scientists, we make our own scientific communities, we do the work that they wont, and we do it better, and we must have guardians of science, who find corruption within the institution and punish it harshly, like with imprisonment or even execution, this can be justified in that truth is the foundation of any society, and the corruption of truth is the root of all other corruption to follow (there is a reason that the jews go for universities first).

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

agreed, the new (old as time itself) fad is to call what is clearly hearsay "science"

There is no 'trust' required to practice science. You can trust results, things like that, but no interpersonal trust is required.

Being led by your nose.... that requires trust.

MrScienceMan: "Trust no one, verify independently or it never happened"

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I don't trust the science, the peer review or the 'meta'anaysis'....it's all bullshit words...the truth is much simpler and can be discerned straight from nature

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Through observation, right? Do you modify your initial assumptions with subsequent observations? Science is just a more formalized form of that. Its an alternative to the idea of a "revealed knowledge" that can be gained through "divine inspiration" aka pure religion based epistemology or "logical reasoning" aka pure philosophy based epistemology.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

just cuz you get 100 fags to sign a paper and call it peer meta facts...dont make it shit. Shit is much simpler than u realize. You believe in evolution , you dream and expect change, you dream of space...but if you knew the earth was flat and evilution is whack and cancer has been cured 100 different ways you would understand more easily

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Just say "I'm a paid shill pretending to be a Christian on order to disrupt the site with infighting" and be done with it.