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

©2025 Poal.co

126

(post is archived)

[–] • 12 pts 3y

That's what happens when you abandon the scientific method.

[–] • 6 pts 3y

Nonono boomer get with the times. We use the PROGRESSIVE scientific model now. Where WE decide the outcome first; THEN test until we get the desired outcome. This new progressive model no longer marginalize the BIPOC and EMPOWER them to get the outcome they DESERVE.

NO more will we rely on the institutionalized RACIST scientific model.

Now get the JAB you filthy goyem. It went through RIGOROUS progressive science.

[–] • 3 pts 3y

And since there is no such thing as an objective truth (a central tenant of critical theory), then it is fruitless to try to find a single outcome. Instead it's FAR more important to use science to de-marginalize PoC.

... And then for no reason at all, scientific progress ground to a halt.

[–] • 4 pts 3y

Being serious now I actually think about this quite often. How long will it take for the charade to be exposed? How many studies are using these false science results and building new thesis with the same toxic scientific model? It's quite ironic that in the age of information people are STILL FUCKING WILLING to follow the narrative rather then face the hard truths.

It changed my opinion to voting should not be a right but a privilege achieved by success (owning land or net tax paid). I think the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they made land ownership a prerequisite for voting. People truly do not deserve to have influence in a system if they do not contribute positively to it.

[–] • 1 pt 3y

Or a field that's not science to begin with.

[–] • 0 pt 3y

Scientific method was created by a Christian, therefore it is bigotry and whiteness.

[–] • 7 pts 3y

The peer review process itself is a joke.

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt 3y
[–] • 7 pts 3y

Funny how it was John Ioannidis who brought this to everyone's attention almost 20 years ago with his 2005 paper, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." If you don't recognize his name, he's a professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at Stanford who has been a vocal opponent of lockdowns to combat COVID-19(statnews.com).

[–] • 5 pts 3y (edited 3y)

Today's worship of science is comparable to Christianity during the dark ages.

[–] • 4 pts 3y (edited 3y)

No. Science the process should be worshiped. It is the only way to reliably obtain knowledge about that which is observable and measurable. Science the human institution today has been infiltrated by not so smart ideologues who saw the awesome power of science as something that could be manipulated to their own ends. That's why so much social science can't even be replicated: because it's made up to force the desired result. Their stupidity being that they don't realize that the great power of science comes from its objective truth, and to remove the objectivity removes the power.

The power of the process of science comes from debate and scrutiny, things which are anathema to ideologues.

[–] • 5 pts 3y

Granted, one advantage science has over religion is that claims should be verifiable; problem is that nobody fact check "the science". Or maybe they do, but we just aren't allowed to hear the dissent.

Right now, we live in a version of the dark ages where "scientists" play the role of priests; they decide what people must believe in order to be considered decent citizens.

[–] • 2 pts 3y

This is true. It used to be confined to the press, but now a lot of journals have been infiltrated and engage in the same practices. It's almost always by women, usually jewish.

[–] • 2 pts 3y

All the money to prove an politically charged idea.

No money to disprove an idea studies

Money is paid to scientists upon publishing.

Non refundandle payouts even if study is found to be flawed.

No money for peer reviewing.

Studies are interpreted by non scientists then announced to the public

[–] • 1 pt 3y

The scientific process is the key here. Not scientists. Everyone can engage in science at varying levels. Scientists shouldn't be trusted, only results that people from different groups verify.

[–] • 1 pt 3y

Right now, we live in a version of the dark ages...

The Dark Age persists only so long as the proper MODEL is condoned. E.g., the last Dark Age, along with the legitimacy of its promoters, was overturned by the MODEL of Heliocentrism, and by this alone. One model effectively exposed the entire system as fraudulent.

Today, the fraud of academia is fully exposed by their condoning and refusal to even address the CTMU Reality Model, which is wholly analogous to Heliocentrism during the last Dark Age.

[–] • 1 pt 3y (edited 3y)

The scientific method is virtually irrelevant in-lieu of a valid MODEL upon which theorization is based. For reference, a Model is the aspect of a Theory by which "truth values" of statements are (unambiguously) exhibited.

In essence, the only "model" we get is political, where the "Academic" interpretation (sic) of any Theory IS the very MODEL we're supposed to swallow wholly and uncritically. In the context of "vaccines", we can clearly see where the lack of a valid model has taken humanity.

The CTMU is the only possible scientific "Model" of reality, just like Heliocentrism is the only possible model of Solar Systems. Note that "epicycles" are more elegant than circular orbits, perhaps as "strings" and "dark" forces and matter are more elegant than a straightforward Information-theoretic approach to Reality Modeling. Today, just as during the last Dark Age period, the "system" and its accredited "elites" will shill for the Political model, with "the system" (and elites) conveniently being the only Model implied.

" Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). " CTMU, 1st sentence.

Where "perception" is the scientific reality model (ie, where perception alone exhibits truth), there's no room for political sway, elitism, or authoritarianism in exhibiting the "truth value" of statements. Where anything else is the "model" (ie, where anything else exhibits truth), it's purely political grandstanding and pretense to tyranny, like we get with today's incessant propaganda.

It's noteworthy the only thing that could have stopped the last dark age was the Helioocentric model, and likewise today the only thing which can stop the tyranny is widespread realization of the CTMU model, which I suppose means we're doomed this time around. (Edit: multiple conflations of Geo/Heliocentrism)

↓ expand content
[–] • 1 pt 3y (edited 3y)

Science is nothing without scientists. Scientists are humans. Humans are corrupt and flawed.

Ergo science is corruptable and flawed.

The power of the process of science comes from debate and scrutiny, things which are anathema to ideologues.

Yeah just how does this bs belief tie in with muh science concensus? Or paid review? Or that journals hiding public paid for studies behind subscription pay walls? Or that concensus and public science comes from studies and not post peer review of studies? Or that when money is granted to prove an hypothesis studies appear proving hypothesis on demand?

Don't you fuking dare think that science isn't just another competing religion.

[–] • -1 pt 3y

Science isn't a religion except in the delusions of people who view at as opposing their religion.

[–] • 5 pts 3y

Ironically, the one area of social science not suffering from this is IQ research. Really.

[–] • 4 pts 3y

"Unreproducible experimental work" = blatant lies. Welcome to the new dark ages everyone.

[–] • 2 pts 3y

Ask why usa medical science has its trials carried out in third world shit holes.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts 3y

Just declare "replicatability" racist and "peer review" a manifestation of white privilege.

Problem solved. /sarc <- if you need this, there is no hope for you

[–] • 2 pts 3y

Most researchers are retards whose IQ doesn't even reach 130 and so they have to make up everything they publish until an intelligent person happens to run into their paper or they get tenure, whatever happens first.

[–] • 1 pt 3y

I see POALsters spinning their wheels in the Comment section. The problem with scientific debates is that without a meaningful REALITY MODEL, the entire debate amounts to a dick-measuring contest, with the Lib/Commies always winning.

The best explanation is via allegory, with the last time the human race was stuck in a Dark Age scenario. Prior to Galileo, ALL of the Academic elites and authority figures in the Western World advocated Geocentrism, while they exiled Galileo et al for advocating the truth.

Without a Heliocentric model, we'd never get a Theory of Gravity. In lieu of Heliocentrism, we'd only get elaborate ruses such as "epicycles", analogous to today's make-believe theories of "strings" or "Dark" matter and energy. These are literally "hocus pocus" phrases with ZERO meaningful interpretation yet they're routinely espoused by the so-called "experts" and "authorities" on the matter.

Without science, namely proper scientific modeling, we're just a bunch of grunting cavemen. When the "right wing" solution to fraudulent science is to say "God Wins" or some other meaningless platitude, the Left wins the debate by default.

There's no "left/right" solution to such a conundrum, as the "right" side of the equation is just there to cuck to what the left dictates, as per an actual equation (e.g., 1+1=2, where the right side of the equation "...=X" is entirely derived from the left-side). At least with pure math we have some agreed-upon axioms, but even these are woefully incomplete to describe anything beyond math.

The extensions to mathematical logic required to derive a coherent, scientific THEORY OF REALITY are formalized and outlined in the CTMU by Chris Langan. (which is of-coursed, banned from Facebook). Only via CTMU modeling can a reality model be inclusive of Life, Consciousness, and Biological Evolution. No "materialistic" or strictly academic account can explain such issues. http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf

The alternative to a coherent REALITY MODEL is political servitude to dictators. Without Galileo, we'd still be living in grass huts paying tribute to feudal lords, thinking the Earth was flat and the Sun & planets all orbited our planet. This is what the Left wants to return to, while the religious-Right will simply negotiate for a place at the Dark Age table, perpetually failing to even comprehend the issue, let alone address it.

↓ expand content
[–] • 1 pt 3y

Like gender theory or anything related to COVID.

[–] • 1 pt 3y

The replication crisis most severely affects the social sciences and medicine, while survey data strongly indicates that all of the natural sciences are probably implicated as well.

probably

Load more (10 replies)