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

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

(post is archived)

[–] • 12 pts

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

[–] • 6 pts

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

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

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

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

[–] • 0 pt

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

[–] • 7 pts

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.

[–] • 7 pts

The peer review process itself is a joke.

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt
[–] • 5 pts (edited )

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

[–] • 4 pts (edited )

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

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

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

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

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

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 (edited )

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)

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

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

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

[–] • 5 pts

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

[–] • 4 pts

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

[–] • 2 pts

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

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

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

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

Like gender theory or anything related to COVID.

[–] • 1 pt

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

[–] • 1 pt

I am a scientist. I agree, this is an enormous problem and heralding our transition into a neo-darkage. Scientists are in a position where they have to deal with midwit bureaucrats. And bureaucrats don't know the difference between science and what's touted as science in the media. So it creates an environment where scientists are valued by the quantity of publications they've created, rather than the quality.

The incentive for scientists is then publishing a large number of novel results, whether accurate or not. Because if you don't publish, your career ends. If you do publish, you publish trash that gets in the news because what should take 5 years has to be done in 1 (otherwise you don't have enough publications).

The only way to move past this is to create a national institute that only replicates studies. They won't get every one, but it would be a great job for people who complete graduate school and are looking for a job at a national lab. The big red rubber stamp of 'failed replication' would tank any scientists career.

The only way to create a national institute of replication is to get tens of billions of dollars from the Federal government. And no one will be willing to pay for it. Because we have lawyers and bureaucrats in charge. Not scientists. If the NIR is not created, and the incentive structure does not change... our technological development will cease, globally. The oligarchs are trying to collect as much power as they can before this neo-darkage begins. A few are trying to build life-boats, Musk, Bezos, etc.

[–] • 1 pt

"The only way to move past this is to create a national institute that only replicates studies". We don't need another government bureaucracy to eventually be co-opted by business. What we need is for replication to be a requirement for peer review. Your grant must include funding for independent replication of the study as a requirement for peer review. There still is opportunity for collusion, but it would be a significant start. This would also provide huge amounts of work for graduate students.

[–] • 1 pt

An ideal option would be fore replication to be a requirement... the result, however, is just that journals that don't require replication will be the most popular. You need to alter the incentive structure.

[–] • 1 pt

Exactly, we need to remove the bureaucratic middle-men acting on the behalf of conglomerates and their financial desires. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Load more (10 replies)