Should we wage meme wars consistently against ALL demonstrably bad science?

We all know academic institutions are publishing peer-reviewed garbage papers on how science has proven there are more than two genders, and such gems as "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct," etc.

But nobody seems to care as much when these same institutions publish utter nonsense in other scientific categories, as long as it doesn't appear to have an immediate effect on society or politics.

But I would argue that we have to be consistent in our memetic ridicule, otherwise academics can always fall back on the age-old defense of "But we're scientists; people have always just trusted everything we say, because we are the authorities who decide what is true or false. We put astronauts on the moon, blah blah blah."

Making memes exposing ridiculousness in other areas of science is actually pretty easy.

It's just a matter of looking for the same types of fallacies we use to debunk the wage gap and other pseudo-scientific nonsense:
- misuse of statistics
- false equivalencies
- appeals to authority
- anecdotal evidence presented as real evidence
- exclusion of important factors
- etc.

Many categories of science are filled with garbage rhetoric these days.
Yet there are a a few categories of science that still practice the scientific method properly, and appear to be robust, rigorous, and vigilant.

Off the top of my head, some categories of GOOD science could be:
- chemistry
- quantum mechanics
- fluid dynamics
- thermodynamics
- etc.

But science gets more sketchy when you get into the "grey" sciences, where the scientific method isn't as robust, and a lot of the conclusions are more subjective.

Some categories of potentially BAD science could be:
- social sciences (possibly psychology, to an extent)
- geology
- archeology
- some areas of biology (dinosaurs are far too large to carry their own weight under Earth's current gravity)
- astrophysics (my personal pet peeve, since I've been studying this in particular)
- etc.

Attached: Saturn_vs_Galaxy.png (1398x1275, 429K)

Most psychology experiments cannot be accurately reproduced. Chinks and Indians mass produce useless "research" that their shit tier "academics" "peer review" and flood our databases with useless drivel. Nobody is addressing these issues.

I'm all for an educated opposition to mainstream pop-science. My parents are both kool-aid-drinking "I believe in Science" types but they don't seem to listen to scientific arguments against conclusions made by Black Science Man. My engineering degree is worth dick all to some people when I disagree with Bill Nye despite our formal education levels being identical.

But what is your complaint with geology? Dating?

>Nobody is addressing these issues.
Jow Forums proably doesnt like him because he shat on iq too though

Attached: nntaleb.jpg (225x225, 6K)

why water stick to glass when small but run off when big????

same water, different react!?

Problems with geology include dating methods, demonstrably incorrect assumptions about geological formations (e.g. craters, mountains, canyons), planetary dynamics, planet formation models, etc.

There are many geologic features that can be reproduced in laboratories and computer simulations, but only when using vastly different models than the "mainstream" view of geology.

Absolutely, starting with wave-particle duality and "Gravity". I mean really, what retard actually thinks that light has a speed and that mass "attracts" things just because??

>It's just a matter of looking for the same types of fallacies we use to debunk the wage gap and other pseudo-scientific nonsense:
>- misuse of statistics
>- false equivalencies
>- appeals to authority
>- anecdotal evidence presented as real evidence
>- exclusion of important factors
>- etc.

So basically what you're saying is that GR, QM aren't actual science.
>quantum mechanics
>a good science
>despite having absolutely no empirical evidence of their particle quackery.
>and making assumptions as the basis of their foundation.

Attached: 1429608177818.png (471x446, 259K)

I like his book on anti-fragility, but he's pretty retarded on most subjects.

That's a pretty poor analogy.

The effect you are describing is explained via robust chemistry and other laboratory sciences.

Assuming you are referring to the original image post, Galaxies and Saturn's rings look completely different, and there is no viable explanation provided other than dark matter, which is laughable as a scientific argument.

Dark matter was published in papers in the mid-1800's, when astronomers found out that the planets violate Newton's model of gravity in their orbits around the sun.

Dark matter is basically CPR for dead or dying theories of gravity.
Resorting to invisible magical unicorn matter is ridiculous, and there are much better explanations for galaxies if you are willing to think outside the box and broaden your perspective a bit.

I've never heard arguments against QM being pesudo-science, but that could be interesting.

I'm definitely against GM these days, it has been debunked six ways till tuesday.

As for the speed of light, speed requires a measurement of distance/time.
So the object in question has to pass through both space and time.
But photons don't pass through time at all, according to relativity.
So how can light have a speed in units of distance/time?

The attraction of "mass" is better explained using the electro-magnetic force at the quantum level, IMO - but that gets into my personal mad theories of quantum gravity, so ...

how is babby formed?

Big mig michi kuku mohatten di see see are layten i di di o poo poo?

Rule #1 of trying to prove against modern science: "If you're going to try and shit on what we THINK we know, don't use popsci trash like NDT as your strawmen."

That being said, questioning science and scientific authority, if done properly, is ALWAYS something that should be done. You learn more by being proven wrong than being proven right and this goes for hard sciences as well.

t. chemist who gets it wrong a'plenty.

Attached: 1545738776563.jpg (1112x978, 193K)

how girl get pregnant?

>I've never heard arguments against QM being pesudo-science, but that could be interesting.
There's none "for" it except arbitrary "particles" they made up. Point to me a "particle". They still haven't done it, nor explain how they're separate/discrete.

>As for the speed of light, speed requires a measurement of distance/time.
Correct, that is assuming that there is such thing as "distance" and "time".

So the object in question has to pass through both space and time.
"pass through". What is space? What "is" time? They're human measurements. They don't actually exist. That's why the whole thing is completely absurd.

>But photons don't pass through time at all, according to relativity.
There is also no proof of a "photon" particle. "Wave particle duality" isn't even classifiable as a "duality" because a "wave" isn't even something to begin with and a "particle" is a little perturbation that they counted in a medium.

>So how can light have a speed in units of distance/time?

>Stop "photon" particle/light from moving
>It ceases to exist because it can't be differentiated from what it is as opposed to what it does.
That's not a speed. It's induced to exist/not exist. With magnetism and electricity.

Attached: lrp7ij5drkh01.png (720x890, 501K)

dude you are lurking on fucking Jow Forums man, im pretty sure you have no clue how space or physics work. go back to larping, kike.

I can't argue with that.
NDT was best I could think of at the time, on short notice.
I'll have to replace him with something better.

they need to do way instain mother>

And I'm not saying Tyson is at all dumb. But he's got too much ego working against him. And ego can and will blind you to the truth. You're much less likely to admit to and learn from being wrong if you have an image you feel the need to protect, as you can imagine.

Citation?
Also, even if I didn't know anything about space or physics, how would that have any effect on the argument I made?

Did some work in Astronomy.

They are literally just jamming two functions together using a convolution. In other words:
>galaxies closer to us observe a linear behavior
>galaxies further away it is nonlinear
>jam a linear function onto a nonlinear function using convolution and call it a day

Trying to build a theory upward from data is fucking impossible.

lmao that made my day

>what retard actually thinks that light has a speed
we know it does based on experiment

>put a bunch of mirrors on a spinning turbine
>put a laser a far distance and point at the spinning mirrors
>when the mirrors perfectly reflect the laser a certain direction you know the time lag is 1 offset of the turbine
>divide distance by time lag, get the speed

we got the speed this way literally over 100 years ago, to very great accuracy

You raise some fair questions but wave particle duality is anwell proven phenomenon exhibited by light. The concious observer seems to cause a change in the pattern witnessed when light passes through slits.

I think you are overstating what physicists claim to know about this phenomenon. Most admit that we don’t understand completely.

Speed of light was calculated by measuring time and distance.

Gravitotational attraction is not a property of mass, but rather a property of space. The masses do not “pull” on each other. It’s more accurate to say that the masses fall towards each other.

The current thought is that mass bends, warps, or distorts space. And that objects moving through space have their trajectory changed by this distortion.

Physics has tons of repeatable experiments helping us know how objects behave, at least what we observe, but why is still unanswered.

Nice bait man. Almost had me

Some astronomer fingered it in the 1600s by observing eclipses of Jupiter’s moons.

95% of astronomy is real and reproducible with enthusiast-tier equipment.

Scientists calling something dark matter shows they're conceding they don't know what it is. The name comes from the gravitational anomalies they observe where it appears to arrange itself in structures independent of visible matter.

A better name for dark matter is strange gravity.

>there are much better explanations for galaxies if you are willing to think outside the box and broaden your perspective a bit

I'm willing to listen to any theory as long as it's well presented. I've seen all of the conspiracy theories firsthand and usually find evidence lacking.

we know it does based on experiment

>put a bunch of mirrors on a spinning turbine
>put a laser a far distance and point at the spinning mirrors
>when the mirrors perfectly reflect the laser a certain direction you know the time lag is 1 offset of the turbine
>divide distance by time lag, get the speed

That's great, now explain to me what "time" is and how it has a basis in reality. In other words, explain how "time" is not something we made up to describe and reproduce the effects of force and motion. Furthermore the "speed of light" is not constant and depends on the medium by which it travels through. Glass for instance "slows light" to a degree. Removing/adding resistance is not speed. You got "speed" because you assumed it was traveling to begin with. It is induced by electricity and magnetism, both of which do not travel whatsoever.

>Speed of light was calculated by measuring time and distance.
Under the assumption that time was a phenomena, yes.

>Gravitotational attraction is not a property of mass, but rather a property of space.
But space has no properties. It's the "shit in space" that has the properties.

>The masses do not “pull” on each other. It’s more accurate to say that the masses fall towards each other
Descriptions are no explanations. "Fall", "attract", all you're doing is describing it. WHY does it fall?

>The current thought is that mass bends, warps, or distorts space. And that objects moving through space have their trajectory changed by this distortion.
I know, which is absurd because "space" ha no properties that allow it to "bend"!

>Physics has tons of repeatable experiments helping us know how objects behave, at least what we observe, but why is still unanswered.
"We don't know , but we can reproduce the effects".


I don't think any of you understand. If you cannot even prove "time" exists then all you're doing is wasting your effort in trying to use something that doesn't exist to explain reality.

Attached: 1526389829644.jpg (750x500, 131K)

>Physics has tons of repeatable experiments helping us know how objects behave, at least what we observe, but why is still unanswered.
There are no repeatable experiments to demonstrate the bending of space-time as you describe.
That theory is untestable in a controlled laboratory setting, which is a huge problem.

If we ever come up with a solid theory of quantum gravitation, it probably won't accommodate general relativity.
It's best to prepare for GM's likely failure, rather than rest easy on the assumption that GM can never fail.

Here's an image of a spiral galaxy being formed using only the electro-magnetic force - gravity not required.
(Granted this is a computer simulation of galaxy sized masses, but this works in physical laboratories as well, plasma chambers.)

Attached: Simulated Plasma Spiral Galaxy.jpg (648x679, 265K)

Tell me what you think of the image in my previous post, showing a spiral galaxy being formed using only the electro-magnetic force.
If this interests you, I could go further into detail.

One common argument I hear is:
>If you can't tell me where the magnetism comes from, then this theory is bogus

Which would be hypocritical, since I could use the same argument to discredit dark matter.