Fake Muslim science miniatures

Fucking LARPers.

I am shocked they would lie. Shocked and horrified.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-fake-miniatures-depicting-islamic-science-are-everywhere

Imagine my shock, dear viewer. Just picture it.

You could blow me down with a feather. Much disappointment in the Establishment.

I used to believe in academia, like Santa.

It’s like Clock Boy but retro forgeries in suspiciously European styles!

I’ve seen so much retconning of the gallery of famous scientists, engineers and inventors to include Muslims, despite zero actual evidence. When you have to invent historical smart people, it makes the recent lack of achievement stand out more? And what happened to your IQ since then? More inbreeding? It isn’t like you were barred from studying or working on it like the women, is it? And what’s with the helplessness then? Why do you need the West bringing you water in the desert if you’re so much fucking smarter than us? Why do you still have survival based problems about various diseases and Biblical style droughts? Why does every place that turns Muslim sink back about 500 years minimum in living standard? Why not have a Muslim sci-fi film and be fucking done with it? Like the cringefest that was Black Panther but beheading someone for making a tapestry of Allah.

Maybe making a tapestry of the beheading of the guy making a tapestry of Allah. How civilized!

Intellectual honesty and openness are racial (heritable) traits the East has never, ever had.
Stop LARPing.

The European dark ages are a myth but the Islamic ones were never over!

They hate heliocentrism, they didn’t invent a fucking telescope to see other stars.

And they don’t get to claim the Ancient Egyptians either, while I’m at it.

Koran is very clear that the Sun revolves around the Earth and we’re the centre of the Universe. Stars cannot be Suns or else it involves awkward questions about gravity.

These people literally die of diarrhea in the current year because they wipe with their hand! They won’t pick up basic hygiene practices other peoples have been doing for thousands of years.

That’s why they fell for the desert nutjob religion. It plays into every animal impulse and condones it, they’re constantly in the news for raping and murdering their own daughters.

https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2017/08/265560/man-who-allegedly-raped-sodomised-own-daughter-600-times-be-charged

They are thick enough to immigrate into a degenerate Western culture and punish their relatives for growing up to emulate it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3832242/Muslim-father-rapes-daughter-Norway-punishment-Westernised.html

no comment

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6244169/Two-week-old-baby-condition-hospital-raped.html

It’s like the Jews claiming to be so fucking smart when they actively chose to settle in the desert then act like God was oppressing them. Sorry, no.

Pathological science

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/03/08/pathological-science/

“Many researchers, even hobbyists and enthusiasts, want for some one result in particular to be true. They’re always on the lookout for data that support their desired conclusion. This is not, by itself, pathological;”

actually experimenter bias is a bias

“but for some who take it to an extreme, it can become that way.”

Money, fame and tenure are on the line, what incentive?

Publish or perish threat?

Your life ruined? Family ashamed? Reputation at stake? What subconscious motive?

Many famous cases of pathological science began as legitimate science, and often the researcher would become distracted by tiny results that suggested an effect when in fact there was none. Belief supplanted objectivity, and the science became pathological science.”

While it shouldn’t be used to deter experimentation, it’s the grand reply to the phrase “established science”, an appeal to authority that doesn’t exist.

e.g.

Smells like social psychology.

Islamophobia, patriarchy (as poltergeist), systemic racism (well, if it’s the system – the evolved system – it can’t be the people in the system), creationism (not that evolution is perfect), global warming by ignore cooling data over decades etc.

Anything heavily political would be pathological science e.g.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/06/20/social-psychology-fraud/

And attitude surveys aren’t science. Seriously. You see an attitude survey, you swerve.

There’s also the problem of finding one thing but claiming another e.g. woman A makes less money than man B, but failing to control for enough other factors and still have a significant gap (above chance) to claim sexism. However, there are sexist pay gaps. Why don’t they study this? Why don’t they follow the proper method? They also apply to men in female-dominant fields too! It’s political because they’d rather lie and do bad science (hurting poor women, ironically) than let men seem like the victims for five minutes!

Pseudoscience is used by self-proclaimed “skeptics” to poison the well against the competition. Team Red will say Team Blue’s work in the same field is “pseudoscience” to boost their chances of getting the finite research grants they compete over. It’s all about the money.

So you’ll find the most successful liars comprise most “celebrity scientists”, the hallmark of scientism (personality cults develop), and when their work is eventually exposed (some Freud, Kinsey not yet, Zimbardo recently) then the world is shocked because echoes don’t pass through Ivory Tower walls. The field knew. It always knew. It hid it.

There’s no such thing as pseudoscience in the sense of a forbidden topic. Distasteful yes, but so what? Do politicians dictate freedom of thought now? No, but they sign grant checks and that’s basically the same thing.

Past a certain level, isn’t commonality of a certain unPC disposition just normal?

Reproduction Crisis only in social psychology?

It sure looks that way. Many of the failures come from that specific area.

They denied away ANY replicable failure for years.

This isn’t something I’m making up but it hasn’t hit mainstream because suppression. It’s commonly known within academic circles.

Here’s an entire paper on it. I don’t think they covered their arses quite enough?

https://www.rips-irsp.com/articles/10.5334/irsp.66/

Over the last few years, psychology researchers have become increasingly preoccupied with the question of whether findings from psychological studies are generally replicable.

forced to pretend you care

The debates have originated from some unfortunate events of scientific misconduct

mistakes were made

in the field, and they have reached a climax with the recent discovery of a relatively weak rate of replicability of published literature,

lots of lies without liars

leading to the so-called replicability crisis in psychology. 

so-called problem in a science funded by the taxpayer

The present paper is concerned with examining the issue of replicability in the field of social psychology.

where most failure is, as if by magic!

We begin by drawing a state of the art of the crisis in this field.

lotta people need to get fired

We then highlight some possible causes for the crisis, discussing topics of statistical power, questionable research practices, publication standards, and hidden auxiliary assumptions of context-dependency of social psychological theories.

Nurture =/= making shit up.

Sociologist’s fallacy also comes into play.

Finally, we argue that given the absence of absolute falsification in science, social psychology could greatly benefit from adopting McGuire’s perspectivist approach to knowledge construction.

Let us have some creative license, like theoretical physics!

Without postmodernism, we’d have to get a real job!

Another paper because someone, somewhere will claim I’m imagining things.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621/full

A dude who feels threatened intellectually.

The (latest) crisis in confidence in social psychology has generated much heated discussion about the importance of replication, including how it should be carried out as well as interpreted by scholars in the field. For example, what does it mean if a replication attempt “fails”

what is a red hand, really?

You were caught red-handed. “Oh, it isn’t crimson, it’s scarlet!”

does it mean that the original results, or the theory that predicted them, have been falsified?

Really.

What is a lie? That’s where you are going with this?

And how should “failed” replications

bitchy quote marks, I know thee well

affect

your money?

our belief in the validity of the original research?

trans. We said it so fuck you. It’s true.

In this paper, we consider the replication debate from a historical and philosophical perspective, and provide a conceptual analysis of both replication and falsification as they pertain to this important discussion.

If we talk long enough, we can talk our way out of this!

Lying in a professional role is up for debate!

Along the way, we highlight the importance of auxiliary assumptions (for both testing theories and attempting replications), and introduce a Bayesian framework for assessing “failed” replications in terms of how they should affect our confidence in original findings.

trans. You should trust us anyway, fuck your data. Something something Bayesian.

Hint: that isn’t how Bayesian models work?

Bayesian models are predictive.

The whole point is you predict nothing real. Re-train for climate science.

https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-016-0135-2

Why did this take so long to come out? Well, they were hiding it.

Modern psychology is apparently in crisis and the prevailing view is that this partly reflects an inability to replicate past findings.

No, it’s about people who clearly fudged their data then published it. The replication proved this after the fact.

If a crisis does exists, then it is some kind of ‘chronic’ crisis, as psychologists have been censuring themselves over replicability for decades.

no need to take our monies away, taxpayers!

While the debate in psychology is not new,

public admission is

the lack of progress across the decades is disappointing.

Deliberate and to be expected.

Recently though, we have seen a veritable surfeit of debate alongside multiple orchestrated and well-publicised replication initiatives.

Blame the skeptics!

Doubt is a sin!

The spotlight is being shone on certain areas and although not everyone agrees on how we should interpret the outcomes, the debate is happening and impassioned. The issue of reproducibility occupies a central place in our whig history of psychology.

We fucked up, majorly. We’re hoping to pretend this is ongoing, normal and nothing to react to.

Before

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-crisis-in-social-psychology-that-isnt

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/psychology-replications/home

No Evidence for a Replicability Crisis in Psychological Science

https://www.nature.com/news/psychology-s-reproducibility-problem-is-exaggerated-say-psychologists-1.19498

Ten Famous Psychology Findings That It’s Been Difficult To Replicate

 

 

Comic: Everything wrong with STEM

I made this.

I’m tired of the lies.

Fight me with your shitty string theories and un-predictive climate models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Best is the 9/10 MIT tries to pass off ancient science as ‘radical innovation’.
You, American taxpayer, are paying for their ego trips. Here’s some wi-fi pin art.

https://www.sciencemuseumshop.co.uk/exhibition-ranges/wonderlab-collection/wonderlab-forces/science_museum_pin_art.htm

It’s getting like modern art.
If you disapprove of the misuse of funds, you just don’t understand it because you’re stupid, right?

Creative people know most of what they make e.g. author first drafts, sucks. It completely sucks. You have to embrace the suck. Unless you’re being state subsidized to suck.

The problem with intelligence signalling

Someone can come along and ask for your proof.

[Assuming they can’t easily google it.]

Browse tfw to intelligent and you’ll quickly realize about half the posts have a good point the idiot reading rejects out of hand. They don’t notice shades of grey. It’s like the I Fucking Love Science people who always assume the popular consensus on a topic’s labelling (there is no pseudoscience, there are only disproven former theories) are objective, timeless fact. See: how most astrology is actually astronomy, and astronomy ripped it off.

If they bothered to google it, the whole world runs on cycle.
Plot twist: we’re part of that natural world.
http://www.near-death.com/paranormal/astrology/scientific-evidence-suggestive-of-astrology.html

This applies to internet subcults.

e.g. The literal Man Card, I win argument.

21st century American men are smarter than all women ever, it’s science!

Note: an intelligent person would still notice they’re valuing themselves based on a measurement in comparison to women as the standard. A still-smarter person would note they’re measuring themselves and class is a bigger factor, as is race.

to quote a random internet comment

as you do

“Science isn’t a consensus, if it was, a person with a lot of money could hire people with degrees and get them to say anything they want.”

The problem with credentials. They become priests with a different scroll.
They talk of rent controls, what of education controls? Renting is always useful.

Yeah, like white supremacy.

Right, Tyson?