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?

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?

 

The Left’s lies about sex and gender

This has been requested for a while but I think it’s such a simple case of provable linguistic (written evidence!) fraud I hadn’t bothered. Until I saw what they’re using it for.

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

Inspired by this new form of child grooming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420203/Are-gender-fluid-demi-girl-intersex.html that outright lies about the basic meaning of words and asks intimate questions of minors that would get anyone else arrested.

The form of gender they use applies to grammar (words, objects), not people. 

e.g.  la baguette, une baguette

https://frenchsanstears.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/gender-issues/

Even then, this refers to masculine or feminine pronouns.

It comes from ‘genus’, a biological taxonomic classification, causing some confusion with sex.

genderorigin

To make medical documents more polite, gender slowly replaced sex (noun) in many parts of the West, especially America. It also prevented those idiots who write in things like ‘yes, please’.

Hence in America, you see a new definition added, which is the same as sex.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

Considering who English really belongs to (the English people), the American terms do not have definitive supremacy, that would be cultural appropriation, although culturally they are considered relevant (to deconstruct in debate and ignore).

Note how, even in the MW dictionary, this novel form is the secondary meaning.

Compare with the English definition of the English word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gender

This is the dictionary that recently included emoji. They cave.

Yet we see an interesting pushback by the etymologists.

Grammar is pushed down (as it’s less frequently used in this manner) and it reads “Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.” An acknowledgement that they are not, in fact, synonymous. The use is social, not factual.

It is only considered comparable, by definition, in sum (as a mass or count noun). As in, gender taken as male or female cannot apply to individuals.

We see another guideline for this colloquial usage (casual, informal) in “typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones”, a snide passing reference to its use in psychology (generally true) and sociology (generally bollocks).

Many people are unaware of this but all sciences (and soft sciences) have their own dictionaries. These are not the true or common meanings, they are niche and limited to discussion within the field itself. Hence the importance before any debate or academic discussion of Defining One’s Terms.

Let’s keep this above board, shall we? Gold standard.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067

Under ‘gender’:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067-e-3412?rskey=gJ0Epo&result=1

“Non-technically, a synonym for sex” – the psychological definition of gender.

What does it means then, technically? As a variable?
Gender is simply the degree to which one is masculine or feminine. That is it, in psychology. That is 100% true and I’ve never seen anyone dispute it.
Bem’s Gender Role Inventory: http://personality-testing.info/tests/OSRI/
The confusion began with the fraud Kinsey, who conflated it with sexuality in his methodology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
Yet sexuality is a behaviour, under sexology, and gender is innate (lack of gender is impossible) mode of cognition with the slightest fluctuations over lifespan.

Under ‘sex’, for clarification:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067-e-7553?rskey=q6fcIS&result=1

“Either of the categories of male and female or the sum total of biological attributes” – the psychological definition of sex.

Let’s summarize.

Psychology: sex = male or female. Physiological. Based on anatomy and biology (chromosomes).
Psychology: gender = masculine or feminine. Psychological. Based on cognition (motivation) and behaviour.

I’m more willing to trust the psychologists on matters psychological, aren’t you?

As the APA admits despite the pressure to cave to sociology in ‘gender’, sex is strictly biological.
https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. These are the psychological definitions of psychological constructs.

Onto the murky unfalsifiable (unscientific) world of sociology.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008

Under ‘gender’. When I searched, no less than eight pages came up, most nothing to do with the word. It’s like they’re trying to hide something…
It doesn’t actually have a clean, given definition of gender, which isn’t alarming at all considering how often they use it for rentseeking. This is the closest thing it has.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/search?source=%2F10.1093%2Facref%2F9780199533008.001.0001%2Facref-9780199533008&q=gender

The definition, if it exists, lives behind a paywall.

Under ‘sex’, this is the closest.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008-e-2075?rskey=APqgzF&result=4

Apparently, in sociology, sex actually means sexuality. Kinsey, it seems, was a sociologist.

Fine, I’ll give them one more chance.

Blackwell. http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/

The closest I can find to either, among the fog of gender bias, gender oppression and the like, is this.
http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?query=gender&widen=1&result_number=9&from=search&id=g9781405124331_yr2015_chunk_g978140512433125_ss1-81&type=std&fuzzy=0&slop=1
An opinion piece.

Often confused or used as if the terms were the same, sex and gender are in actuality different designations of human behavior based on physical capabilities and social expectations.

Fine so far… not (external) expectations, it’s endogenous cognition, but okay…
Unless you wanna argue that monkeys and other non-human primates, that exhibit the same gender differences, have verbal expectations and Patriarchy: http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/

Sex is related to the biological distinctions between males and females primarily found in relation to the reproductive functions of their bodies.

Implicit admission of non-gonadal sex differences.
Wait for it…

Biological sex is usually stated as if there are two, and only two, distinct bodies: male and female. But, in fact, there are gradations between male and female accounting for at least five sexes.

There it is.
That’s why psychologists laugh at sociologists and get offended (fairly) if you confuse the two. Why not four? Why not six? Opinion. Pure, contrived, subjective bullshit.

It goes on in such an embarrassing way a small child could call their bluff.

Sex is not a clear-cut matter of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that produce females and males. All humans have hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone, but they are found in varying and changing levels ( Fausto-Sterling 1999 ; Kimmel 2004 ). Men as well as women have breasts. Some men have bigger breasts than some women and some men get breast cancer….

I think the medical field would dispute. This is an irrational definition.
That’s like saying, chickens have legs, you have legs, you are a chicken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)#Affirming_the_consequent

If you stay on the SJW haven of wikipedia:

Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.

The pedophile who forced two brothers to engage in sex play and kept photographs.
The academic ‘authority’ for the type of ‘campaign’ above.

go on moss popcorn

Gender was seen as a role because behaviour is easier to measure and harder to fake, it isn’t all of what gender entails, but the final product of the motivation and thought process that leads to decision making and external action, and takes after behaviourism, which was popular at the time. Nowadays, we can watch that thought process in real time, synapse to synapse, yet these people cling to their nonsense words like Christians to the Holy Spirit. Gender is their Ghost of Patriarchy.

It is easy to fake what kind of special snowflake one is. Pink? Purple? Blue? Tri/bi/a/fluid? Cultural Marxism wages a battle of acceptance in popular culture for these linguistic falsehoods, contrary to reality but believed in fervently by its worshipers. At least Christians aren’t claiming the Holy Ghost is a science and bleeding the taxpayer.

However, Money’s meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender.

You can actually blame the feminists themselves for making it up. Their supposed support for their word definitions are… themselves. It’s circular reasoning at its ugliest.

The psychological definition of gender has historical eminence, as noted:

However, examples of the use of gender to refer to masculinity and femininity as types are found throughout the history of Modern English (from about the 14th century).

Why would they do this? Why would they lie?

The definition of a nuclear family becomes amenable to distortions.

All this talk of sex and sexuality is bluster, a ruse to prevent discussion and even definition and scientific study of masculinity and femininity. Feminists (sociology’s nu!gender theorists) are deliberately failing to cover masculinity unless preceded by the word ‘toxic’ but it is the word femininity which goes unspoken like Lord Voldemort. Femininity, that they fear to even discuss, that they shroud even in their dictionaries and insular definitions.

Try to take solace in the echo chambers because one day their wifi will die

Here is something I have done you might want to try if you don’t believe me.

Homework: when confronted with a (3rd wave) feminist, let them finish, let them wind down and look serious and concerned. With a grave expression, say something like “I have a question, since you’re a feminist, you must be an expert… What makes a feminist, feminine?

*mic drop, as they twist themselves into a pretzel of logical fallacies*

When they desperately ask you a question on a tangent or to change the subject, ask the very simple question again, emphasis how simple it is and watch them trigger themselves into an amygdala hijacking rage. They don’t know. They don’t know what femininity is. This is their weakness, publicly exposed. That’s why they chose to call it that, hoping nobody would ever ask. They claimed the ground they feared others would use to strengthen the hearth of the nuclear family. 

It’s been a pleasure shitposting with you.

The Rise of Scientific Fundamentalism

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/rise-scientific-fundamentalism

Regardless of your opinion on typical hot-button issues, they do have a good point.

One such minority is a growing community of scientific skeptics who see themselves as the guardians of science, ready to protect it from imaginary forms of scientific blasphemy or, as skeptics call it, pseudoscience. Organized skepticism is fast becoming a malignant force that masquerades as science but functions as a very deceptive and effective form of scientific thought police. Its purpose is to undermine all perceived threats to what it believes to be the one and only true form of legitimate science. [DS: appeal to authority] In the process of attacking, among other things, holistic therapies like homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, and even nutrition, skeptics inadvertently besmirch the reputation and credibility of genuine science itself.

Prevention in medicine is better than cure, but a LOT cheaper…
They’re status signalling without doing any science themselves. Science is a process, you do it. How many of them run studies? Zero. That’s why they talk about it. They can’t do it. They aren’t intelligent enough, so they bow to the cult of ‘Science Celebrity’ and share stupid pictures based on specious conclusions or tortured statistics.

It is important to understand how and why we have come to this impasse. Most people are not aware of the differences between science, pseudoscience, and scientism. Even the most well educated, including many scientists themselves, are not familiar with the issues involved. [DS: true in my experience I have had to explain the thought traps] The culture war between science and religion, also known as the science wars, is largely a function of misinformation. At bottom, it is a function of a blurring of the lines between scientific fact and scientific faith….

Basic thought traps;

1. I will always be right on subject X regardless of new data.

2. I have personal attachment for this theory and my feelings convince me it is true although I don’t trust ‘intuition’ (usually argue it doesn’t exist as conviction) and have no similar Sciencey-Sense when it comes to a neutral topic which hasn’t been decided in the popular eye (a social risk, wrong side of history blah blah blah).

3. Theories don’t really change, they evolve (one word: Kuhn). Hence I’ll never be wrong, really.

4. Let’s pour government money into one side of the hypothesis because the people paid to study it call it Very Important Work.

5. Insult people who disagree with you e.g. baby-killer.

6. Refute negative evidence e.g. “All swans are white”, “Here’s a black one”, “No it isn’t excuses excuses I don’t see it.”

7. Let’s force everyone to act as though they agree with me for the Greater Good (authoritarian bigotry).

As you can see, these are lovely people to be around.

go on moss popcorn

My short version of this explanation is;

science – process, numbers, data, correction, paradigm, logic, heartless

pseudoscience – failing to apply the above and calling it science (actually very rare), does NOT apply to unpopular ideas which follow the proper methods, you don’t have to like a subject to count it

scientism – faith, popularity contest, anecdotes, ad hominem, punishments, state control, propaganda and guilt, hero worship (idolatry) of people on a screen when you don’t know what their real contributions are

Kinsey’s Fraudulent and Fake Data/Methodology

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT

Many people will be surprised to discover that what has served and is 
serving as the basis for public school sex education (and is even being 
used in many Catholic schools) has its roots in scientific fraud. Most of 
this could be credited to one individual: Alfred C. Kinsey, with the help 
of his colleagues Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul Gebhard. 
Their research and studies have undoubtedly shaped current attitudes and 
perceptions concerning human sexuality. These perceptions have ultimately 
worked themselves into the current sex education programs.

And how it places women and children in danger;

http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/kinsey-women_11_03.pdf

In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990), Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel unmasked the
Kinsey studies as a massive hoax. The medical journal The Lancet reviewed their
findings and said: “[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are
imperfections in the (Kinsey) sample and unethical, possibly criminal, observations on
children. … Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the
two (Kinsey) reports.”…..
Included among the claims is;
  • Defining American husbands and fathers as sex offenders
  • Sanitizing child sexual abuse
  • Going easy on rapists

The Guardian posts something on morality worth reading

It isn’t all there, but bloody hell.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists

…It’s a reassuringly simple equation. In fact there are no reliable connections – whether in logic or history – between atheism, science and liberal values….

…Today this a forbidden thought. How could all of humankind not want to be as we imagine ourselves to be? To suggest that large numbers hate and despise values such as toleration and personal autonomy is, for many people nowadays, an intolerable slur on the species. This is, in fact, the quintessential illusion of the ruling liberalism: the belief that all human beings are born freedom-loving and peaceful and become anything else only as a result of oppressive conditioning. …

what wut robot stop eh hold presses a moment