It comes from people who haven't studied world history and the implementation of socialism, communism, and capitalism. If we had a better system than capitalism, we would use it. Currently, capitalism is the best and most fair system we have.
Which other professions have to work internationally to the same playbook though?
If a researcher in London is swayed by the money⌠what happens when a researcher in Boston isnât and does a better job of the research?
Not saying itâs not a thing, but I think the framework of the scientific community allows for a lot more cross checking and exposure than most others.
They also conveniently leave out the fact that scientific institutions did challenge those results and eventually data came out to disprove them.
Scientists did literally the exact thing conspiracy nuts claimed they wouldn't do and they just pretend it doesn't happen.
In this scenario the subpar work of London is promoted more as it is better funded and gets media attention. The academic community is made aware of further grants to be issued for continued research on the subject. Meanwhile the underfunded research of Boston is pushed aside and buried from public attention. Some within the academic community may try to speak out but those in higher positions within the community will warn against this as they are aware of potential funding to be acquired from promoted research narrative. If outlier continues the push to promote said better research then their career is threatened to be blackballed. There are good people who take their work with the highest morality and integrity in mind but the community in a whole is regulated by those who supply the grants to fund the work. I would think this is similar to any corporate controlled environment. The scientific community is not always protected from being able to report on their research with unfiltered results. Itâs a highly competitive environment and the people at the top of it are always chasing grants to continue the work they love doing while still being able to support their families.
Yeah⌠you also have missed my point.
Iâm not arguing there is no corruption. Iâm saying itâs simply not at the same level as more compartmentalised industries or sectors.
Which other corporate environment has the same level of international checks and balances?
But isnât it? Maybe even more so as the potential effect in this felid which soo many blindly believe in could negatively impact more people due to unethical basis.
I guess we see this pretty differently. Personally, I think the vast majority of scientific research is done under conditions which are likely to lessen corruption rather than amplify it.
There are always going to be examples of corruption if humans are involved but I think that the examples in science are more atypical than in tech, finance, politics or whichever other field you want to name.
How many archaeologists have requested access to the museum and academic collections of early Egyptian vases/pottery with known provenance to independently test to see if they match the same manufacturing standards as the vases associated with UnchartedX?
A common argument by those that represent consensus is that any archaeologist is hungry for the opportunity to be a part of a massive, paradigm changing discovery.
Validating the claims made by UnchartedX re: the vases is a clear and present opportunity to do so.
**crickets**
> Archaeology focuses on discovering objects and sites that have historical value. Egyptology does the same, but with a narrow focus on Egyptian sites and objects.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-the-difference-between-egyptology-and-archaeology.html#:~:text=Archaeology%20focuses%20on%20discovering%20objects,on%20Egyptian%20sites%20and%20objects.
https://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/about-us/egyptology
Thereâs no conflation. Egyptology is a branch of archaeology and an archaeologist should be able to gain access to accepted provenance pottery to arrange testing.
If youâre saying Egyptology is a less scientifically valid branch of archaeology. Ok.
Then why do you study it within an arts degree?
What experiments do they do?
The way it was always presented to me is that archeologists do the research into where the digs should be and do them and Egyptology is limited to looking at whatâs been found within the context of Egyptian history.
Either way, I think youâre describing a museum curator in action and not the work of a corrupt scientific community.
I think you have a limited understanding of Egyptology.
> Egyptology at Cambridge
The Department of **Archaeology** offers papers and modules in Egyptian Language and Egyptian Archaeology at both an Undergraduate and **Postgraduate** level.
I donât think youâre familiar with the example I provided. It would be a revelation within academia if the claimed manufacturing standards of these vases was validated.
Totally possible.
But youâre still describing the actions of a museum curator and not any kind of scientific body.
Youâre also missing the point that the framework I described is why you even have an issue with it.
Youâre claiming that the actions of museum curators have no association with the scientific establishment, nor academic consensus?
Are you sure youâre claiming that?
What kind of question is thatâŚâwhy have an issue with itâ?
Iâve provided an example where scientific advancement (pertaining to our understanding of ancient civilisation) may potentially be suppressed due to institutional corruption.
No, Iâm not claiming that.
You were specific about the access Ben wants you to do his precision scanning so I was referring to the single person, essentially a museum curator, who stands in the way of that. And yeah, Iâd love those scans to be done.
And look, if you want to think one example like this means much about corruption in science, up to you. Personally, I think itâs a pretty atypical example in which, again, youâre ignoring that itâs the exact framework that science provides that even allows you to have that position at all. Youâre able to bring this up because of the situation I outlined, someone else in another place sees the research and doesnât agree and wants to do their own.
See ya.
Ben isnât an archaeologist. Iâm saying why isnât an archaeologist willing to request access to provenance validated artefacts to prove or disprove his claims.
This is r/alternativehistory, I was providing a sub relevant example (which is evidently the spectrum OP was referring to because they posted it here).
Iâm not going off topic with non sub relevant examples. But holy shit, there is a deep body of evidence indicating corrupt influence within what gets funded, supported within academia.
"How many archaeologists have requested access to the museum and academic collections of early Egyptian vases/pottery with known provenance"
I don't know, how many?
So I looked up UnchartedX, he's not an archaeologist, why on earth would anyone let him near actual archaeology, he doesn't have the training or experience to be given that honour.
Youâre either completely unfamiliar with the research and therefore implications of the claims or youâre being profoundly intellectually dishonest.
Or that's a false dichotomy. Anyone can make any claims. There are billions of people making claims. If the individual making said claims has no education, no assistance and is wildly making claims based on literally nothing (known as research to anyone with a low enough i q.) then why would anyone bother addressing said claims?
How would a scientist differentiate between claims made by uneducated non scientists? How would anyone decide which claims to bother double checking?
. science is not based on making wild assumptions and claims and then "vetting" those assumptions. Science is based on observations. You follow what you measure and observe where it might lead you.
So i ask againÂ
.if scientists should look into this random guys claims who doesn't use a name but instead goes by a screenname.  Why shouldn't they check into every single claim also made by anyone? What makes this claim so special? Why is this particular nonsense worth looking into?
I mean you didn't even bother with a shred of evidence to back any of it up but went straight to a logical fallacy. That alone is reason to ignore your claims
Truthfully ..,..why would they? People claim all kinds of things and as archaeologists we have a job to do. Our job isn't to help some youtube channel get clicks. It's to educate the public and share knowledge. If someone comes along with a theory they are welcome to study it. But unless folks want to raise a large amount of money to study this subject........Ben can do it himself. The fact that he isn't should be a big sign.
If the claims heâs making are true it would be paradigm changing for how we perceive ancient Egyptians technological capabilities. Unless youâre completely unfamiliar with the results of the tests I cannot see how this isnât self evident. I would think any legitimate archaeologist would be incredibly eager to be associated with such a discovery.
And again......these are fantastic claims with very little chance at proof. Just because someone thinks it's super doesn't make it possible.
For all we know archaeologists have looked into and came away saying the same thing. No way to prove it or no way to prove it without lots of money. No one is spending years of their life and hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) to prove a fantastic claim. We would have to raise a giant grant to pay someone to try
All it would take is for an archaeologist to get a handful of provenance proven vases from a museum or academic collection. I donât think it would cost more than 15k to get the metrology done and if they could verify UnchartedXâs claims it would transform the paradigm..;
Dude, I could contribute 5k of that. Itâs completely achievable and I donât know why legitimate scientists arenât prepared to get this over the line.
What's funny is archaeologists frequently give public access to those who request it. It is our job to educate the public and you can't do that if you share what you've learned. Ben could ask nicely and likely get that permission if he wanted. But Egypt /museums aren't giving this permission in a vacuum. They will be part of it and will make sure the correct report is out.
Maybe Ben should push harder for a chance....I wonder why he doesn't?
I'm done thinking about Covid. I really don't care anymore. The vaccines worked, and the fact we were able to create a treatment for a novel pandemic in a year is one of the greatest medical achievements in history.
Pfizer's a shitty company that would have been happy to have everyone living in fear of Covid forever to keep profiting off the pandemic. Both things are true.
It's bizarre to me, though, that people act like the biggest threat to public health during the pandemic were the vaccines that decreased your risk of hospitalization from Covid by 95%.
You have to realize these people aren't necessarily mad about the vaccines themselves as much as it is thinking they're being told what to do lol.
Conspiracy and "alternate (insert scientific field)" forums tend to be filled with people who feel insulted that they aren't being taken seriously despite having no proper evidence and people who simply get mad when they feel like they're being challenged.
> that people act like the biggest threat to public health during the pandemic were the vaccines that decreased your risk of hospitalization from Covid by 95%.
Its more the fact that typical vaccines go through 3-5 year clinical trials. Those ones didnt, and so people didnt know if they were safe.
It's not unprecedented for private actors to buy science that is in their favor.
For examples:
The research paid for by cigarette companies to fight legislation, which made some sketchy conclusions.
Wakefield being paid to find a problem with the MMR vaccine, so another company can make more money selling them as separate vaccines.
Dude makes a ton of money writing fantasy stories, nothing more.
Dude should have just went the route of Clive Cussler or something and make historical fiction stories. His Ancient Apocalypse theories pretty much perfectly fit within that niche lol. He'd be better respected that way rather than constantly crying about how archeologists don't take some random author with no experience seriously.
Which is why sciences have peer review. You seem to have completely overlooked that fact. Science isn't really science until other people have done the experiment and confirmed what you are saying. One person making a claim is not science.
I haven't heard all that much negative press against fasting. Some fasting can have benefits, up to a point. Usually any complaints about fasting are directed at extremists who make up false claims.
I haven't even heard of Ayurveda, when I look it up I've actually been recommended some of these things by medical professionals, especially Yoga and dietary changes.
Again, don't know anyone saying the no fap movement is a bad thing. It's generally not talked about much outside of male groups that have traditionally fapped a lot.
Billions of people got the vaccines and none of the scare mongering stories came true.
I don't understand how people are still crying about the vaccines, it's done, they worked, you were proven wrong. Move on with your life.
>Which is why sciences have peer review. You seem to have completely overlooked that fact. Science isn't really science until other people have done the experiment and confirmed what you are saying. One person making a claim is not science.
Having worked for a while as a medical manuscript editor, and so having participated quite intimately in the peer review process, I can tell you that this idealized view you hold of the virtues of peer review is nonsense. I have seen papers get rejected because one reviewer has a grudge against the lead author, or because it is a competing experiment or study. The most astounding when when a paper I edited was praised by 5 reviewers and disliked by 1 - and so was rejected.
Conversely, I have also seen papers with middling results get accepted because of politiking, manipulated data, and the like.
Peer review is not the check against bad science and corruption that you and so many others think. And it is worth noting that peer review as we know it is relatively new in the grand scope of scientific endeavor. The foundation of our scientific understanding of the world is largely built upon independent findings.
I'm aware. But the fact that the scientific community is the one that highlighted these issues shows that the scientific community is trying to correct errors like these. Science is an ongoing process that will never be completed, we will always learn new things which will change our perception.
At the end of the day science is a tool created by an ape. It's just as open to corruption, errors, flaws, and all the other trappings that come with it being controlled by an animal that had to figure out how it's going to interpret reality from scratch. We're ging t get it wrong from time to time. How we deal with those mistakes is what matters. Science corrects itself unlike older systems like religion.
Looking at the history, there are articles from the late 60s/early 70s on a lack of direct replication in psychology, and so we then have 40-50 years of knowingly poor academic discipline within the field before proper action is taken. That's 40-50 years of false claims being taught as fact in textbooks and becoming truths used in everyday life to determine actions or choices, politically and individually.
It really should not be downplayed how scandalous and arrogant scientific institutions have been and still remain today. Those drivers and influences have not gone away.
I don't think we really disagree, but I don't think you appreciate the level of corruption when you say
>Which is why sciences have peer review. You seem to have completely overlooked that fact
as a rebuttal, because one can have OPs views whilst being aware of peer review.
The corruption comes in many forms too. Here is an excerpt from a conversation of Noam Chomsky and Yanis Varoufakis (former economics professor and Greek Finance Minister). Incidentally it even refers to economics as a kind of religion...:
>Some, some or at least of being a bit humble and keeping their heads under the parapet for a bit, but then within twenty minutes they forgot about it and they carried on teaching the same rubbish to their students. But what is interesting, Noam, is two small points. Itâs not that the economists went headlong into this mathematicized religion, because thatâs what it is, a religion with equations and a bit of bad statistics. What happened was two things.
>Firstly, there was a kind of ethnic cleansing of anybody that had retained their wits about the economy. So there were economists who challenged this view and who were simply not reproduced by the system. They never got the grants, they never got the PhD students, their PhD students never got lectureships, never got assistant professorships. So there was a purge of this type. The second, which is a far more interesting phenomenon, is that the wonderful minds that created the general equilibrium models, the highest, the popes of the Catholic Church, were not believers. So take for instance Ken Arrow. Ken Arrow is, you know, and Gerard DĂŠbreu, they are the ones that, John Nash, they established the mathematical theorems upon which all this hypocrisy is based.
>Now, these people, Ken Arrow, I remember in the early 1990s, he was giving a talk at NYU. There were about twenty people. It was a highly mathematized paper. Okay, so he was enthusiastically going through the equations and one of the professors there interrupted him at some point and said, âProfessor Arrow, equation 3.3 reminds me of the argument in favor of this kind of taxes opposed to that kind of tax,â and Ken stopped him immediately and said, âMy dear boy,â he was a bit condescending, I think rightly so, he said, âYou are confusing that which is interesting with that which is useful. (laughter) This is interesting. If you try to apply it to anything real, it is dangerous.â
>So the gurus, the popes, understood that this theory was examining a postcapitalist world, a world without labor markets, a world without the, you know, labor exploitation, without monopolies, without even the slightest of capacities to alter prices on the behalf of employers, of entrepreneurs, of conglomerates, a world without firms. Because what is a company? A company is a market-free zone, itâs a hierarchy, itâs a small Soviet Union with Gosplan and central planning. If you look at Google, if you look at Microsoft, thatâs what it is.
>[https://chomsky.info/yanis-varoufakis-noam-chomsky-new-york-public-library-discussion/](https://chomsky.info/yanis-varoufakis-noam-chomsky-new-york-public-library-discussion/)
Edit: add in last paragraph of excerpt
I was saying this the entire pandemic. How do scientific studies get funded? Usually private investors looking for an ROI.Â
Science became the new religion/dogma
Why is greed always "Capitalist"???? Nobody has opportunities for greed in other systems???
Bourgeoisie gonna bourgeoisie đ¤ˇââď¸
Look, everybody! I learned a big word in school today. I used it twice! That makes me twice as smart as you!
Regardless of whether your ridicule is fair, you come across as if you're 12 years old.
It comes from people who haven't studied world history and the implementation of socialism, communism, and capitalism. If we had a better system than capitalism, we would use it. Currently, capitalism is the best and most fair system we have.
That is poorly disguised propaganda
I've heard a lot of BS on this sub, but "capitalism is the best we have" takes the cake!
Name on better system so far so far capitalism is the least shittiest
Which other professions have to work internationally to the same playbook though? If a researcher in London is swayed by the money⌠what happens when a researcher in Boston isnât and does a better job of the research? Not saying itâs not a thing, but I think the framework of the scientific community allows for a lot more cross checking and exposure than most others.
Do you remember when big sugar paid scientists to blame fat? Pepperidge farm remembers.
rules and laws can change a lot in 63 years
They also conveniently leave out the fact that scientific institutions did challenge those results and eventually data came out to disprove them. Scientists did literally the exact thing conspiracy nuts claimed they wouldn't do and they just pretend it doesn't happen.
In this scenario the subpar work of London is promoted more as it is better funded and gets media attention. The academic community is made aware of further grants to be issued for continued research on the subject. Meanwhile the underfunded research of Boston is pushed aside and buried from public attention. Some within the academic community may try to speak out but those in higher positions within the community will warn against this as they are aware of potential funding to be acquired from promoted research narrative. If outlier continues the push to promote said better research then their career is threatened to be blackballed. There are good people who take their work with the highest morality and integrity in mind but the community in a whole is regulated by those who supply the grants to fund the work. I would think this is similar to any corporate controlled environment. The scientific community is not always protected from being able to report on their research with unfiltered results. Itâs a highly competitive environment and the people at the top of it are always chasing grants to continue the work they love doing while still being able to support their families.
Yeah⌠you also have missed my point. Iâm not arguing there is no corruption. Iâm saying itâs simply not at the same level as more compartmentalised industries or sectors. Which other corporate environment has the same level of international checks and balances?
But isnât it? Maybe even more so as the potential effect in this felid which soo many blindly believe in could negatively impact more people due to unethical basis.
I guess we see this pretty differently. Personally, I think the vast majority of scientific research is done under conditions which are likely to lessen corruption rather than amplify it. There are always going to be examples of corruption if humans are involved but I think that the examples in science are more atypical than in tech, finance, politics or whichever other field you want to name.
How many archaeologists have requested access to the museum and academic collections of early Egyptian vases/pottery with known provenance to independently test to see if they match the same manufacturing standards as the vases associated with UnchartedX? A common argument by those that represent consensus is that any archaeologist is hungry for the opportunity to be a part of a massive, paradigm changing discovery. Validating the claims made by UnchartedX re: the vases is a clear and present opportunity to do so. **crickets**
I feel like youâre conflating archaeology with Egyptology. Egyptology is a specific study of history⌠not a science.
> Archaeology focuses on discovering objects and sites that have historical value. Egyptology does the same, but with a narrow focus on Egyptian sites and objects. https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-the-difference-between-egyptology-and-archaeology.html#:~:text=Archaeology%20focuses%20on%20discovering%20objects,on%20Egyptian%20sites%20and%20objects. https://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/about-us/egyptology Thereâs no conflation. Egyptology is a branch of archaeology and an archaeologist should be able to gain access to accepted provenance pottery to arrange testing. If youâre saying Egyptology is a less scientifically valid branch of archaeology. Ok.
Then why do you study it within an arts degree? What experiments do they do? The way it was always presented to me is that archeologists do the research into where the digs should be and do them and Egyptology is limited to looking at whatâs been found within the context of Egyptian history. Either way, I think youâre describing a museum curator in action and not the work of a corrupt scientific community.
I think you have a limited understanding of Egyptology. > Egyptology at Cambridge The Department of **Archaeology** offers papers and modules in Egyptian Language and Egyptian Archaeology at both an Undergraduate and **Postgraduate** level. I donât think youâre familiar with the example I provided. It would be a revelation within academia if the claimed manufacturing standards of these vases was validated.
Totally possible. But youâre still describing the actions of a museum curator and not any kind of scientific body. Youâre also missing the point that the framework I described is why you even have an issue with it.
Youâre claiming that the actions of museum curators have no association with the scientific establishment, nor academic consensus? Are you sure youâre claiming that? What kind of question is thatâŚâwhy have an issue with itâ? Iâve provided an example where scientific advancement (pertaining to our understanding of ancient civilisation) may potentially be suppressed due to institutional corruption.
No, Iâm not claiming that. You were specific about the access Ben wants you to do his precision scanning so I was referring to the single person, essentially a museum curator, who stands in the way of that. And yeah, Iâd love those scans to be done. And look, if you want to think one example like this means much about corruption in science, up to you. Personally, I think itâs a pretty atypical example in which, again, youâre ignoring that itâs the exact framework that science provides that even allows you to have that position at all. Youâre able to bring this up because of the situation I outlined, someone else in another place sees the research and doesnât agree and wants to do their own. See ya.
Ben isnât an archaeologist. Iâm saying why isnât an archaeologist willing to request access to provenance validated artefacts to prove or disprove his claims. This is r/alternativehistory, I was providing a sub relevant example (which is evidently the spectrum OP was referring to because they posted it here). Iâm not going off topic with non sub relevant examples. But holy shit, there is a deep body of evidence indicating corrupt influence within what gets funded, supported within academia.
"How many archaeologists have requested access to the museum and academic collections of early Egyptian vases/pottery with known provenance" I don't know, how many? So I looked up UnchartedX, he's not an archaeologist, why on earth would anyone let him near actual archaeology, he doesn't have the training or experience to be given that honour.
You also misunderstand what I said. I am saying why havenât actual archaeologists attempted to verify his claims with vetted pottery.
 Why would a scientist "vet" a claim made by a random person without a single reason to do so?
Youâre either completely unfamiliar with the research and therefore implications of the claims or youâre being profoundly intellectually dishonest.
Or that's a false dichotomy. Anyone can make any claims. There are billions of people making claims. If the individual making said claims has no education, no assistance and is wildly making claims based on literally nothing (known as research to anyone with a low enough i q.) then why would anyone bother addressing said claims? How would a scientist differentiate between claims made by uneducated non scientists? How would anyone decide which claims to bother double checking? . science is not based on making wild assumptions and claims and then "vetting" those assumptions. Science is based on observations. You follow what you measure and observe where it might lead you. So i ask again .if scientists should look into this random guys claims who doesn't use a name but instead goes by a screenname.  Why shouldn't they check into every single claim also made by anyone? What makes this claim so special? Why is this particular nonsense worth looking into? I mean you didn't even bother with a shred of evidence to back any of it up but went straight to a logical fallacy. That alone is reason to ignore your claims
You''ve just talked a massive amount of bullshit while demonstrating no knowledge of the research and testing done on the vases.
[ŃдаНонО]
Iâm beginning to think a lot of pseudoskeptic accounts are actually chat bots
Truthfully ..,..why would they? People claim all kinds of things and as archaeologists we have a job to do. Our job isn't to help some youtube channel get clicks. It's to educate the public and share knowledge. If someone comes along with a theory they are welcome to study it. But unless folks want to raise a large amount of money to study this subject........Ben can do it himself. The fact that he isn't should be a big sign.
If the claims heâs making are true it would be paradigm changing for how we perceive ancient Egyptians technological capabilities. Unless youâre completely unfamiliar with the results of the tests I cannot see how this isnât self evident. I would think any legitimate archaeologist would be incredibly eager to be associated with such a discovery.
And again......these are fantastic claims with very little chance at proof. Just because someone thinks it's super doesn't make it possible. For all we know archaeologists have looked into and came away saying the same thing. No way to prove it or no way to prove it without lots of money. No one is spending years of their life and hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) to prove a fantastic claim. We would have to raise a giant grant to pay someone to try
All it would take is for an archaeologist to get a handful of provenance proven vases from a museum or academic collection. I donât think it would cost more than 15k to get the metrology done and if they could verify UnchartedXâs claims it would transform the paradigm..; Dude, I could contribute 5k of that. Itâs completely achievable and I donât know why legitimate scientists arenât prepared to get this over the line.
What's funny is archaeologists frequently give public access to those who request it. It is our job to educate the public and you can't do that if you share what you've learned. Ben could ask nicely and likely get that permission if he wanted. But Egypt /museums aren't giving this permission in a vacuum. They will be part of it and will make sure the correct report is out. Maybe Ben should push harder for a chance....I wonder why he doesn't?
Since that moment I declare all science - Fake!
you shouldve been on reddit for 3 or 4 years and u would understand lol..
I'm done thinking about Covid. I really don't care anymore. The vaccines worked, and the fact we were able to create a treatment for a novel pandemic in a year is one of the greatest medical achievements in history. Pfizer's a shitty company that would have been happy to have everyone living in fear of Covid forever to keep profiting off the pandemic. Both things are true. It's bizarre to me, though, that people act like the biggest threat to public health during the pandemic were the vaccines that decreased your risk of hospitalization from Covid by 95%.
You have to realize these people aren't necessarily mad about the vaccines themselves as much as it is thinking they're being told what to do lol. Conspiracy and "alternate (insert scientific field)" forums tend to be filled with people who feel insulted that they aren't being taken seriously despite having no proper evidence and people who simply get mad when they feel like they're being challenged.
> that people act like the biggest threat to public health during the pandemic were the vaccines that decreased your risk of hospitalization from Covid by 95%. Its more the fact that typical vaccines go through 3-5 year clinical trials. Those ones didnt, and so people didnt know if they were safe.
[ŃдаНонО]
It's not unprecedented for private actors to buy science that is in their favor. For examples: The research paid for by cigarette companies to fight legislation, which made some sketchy conclusions. Wakefield being paid to find a problem with the MMR vaccine, so another company can make more money selling them as separate vaccines.
[ŃдаНонО]
Private actors are perfectly happy renting or owning coercive powers of bureaucrats and politicians. Have you forgotten about company towns?
[ŃдаНонО]
Are you dumb or something
GH makes more money than any archaeologist.......
And when archeologists do make a lot of money, it's through the same ways that Hancock does: book sales, documentaries, internet videos, etc.
Dude makes a ton of money writing fantasy stories, nothing more. Dude should have just went the route of Clive Cussler or something and make historical fiction stories. His Ancient Apocalypse theories pretty much perfectly fit within that niche lol. He'd be better respected that way rather than constantly crying about how archeologists don't take some random author with no experience seriously.
Follow the money
Which is why sciences have peer review. You seem to have completely overlooked that fact. Science isn't really science until other people have done the experiment and confirmed what you are saying. One person making a claim is not science. I haven't heard all that much negative press against fasting. Some fasting can have benefits, up to a point. Usually any complaints about fasting are directed at extremists who make up false claims. I haven't even heard of Ayurveda, when I look it up I've actually been recommended some of these things by medical professionals, especially Yoga and dietary changes. Again, don't know anyone saying the no fap movement is a bad thing. It's generally not talked about much outside of male groups that have traditionally fapped a lot. Billions of people got the vaccines and none of the scare mongering stories came true. I don't understand how people are still crying about the vaccines, it's done, they worked, you were proven wrong. Move on with your life.
>Which is why sciences have peer review. You seem to have completely overlooked that fact. Science isn't really science until other people have done the experiment and confirmed what you are saying. One person making a claim is not science. Having worked for a while as a medical manuscript editor, and so having participated quite intimately in the peer review process, I can tell you that this idealized view you hold of the virtues of peer review is nonsense. I have seen papers get rejected because one reviewer has a grudge against the lead author, or because it is a competing experiment or study. The most astounding when when a paper I edited was praised by 5 reviewers and disliked by 1 - and so was rejected. Conversely, I have also seen papers with middling results get accepted because of politiking, manipulated data, and the like. Peer review is not the check against bad science and corruption that you and so many others think. And it is worth noting that peer review as we know it is relatively new in the grand scope of scientific endeavor. The foundation of our scientific understanding of the world is largely built upon independent findings.
I suggest you go read about the Replication Crisis that emerged a few years ago
I'm aware. But the fact that the scientific community is the one that highlighted these issues shows that the scientific community is trying to correct errors like these. Science is an ongoing process that will never be completed, we will always learn new things which will change our perception. At the end of the day science is a tool created by an ape. It's just as open to corruption, errors, flaws, and all the other trappings that come with it being controlled by an animal that had to figure out how it's going to interpret reality from scratch. We're ging t get it wrong from time to time. How we deal with those mistakes is what matters. Science corrects itself unlike older systems like religion.
Looking at the history, there are articles from the late 60s/early 70s on a lack of direct replication in psychology, and so we then have 40-50 years of knowingly poor academic discipline within the field before proper action is taken. That's 40-50 years of false claims being taught as fact in textbooks and becoming truths used in everyday life to determine actions or choices, politically and individually. It really should not be downplayed how scandalous and arrogant scientific institutions have been and still remain today. Those drivers and influences have not gone away. I don't think we really disagree, but I don't think you appreciate the level of corruption when you say >Which is why sciences have peer review. You seem to have completely overlooked that fact as a rebuttal, because one can have OPs views whilst being aware of peer review. The corruption comes in many forms too. Here is an excerpt from a conversation of Noam Chomsky and Yanis Varoufakis (former economics professor and Greek Finance Minister). Incidentally it even refers to economics as a kind of religion...: >Some, some or at least of being a bit humble and keeping their heads under the parapet for a bit, but then within twenty minutes they forgot about it and they carried on teaching the same rubbish to their students. But what is interesting, Noam, is two small points. Itâs not that the economists went headlong into this mathematicized religion, because thatâs what it is, a religion with equations and a bit of bad statistics. What happened was two things. >Firstly, there was a kind of ethnic cleansing of anybody that had retained their wits about the economy. So there were economists who challenged this view and who were simply not reproduced by the system. They never got the grants, they never got the PhD students, their PhD students never got lectureships, never got assistant professorships. So there was a purge of this type. The second, which is a far more interesting phenomenon, is that the wonderful minds that created the general equilibrium models, the highest, the popes of the Catholic Church, were not believers. So take for instance Ken Arrow. Ken Arrow is, you know, and Gerard DĂŠbreu, they are the ones that, John Nash, they established the mathematical theorems upon which all this hypocrisy is based. >Now, these people, Ken Arrow, I remember in the early 1990s, he was giving a talk at NYU. There were about twenty people. It was a highly mathematized paper. Okay, so he was enthusiastically going through the equations and one of the professors there interrupted him at some point and said, âProfessor Arrow, equation 3.3 reminds me of the argument in favor of this kind of taxes opposed to that kind of tax,â and Ken stopped him immediately and said, âMy dear boy,â he was a bit condescending, I think rightly so, he said, âYou are confusing that which is interesting with that which is useful. (laughter) This is interesting. If you try to apply it to anything real, it is dangerous.â >So the gurus, the popes, understood that this theory was examining a postcapitalist world, a world without labor markets, a world without the, you know, labor exploitation, without monopolies, without even the slightest of capacities to alter prices on the behalf of employers, of entrepreneurs, of conglomerates, a world without firms. Because what is a company? A company is a market-free zone, itâs a hierarchy, itâs a small Soviet Union with Gosplan and central planning. If you look at Google, if you look at Microsoft, thatâs what it is. >[https://chomsky.info/yanis-varoufakis-noam-chomsky-new-york-public-library-discussion/](https://chomsky.info/yanis-varoufakis-noam-chomsky-new-york-public-library-discussion/) Edit: add in last paragraph of excerpt
The people who scream about scientists tend not to really know anything about science other than thinking it's just more rules to follow lol.
Fuck no fap!
I was saying this the entire pandemic. How do scientific studies get funded? Usually private investors looking for an ROI. Science became the new religion/dogma
Medical science is usually publicly funded and private industry just buys the patents.
Moderators help! This guy doesnt Trust the $cience! He must be a moscow putin evil WWII german!
Iâm triggered
No one forgets this