Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Can you please name an example one or two of things that have reached "scientific consensus" yet have very little evidence?
How about just one. One thing.
I'm really curious to see what it is that you think words mean.
Coca-cola has notoriously spent buh-buh-buh-BILLIONS on nutritional research. They throw away the research that doesn't suit the science that they WANT to be true and promote the research that tends to support it. An example of a disproved hypothesis that has been accepted due to their meddling is "calories in, calories out."
Big bang theory. Hell, probably most of cosmology. It's all a bunch of bullshit. Our main theory was the brain fart of a Catholic priest and that's now considered the "secular theory." You can't make this stuff up.... Oh wait you can. From cosmic inflation to dark matter and dark energy it's all bullshit I'm pretty sure.
Saturated fats bad. Dietary cholesterol bad. Eggs bad. Dairy bad. Red meat bad. And on and on ad nauseam. Nutritional science is all fucking bullshit pretty much, especially when people love to reduce (too absurdity) it to like is that one thing you got to do or the one thing you can't do. People worried about salt when most animals will do things that could easily kill them just to get a little lick of salt.
Importance of breakfast? Whatever. Any meal you eat is breaking your fast. There's no benefit to eating immediately after waking up.
How about the eight glasses of water a day that's a bunch of bullshit.
And considering how much science is epidemiological and it's just associations and no proof of causation but most people will lean on the causation anyway even if it's reverse causation, right.
How about the serotonin deficiency cause of depression?
Does moderate alcohol consumption have any benefits whatsoever?
Are psychiatric diagnosis useful?
Just how important is the microbiome?
Using animal models in place of human models.
How about the replication crisis? How about that about half of all scientific articles are bullshit and many of them get it retracted?
How about the many interpretations of quantum mechanics? Which ones right which are wrong?
Right, so you just don't know how the scientific method works.
Lol.... Jerk? Nah. You're just fucking clueless. I wouldn't dare assume malevolence where it's obviously just ignorance. Have a blissful day.
Coming from the person who said this:
Take a fucking astronomy course dude, I dunno what else to tell you. Like... what do you think the scientific method actually is? Are you even aware of the concept or do you think people just make shit up and hope its real (we got lucky with airplanes and shit I guess)?
Aerodynamics is a hard, applied science. It's highly testable and absolutely falsifiable.
Cosmology is a lot of bullshit. Which should not be conflated with astronomy. The big bang is a creation myth. Admittedly one I was taught in school and I guess maybe I kind of took it seriously for a little while but no not really. When you actually look into the history of it and you see all the bullshit and all the special tuning and fine-tuning that they do to try to make it work... And it still doesn't work. Tensions abound. Catastrophes are another problem. I'm sure you've heard of the crisis in cosmology? Seems like come out with one of those at least once a month.
Once you actually delve into the subject matter you realize it's a lot of interpretations a lot of frameworks that reinforce themselves. But their foundations are flimsy as air.
For instance some people believe in dark matter or dark energy. I don't believe in cosmic inflation and I think we have a dark gravity problem where we don't understand gravity but if you use a bad model for gravity then you get other aberrations, like the aforementioned dark whatever.
Take the CMB. Cosmic microwave background. Is that really seeing the edges of the observable universe? Some sort of big bang remnant? Or is it much more likely it's a collective noise from here to there collectively and it has a lot more to do with the locality rather than some far off edge of the observable universe or big bang remnant. So that's one bullshit base of the tower that's the foundation. If you take that out the rest of it collapses.
It's like looking at a chimp with a revolver. How did they even get it? Who knows, but they're definitely gonna hurt someone.
A hypothesis is not a religion, dude. People (other than I suppose lay people with weirdly religious ideas) don't "believe in" dark matter or dark energy. These are fully falsifiable hypotheses just like Bernoulli's principle (since you reference aerodynamics). Cosmology is fully falsifiable and hypotheses are overturned all the time. CMB was predicted to exist before it was found and matched predictions, based on observations that lead to the Hubble constant, etc. The history of cosmological theory is easily available for you, if you cared to learn about it.
Meanwhile, you ARE approaching these ideas religiously. You reject them because you "don't believe in them." That's bonkers. You don't need to accept or reject them on an emotional level. That's not how any of this works.
I hope you're just a smart kid goofing around and riffing, and not someone who actually believes their own bullshit.
Hell, dark matter isn't even a hypothesis, it's purely an observation! In that sense, you're right that it's not falsifiable, only interpretable. It is a reality like the temperature. We don't hypothesize that it is 21C, we observe it. We DIRECTLY OBSERVE gravity that does not come from any known source; that's "dark matter." Likewise, we directly observe red shift and other effects of inflation. We call the unknown cause of those observations "dark energy." Neither are a specific thing that people believe in, they are labels for the effects that we directly observe.
Casting that through some kind of quasi-religious lens and then attacking it as a crackpot beliefs is BIZARRE behavior.
Which hubble constant? Based on which methodology? You wanna explain the Hubble tension, dude?
I reject them based on the fact that they're pseudoscience. The Big bang theory or as it's called the lamda cold dark matter model makes a ton of predictions and pretty much all of them are wrong. I think they maybe got one right...
So they have predominantly been falsified, indeed. Yep people still "believe" in this even though they don't even understand the theory at all. That's called faith, kiddo.
I'm not religious. I'm a scientist. I'm an engineer. I build stuff that actually works.
You have next to nil idea what I think. Just a lot of assumptions. Making an ass out of yourself. Hey at least your username checks out, jerkface.
It's neither malicious nor ignorant. You can take it to heart.