Great stuff. I love the below. Is there anything that men don't win? Put on a dress and beat the womenz with your superior physiology...and have cuckademia cheer you on and sophist for you. Comedy gold.

Oh my

??

Is this correct and I have been doing things wrong?

All conservatives are pretty much Dylann Roof, amiright?

Not even conservatives needed to vote for Trump.

nobody in the SJW wing of universities is standing up for anything scientific. they seem perfectly content with damore being slandered as a bigot creating an unsafe space. they outright deny biology. its a snake pit. the apology for right wing extremists is next to none from conservatives

somehow being historically and generally aware of the value of free speech seems to get conflated with apologizing for extremists. believing in mainstream biology makes you a bigot. pay attention to how many instances face melting rage on campus has been caused by biological claims that are actually mainstream biology. its now extending to places like google. its also reached both elementary schools and the legal system in canada

I'm trying to figure out what cuckoldry has to do with social sciences. Seems like there might be a hint of politics in these critiques.

The politics in the original is what inspires the response. You think this paper is putting the "science" in "social science"?



This is pure dribble and political speech. Hence the term cuckademia - whoring out truth, which they claim to be wedded to and are supposed to have some allegiance to, to political causes.

What's a non political term instead? Social pseudoscientists?

I knew this girl in college who considered herself a "free-thinker" and who was proud to question everything. She was s non-conformist--married her high school physics teacher, for one thing. Anyway, she was at my place and I was putting up some cooked chicken. I covered it with plastic wrap and she started talking about how she never covered any food she put in the fridge. Her mother always did it and it was stupid because there was no reason to do it and people just did it because they saw their parents do it.

I said "cool" and went on to something else. I still wonder how many hard-ass dried-out husks of leftover chicken she pulled out of the fridge until she figured out that maybe covering the chicken actually had a purpose. Maybe she just thinks that's what leftover chicken is supposed to be like. This makes me a little sad.

Anyway, the point is that some people are contradictory by nature. And that's a good thing sometimes. But it doesn't always lead to a new way of thinking or a better way of doing things. A lot of the time it leads to rehashing the same thing again and again for little gain. Like a few years ago when global warming skeptics questioned the accuracy of the surface temperature record and the Berkley Earth project basically did the whole thing over again--and found the same result. (Not that we didn't gain anything by the effort, but it probably would have been better spent elsewhere.)

Sounds like I'm picking on Tom here, but this point:

is right and people do seem to forget it quite often.

Proper epistemology is a long way from how most people do it, and how most academics do it. We get attached to models too fast and too strongly, then tend to confirm them once attached. It's a giant human flaw in cognition and it affects everything, sometimes entire generations and societies.

I don't see that as contrariness, I see that as quite obvious when you look at people and their products (including scientific publishing) from a sufficient distance.

The claims around global warming projections, for example, are far too strong given the nature of the models. Step back for a period and that becomes quite obvious; it's very very easy to get caught up in a mountain of data snooping and training bias, and it's very easy to forgot that what complex, highly tweaked and researched models spit out is still mostly garbage.

You could call it "poor science" or something. Or call it what you want, I just find it odd.

It's beyond poor science. It's pure attempted destruction of truth and objectivity, in furtherance of political ends. It doesn't rise to the level of poor science. It's not philosophy either.

The paper you just cited is an argument. It isn't research aimed at finding any sort of truth, so the claim that it is destroying truth is a bit much.

"Only people who are born women should be able to play women's sports" isn't some scientific truth. We define what "women's sports" means and we can change it at any time for any reason. Now, you may not like this new proposal, but it doesn't have anything to do with the destruction of truth, just the destruction of your personal subjective view of the subject.

It turns out she was half-right for all the wrong reasons. You really shouldn't cover your food in the fridge until after it has cooled to nearly the temperature setting of the fridge. There are two reasons for this.

I call it an article in a "peer reviewed journal." This is as opposed to calling it an article in a peer reviewed journal.

13ball hit the ball on the head.

So what's it like being a contrarian?

Is it tough socially sometimes?

Nuts !! Who can argue with this perspective ? Its false and therefore you and its creator, leave no space for the truth; this is the nature of a falsehood.

If my aunt had balls ....

Do you really believe you can power your way beyond basic truths ? Its an illness and calls for remedy, speaking in its best sense. The politicos who make it other than a remedial problem are the mountebanks who would present a lie as truth in the search for power, or ersatz fame, and are certainly not considering this for the good of the human involved.

You guys keep going from an is to an ought.

this is a really strange response. of all people, 13balls is the only one capable of doing a poor job of defending your indoctrination?

its called social science. nothing about it is scientific. its unscientific ideology. the content is absurd. there is no debate or skepticism in social sciences about papers like this. the controversy over a mountain of absolutely fraudulent nonsense is nonexistent. whats your take on the cited trans athlete situation for example?

why would you ask me what its like to be a contrarian? SJW social "sciences" are the contrarians trying to claim mainstream biology are wrong (among other things). they have even invented their own anthropology. how indoctrinated do you need to be to jump on board the social construct train?

is it tough socially? why? how? are you just lashing out because a lack of an argument has made you emotional? this also makes no sense. the archetypal SJW is in a constant state of outrage and bitterness. You live in a massive bubble if you think normal people paying attention to the SJW nonsense aren't subtly rolling their eyes like watching the neighbors brat kid at their super sweet 16

we just showed an individual paper and a link to a mountain of absurd papers being produced by social "science". nothing about this is scientific and it is discussing total nonsense. its absurd ideology. cucklodry has no definition afaik but im guessing it was used to describe a specific type sjw of ideology

Amazing.

If the husband's initials are R(goes by B) M, PM me lol.

Sure, sometimes it's definitely just refusing to accept something that happens to be true. Sometimes it's also refusing to accept something that happens to be false. That's an inevitable consequence of epistemology through so many layers of obfuscation. With the amount of literature that ranges from happens-to-be-false to outright bull**** (incompetence in design or execution, variance, botched analysis, motivated p-hacking, pure fabrication), the easy propagation and spread of slam-dunk false beliefs in the world among people who should know much better (see the SAT thing ITT for one example), not to mention the history of debunked accepted beliefs, the inability of peer review to reliably catch obvious bull**** in analyses, and a system structurally designed to overpublish, the evidentiary '
value of "published in a peer-reviewed journal" alone is close to zero.

And that, combined with people's demand for theories and models instead of living with uncertainty, is a perfect initial condition for the spread and acceptance of utter bull****.

You guys might be surprised to know that plenty of spurious publishing occurs in physical sciences. Here one example from technology where computer jocks intentionally submitted junk and got it published:


"One of the more popular spoofing tools is SCIgen, an algorithm created, in 2005, by a group of M.I.T. students that randomly tosses together words “to auto-generate submissions to conferences that you suspect might have very low submission standards,” as well as “to maximize amusement,” according to its Web site. The results typically look something like this:

Thanks to SCIgen, Marge Simpson and Edna Krabappel had their paper “ ‘Fuzzy,’ Homogeneous Configurations” published in the spurious Journal of Computational Intelligence and Electronic Systems and Aperito Journal of NanoScience Technology. In April of 2010, Cyril Labbé, of Joseph Fourier University, in Grenoble, France, used SCIgen to create more than a hundred papers by Ike Antkare, a make-believe author. Three years later, Labbé reverse-engineered SCIgen to create a tool that would detect papers made with it. He discovered that meaningless SCIgen papers had been published in more than thirty conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013, as well as by Springer, a major scientific publisher, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, based in New York.

For more examples see:

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/eleme...uining-science

From Nature:

https://www.nature.com/news/publishe...papers-1.14763

I don't remember the husband's name at all. Her name started with a B.



A lot of people think that "peer-reviewed" is the same as "true," which is obvious nonsense. But it's also not worthless and can be effective at weeding out junk if done right.

It's effective at weeding out the grossest errors and anything that doesn't fit the prevailing bias/groupthink.

Most publishing is pure trash. Most papers published are false. Like Tom says, it gets less false as you more into fields which a) attract better thinkers because to quote Sklansky - it's easier to verify when someone has the wrong answer and b) can more easily be disproven.

I would expect a good percentage of physics papers to be trash, and physics peer review to be fairly ineffective at weeding them out on outlying topics. The further you get from verifiable, the more uncertain the area, the more it attracts zealots and the political, the less reliable it's likely to be. Thus I would expect things like global warming research and esoteric topics like string theory to have the most unreliable and outright false papers and the highest likelihood of false consensus and groupthink.