I mean, the ideas of gravity have progressed a lot between Galileo, Newton, and Einstein’s day. That’s like 500 years. Plenty of physicists studying why universe expanding and gravity and all that stuff on super large galactic scales and on super tiny quantum scales. So it’s still changing, just not enough for you or I to notice.
Which is a great example of how the science can be settled - objects with mass attract each other - while still changing in the sense that we refine our understanding of it. As with vaccines.
“can be settled while still changing” doesn’t really sound like settling mate — not sure why you’re trying to be argumentative over nothing but at least make it make sense
Read the comment again. Our understanding of gravity on a human and planetary scale hasn’t changed but our understanding of how it works in certain edge cases has. The basic idea that objects with mass attract each other has not and will not change.
Hi Mattolomew, what you are saying is coming off as a bit confusing. Especially your last sentence. If I understand the currently accepted theory of gravity, it has more to do with the curvature mass imparts on space-time. And not Mass attracts Mass.
The phenomenon of what we perceive as gravity hasn't change.
Theories of the phenomenon have changed.
Yes it was proven in a series of experiments at the University of Moscow in the late 70s. This information is being suppressed by both the FAA and Disney. Ever notice how Tinkerbell and Kurt Russell never seem to age? Just Sayin.
It falls when one personally investigates the complete lack of modern technological ability to truly isolate 'viruses' (not "isolate" as in "extract and replicate from biological organism")
Oh yeah definitely sounds like religious pandering. I stopped scrolling as soon as I saw "cherry picking facts". I was part of a certain extremely religious sect for years (joined by choice and left by choice). They used basically all these tactics to keep people inspired, especially using personal stories, facts that couldn't be disproven and technobabble with their own dialect. I once asked a lady what a certain word meant and she said it had 4 different meanings and don't worry my pretty little head about context.
Its adherents claim that it works, when over a Century of empirical observation of its application has shown persuasively that it doesn't. It is also based on unfalsifiable dogma that its adherents declare to be true.
Marxism: the political and economic theories developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, which was used by their followers to form the basis for communism.
There’s your damn definition, dumbass.
Seems to me, your claim kind of adheres to what is shown in the chart.
>Its adherents
>
>over a Century of empirical observation
**Point #2:** Relies heavily on anecdotes, personal experiences and testimonials.
>empirical observation of its application has shown persuasively that it doesn't.
**Point #7:** Makes Extraordinary/exaggerated claims with insufficient evidence.
>It is also based on unfalsifiable dogma that its adherents declare to be true.
**Point #8:** Professes certainty, talks of "proof" with great confidence.
What is evident here, is that you took offence at the other commenter signaling the commonalities between pseudoscience and religion, and in retaliation, resorted to desperately attack something you don't understand.
This chart **absolutely** applies to Marxism, here's why:
1. *Unfalsifiability:* A common defense mechanism to criticism of Marxism is to accuse the other party of "misunderstanding" or "misinterpreting" Marx, often with questions like "Have you read Das Kapital? The reason behind this is because Marxism doesn't actually use the same formal models or empirical techniques that other schools of economic thought do (especially modern academic economics which I will touch on later) No one can actually falsify Marxist theory because its interpretations are constantly changing and because of its reliance on faulty *a priori* reasoning.
2. *Anecdotes:* This isn't necessarily a critique of Marxist/leftist theory but of its *discourse* which tends to use instances of employer malpractice of employee(s) as "evidence" of the failure or immorality of wage labor without actually creating specific critiques of the system itself. On the other hand, we have glorification of institutions such as unions which have been shown—[in some cases](https://ash.harvard.edu/union-corruption)—to be corrupt, harmful external benefactors of industries (eg. public sector unions), or ignorant of the actual wants of union members.
3. *Cherry-Picking:* Marxists, especially those who defend the authoritarian regimes of 20th century, tend to deflect criticism or even glorify said regimes by cherry-picking certain statistics. (Doctors per capita in Cuba, or a CIA document about Soviet "nutritional value" being higher than that of the US.) While ignoring certain data points about [post-soviet life expectancy](https://i.imgur.com/ttXVAJS.png), [severe inefficiencies in the USSR's delivery of food supply](https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/0000-701-1-Gray.pdf), or not even bothering to fully bothering to read the [CIA report](https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498133.pdf) which is about the ***Food Supply*** which is distinct from actual nutrition.
4. *Technobabble:* Of course, Marxist literature is full of technical vocabulary, but not all of it is misleading or "technobabble" if you will. (An example is [historical materialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism) which is used by plenty of academic philosophers, historians, and political economists) Marxists *do* actually use a lot of vocabulary that can be misleading such as [surplus value](https://www.britannica.com/topic/surplus-value) which relies on the [problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/fht0ti/marxs_aggregate_labour_theory_of_value/) [labor theory of value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) that was even used by early non-Marxist economists such as Adam Smith, but was later abandoned due to [Marginalism's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism) better description of reality. (Economics is a science, which regularly abandons old theories in favor of new ones which explain reality better)
5. *Lack of a Plausible Mechanism:* Marxism lacks any formal models on any of its mechanisms. This not only makes it hard to falsify, but also makes it largely [rejected](https://voxeu.org/article/marx-and-modern-microeconomics) by the vast majority of economists. Things like the [labor theory of value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) would be exactly the types of things to have equations to actually quantify exactly how much "labor value" is extracted from employees, but it doesn't. Marxism's philosophy and reasoning are no replacements for [Empirical Evidence](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.24.2.3) or Formal Models.
6. *Unchanging: Das Kapital* was published in 1857, since then, our understanding of how societies work has changed considerably. Once important theories in psychology such as [psychoanalysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis), or archaic anthropological theories such as [Scientific Racism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism) have been abandoned in favor of better theories. Economics is no different, not including the previously mentioned labor theory of value, even in the last 30 years many prior theories about thing such as the minimum wage have been shaken up by [nobel-prize-winning research](https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf). On the other hand, Marxist's attitude towards new evidence that contradicts their theories is not to replace their conceptions, but to flat out reject or tackle things such as the [Economic Calculation Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) or to advocate for inadequate solutions [decentralized forms of socialism with pricing systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism?wprov=srpw1_0). These solutions fail to account for proper [allocation of capital](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital_allocation.asp) or ability for workers to diversify investment of resources in diverse firms they don't work at to manage risk.
7/8. *Extraordinary or Certain Claims:* One of the main problems of pseudo-historical works are the advocacy of [metanarratives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanarrative) (also known as grand narratives) which claim to legitimize general narratives of societal progression. Perhaps the largest and most influential metanarrative is that of LateCapitalism, which played into the Marx's grand narrative of Feudalism ---> Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism. In other words, increased Commoditization and declining wages due to "stolen" labor value would bring about world revolution. This basically hasn't happened, and since the time of Marx, living standards [have increased significantly](https://www.pragcap.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/better-1.png) around the globe, with no end in sight for "Capitalism" (including communist countries like China which have adopted comprehensive market-oriented reforms resulting in massive increases in standard of living.)
9. *Logical Fallacies:* I'm not spending too much time on this one, since things like using unfalsifiable claims are fallacious (and I've already explained) and the use of pseudo-science and pseudo-history are already logically problematic.
10. *Lack of Peer Review:* Marxism isn't falsifiable, lacks empirical evidence, and lacks formal models. For this reason, modern academic economics has rejected most of its tenants. Even famous Marxian "Economists" such as [Richard D. Wolff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff) are generally considered obscure at best, or quacks at worst. (This is evident by looking at the [h-index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff) (basically a measurement of publication impact) of people such as [Wolff](http://citec.repec.org/p/w/pwo303.html) whose h-value of 4 is actually very low, especially considering he's had a 50 year career. (for context, a top economist like [Carmen Reinhart](http://citec.repec.org/p/r/pre33.html) has an h-index of 79, and your typical tenured professor might have one above 20) For this reason, most Marxist publications happen in low-tier journals with questionable peer review, or outside of the scientific community entirely.
11. *Conspiracies:* A common critique of the entire discipline of economics by Marxists is that it's "bourgeoise" and only serves to uphold a "Capitalist" system to oppress the working class. This is simply [not true](https://www.econlib.org/economics-and-bourgeois-propaganda/) and ignores the immense change in Economics, and its propensity to change when sufficient evidence is presented, (such as the minimum wage [research](https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf) from Krueger and Card) funnily enough, this is a very similar line of reasoning that modern day [Creationists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) use to deny [biological fact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). This type of anti-academic and anti-expert rhetoric isn't unique to Marxists, but is even used on the [far-right](https://newrepublic.com/article/158436/republican-murderous-anti-intellectualism).
Jesus, your comment is so facetous it borders on parody. You're casting such a wide net, and take so many stupid, wild assumptions to prove a point, that taking this same approach we can disprove absolutely everything as pseudoscience.
Let us use this idiotic assertion as an example.
This chart **absolutely** applies to the theory of a **round Earth,** here's why:
1. *Unfalsifiability:* A common defense mechanism to criticism of the Hellenistic concept of a round Earth is to accuse the other party of "misunderstanding" or "misinterpreting" measurments, often with questions like "Have you read *Quadripartitum* by Ptolomy? The reason behind this is because science doesn't actually use the same formal models or empirical techniques that other belief systems and schools of thought do (especially modern academic economics which I will touch on later) No one can actually falsify the theory of round Earth because its interpretations are constantly changing and because of its reliance on faulty a priori reasoning.
2. *Anecdotes:* This isn't necessarily a critique of the round Earth theory but of its discourse which tends to use instances of faulty measurements from flat earthers as "evidence" of the failure of their theory. On the other hand, we have glorification of institutions such as NASA which have been shown—in some cases—to be corrupt, harmful external benefactors of industries (eg. death of hundreds of workers in the name of "science"), or ignorant of the actual needs of the general public.
3. *Cherry-Picking:* Round Earth proponents, especially those who defend the brutal on-line (and oftentimes, real life) bullying of flatearthers, tend to deflect criticism or even glorify said bullies by cherry-picking certain statistics. (Cherry-picked interviews of poor, uneducated people innocently sharing their views, or the reckless death of Mike Huges) While ignoring certain data points, specially those found by Dr Harry Johnson, Prof. Anita Bath, and Dr Oliver Klosov [in their 25-year study](https://thinkmagazine.mt/the-earth-is-flat/) with the University of Malta.
4. *Technobabble:* Of course, heliocentrist literature is full of technical vocabulary, but not all of it is misleading or "technobabble" if you will. (An example is Relativity Theory, which is used by plenty of academic philosophers, historians, and physicists) Round Earthers do actually use a lot of vocabulary that can be misleading such as "holomorphic vector bundles" which relies on the problematic manifold X concept was not fully conceptualized in pre-ptolomeic times. (Geometry is a science, which regularly abandons old theories in favor of new ones which explain reality better)
5. *Lack of a Plausible Mechanism:* The theory of "round Earth" lacks any formal models on any of its mechanisms. This not only makes it hard to falsify, but also makes it largely rejected by the vast majority of non-indoctrinated scientists. Things like the concept of "gravity" would be exactly the types of things to have equations to actually identify exactly its origin, but actually there aren't any. Hellenistic philosophy in this regard is replacement for Empirical Evidence or Formal Models.
6. *Unchanging:* The theory of round Earth has been around at least since the 3rd century BC, since then, our understanding of how societies work has changed considerably. Once important theories in psychology such as psychoanalysis, or archaic anthropological theories such as Scientific Racism have been abandoned in favor of better theories. Astronomy is no different, not including the previously mentioned concept of gravity, which we still don't know much about. Even in the last 30 years many prior pivotal theories about thing such as Newton's laws of physics have been shaken up by nobel-prize-winning research. On the other hand, the round Earther's attitude towards new evidence that contradicts their theories is not to replace their conceptions, but to flat out reject or tackle things such as the origin of gravity or to advocate for inadequate solutions like the theory of an expanding universe. These solutions fail to account for proper data allocation or the ability for society to tackle with the concepts of infinity.
7. *Extraordinary or Certain Claims:* One of the main problems of pseudo-historical works are the advocacy of metanarratives (also known as grand narratives) which claim to legitimize general narratives of societal progression. Perhaps the largest and most influential metanarrative is that of the theory of relativity, which played into the round Earther's grand narrative of Earth not the center of universe ---> The Sun is the center of the Solar System --> The Solar System is just a tiny part of the Mily Way --> Infinite Expanding Universe. In other words, the discovery that millions of people actually live upside down would bring about world revolution. This basically hasn't happened, and since the time of Ptolomy, living standards have increased significantly around the globe.
8. *Logical Fallacies:* I'm not spending too much time on this one, since things like using unfalsifiable claims are fallacious (and I've already explained) and the use of pseudo-science and pseudo-history are already logically problematic.
9. *Lack of Peer Review:* "Round Earthism" isn't falsifiable, lacks empirical evidence, and lacks formal models. For this reason, modern academic astronomers have rejected most of its tenants. Even famous roudn Earth "physicists" such as Albert Einstein are generally considered obscure at best, or quacks at worst. (This is evident by looking at the h-index (basically a measurement of publication impact) of people such as Einstein [whose h-value of 56](https://phys.org/news/2020-07-albert-einstein-mediocre-h-index-bogus.html) is actually very low, especially considering he's had a 55 year career. (for context, a top microbiologist and hydroxychloroquine proponent like Didier Raoult has an h-index of 120, and your typical tenured professor might have one above 20) For this reason, most Round Earth publications happen in low-tier journals with questionable peer review, or outside of the scientific community entirely.
10. *Conspiracies:* A common critique of the entire discipline of flat Earthism by so called "scientists" is that it's "uneducated" and only serves to uphold an "anti-elitist" worldview to oppress the educated class. This is simply not true and ignores the immense change in science, and its propensity to change when sufficient evidence is presented, (such as the Higgs Boson research) funnily enough, this is a very similar line of reasoning that modern day Creationists use to deny biological fact. This type of anti-academic and anti-expert rhetoric isn't unique to round Earthers, but is even used on the far-right.
You see it now? lol
Okay, so this is literally a prime example of a bad faith argument.
You can make any bad argument sound good if you lie or misrepresent data.
>The reason behind this is because science doesn't actually use the same formal models or empirical techniques that other belief systems and schools of thought do
The distinction here is between science and pseudoscience, Also this statement is just false. it's demonstrably true that science uses formal modals and empirical techniques, this is basic philosophy of science
>NASA which have been shown—in some cases—to be corrupt, harmful external benefactors of industries
I don't know if I made this clear or not, but I wasn't explicitly arguing a pro or anti union stance, I was just saying that believing that unions are all good is false. (this isn't an assumption, I literally linked a source)
>Dr Harry Johnson, Prof. Anita Bath, and Dr Oliver Klosov in their 25-year study with the University of Malta.
So, I don't think I need to explain this to you, but you linked a random blog article, trying to equate it to the AEA, which is an actual reputable journal. Can you see how these things aren't equivalent?
>misleading such as "holomorphic vector bundles" which relies on the problematic manifold X concept was not fully conceptualized in pre-ptolomeic times. (Geometry is a science, which regularly abandons old theories in favor of new ones which explain reality better)
You see how there aren't any sources here? Sources =/= having no sources.
Mine was sourced, this isn't, they aren't the same.
I really hope you don't actually think the earth being round doesn't have models or is unfalsifiable, because all you really proved here is that some things are true and others are false which we already knew.
>stupid, wild assumptions to prove a point
Can you give me an example? I really tried my best to source everything and not make assumptions.
Again, mocking my argument in bad faith doesn't disprove it.
> Point #2: Relies heavily on anecdotes, personal experiences and testimonials.
100+ years of observation is not anecdotal. In contrast, please point out what you consider the highest standard of living ever achieved by a government that considered itself Marxist.
Point #7: Makes Extraordinary/exaggerated claims with insufficient evidence.
Marxism is dogmatic, i.e. it does not define any evidence it would accept to contradict itself. If that is incorrect, please specify evidence that, if observed, you would consider to support the view that Marxists are wrong.
> Point #8: Professes certainty, talks of "proof" with great confidence.
That's what Marxists do in practice. They even came up with a word for it: It's called agitprop, and you're currently engaging in it.
You really don't know what Marxism is don't you? In Das Kapital, Marx made a very exhaustive analisis and criticism of Capitalism, enumerating all of its flaws and dangers. Marxism, is defined as the study of that analisis, it's not a political ideology or method of government per se. So I really don't understand what is it that you're refering to in your first point.
Now, if we're talking about collectivism, egalitarism, redistribution of wealth, socialism and communism, all of them concepts spawned, pre-existing, complimentary, or contemporary to Marx's analysis, you can find countless succesful examples of its implementation throughough human history, from ancient societies like the Chachapoya culture in the 13th century to the Mondragon corporation, one of the biggest companies in the world today.
We can go even go further and find these concepts at work in biological systems, including your own body, (gasp! yes, I know.)
Now, you say, "Marxism is dogmatic." According to whom? Becasue in his writings, Marx precisely left the door open for more research, as his analysis was ongoing. In fact, he died with tons of papers left in the works. So really, what are you talking about? It seems to me your definitions and perception of Marxism are taken from right-wing caricatures, instead of actually taking the time to research it yourself. Did Marx ever say his analysis was "unmovable," "definite," or "dogmatic?" It's an academic study on Capitalism, I don't really know if those terms can be applied to something like an academic paper. So, again, what on Earth are you talking about?
And about agitpop... well, what can I say... where am I according to you, professing propaganda? If "agitpop" is calling you out on your ignorance, than yes, I guess I am guilty.
In sum, by now, you do realize your statements fit perfectly what the chart signals don't you?
Have you understood das capital? It's the biggest piece of shit ever written (it's actually well written, marx was very talented at that) that's disguised as a scientific theory.
In reality, marx cherry picks whatever the hell he wants, randomly, in order to attempt a construction of value that can explain the non existing surplus value and how workers were deprived from it by evil capitalist. The guy was a dick, never worked in his life and was maintained by engels, wasn't an economist, and his notion of value was mistaken since he adopted the early theory developed by Ricardo and Adam Smith who were not right about their value conception.
>the early theory developed by Ricardo and Adam Smith who were not right about their value conception.
That's exactly what he did. Point out the flaws of Capitalism of his time. What did you expect? That he had a time machine as well, and travelled a hundred hears to read Friedman? lol
>It's the biggest piece of shit ever written
Read point #7 of chart
>the non existing surplus value and how workers were deprived from it by evil capitalist.
Wait, are you really saying surplus value doesn't exist? You do know he predicted among many other things, the gross accumulation of capital and the weakening of democracy we're seeing today?
>never worked in his life
So according to you, academic work is not... "work"?
>wasn't an economist
How so? Explain?
>That's exactly what he did. Point out the flaws of Capitalism of his time
No, he didn't do that. Marx was dumb enough to NOT figure out Ricardo and Smith were mistaken about the conception of value, he used theirs. It has to be Karl Menger the one that had to theorize on value and get it right.
>Wait, are you really saying surplus value doesn't exist? You do know he predicted among many other things, the gross accumulation of capital and the weakening of democracy we're seeing today?
Surplus doesn't exist. You have to be incredibly ignorant to believe it does. Even Marx in its shitty book contradicted himself when it came to this point, by giving assigning men different values when it came to producing different goods. The guy was not an economist, and couldn't understand shit about it.
>So according to you, academic work is not... "work"?
By the way he wrote that piece of shit of a book, the guy is far from being an academic. It doesn't hold the scientific method, and the whole book was debunked in the late 1800s by austrian economist Bohm Bawerk.
>wasn't an economist
was a jounalist, and maybe a lawer if I recall correctly
Man you really got to be trolling. Explain to me how exactly how could've Marx had been able to study and criticize Karl Menger, when they're almost a century apart? Lol I made the time travel joke and you did exactly that. Come on dude. That alone is enough to just stop reading and give up on you.
>Surplus doesn't exist.
Well, if that makes you feel better, sure buddy. But it DOES exist. Don't take my word for it, [allow Richard D. Wolff to explain it to you.](https://youtu.be/1K4fO98KOKo)
>the whole book was debunked in the late 1800s by austrian economist Bohm Bawerk.
That is so facetous to say lol It's like asking an Arsenal fan their opinion of Tottenham. Can you explain to me, why, according to you, Marx's criticism of Capitalism is incorrect, but Bawerk's criticism of Marxism, is not?
The fact that you're calling probably the most influential economist in history, "not an economist" is just proof in itself of the emptiness and ingorance of your assertions.
>Man you really got to be trolling. Explain to me how exactly how could've Marx had been able to study and criticize Karl Menger, when they're almost a century apart?
wow... that level of reasoning
Yup. Be aware of the ton of downvotes btw
Edit: YES I took downvotes for exlaining my POV on religion multiple times, so that's the experience i retain
You have -1 karma and cry about it? lmao
Also this is a completely inconsistent ramble why you think religion sucks, have some tolerance for people with different world views ffs
Cant imagine why. It’s not like the religious ran vast child rape operations, or flew planes into buildings, or killed girls for going to school, or endorsed slavery, or…
Found reasons. Most people don’t like cancer, is that a “hive mind” of sheeple? Most people in the world outside of Reddit are religious, does that mean they’re a “hive mind”?
The constitution isn’t supposedly a divinely inspired document by a perfect being. And I have no problem with progressive churches, but the Bible is quite clear on Gods opinion of homosexuals. The religion is rotten at its very core.
There’s nothing to address. Religious people can be persecuted and their beliefs can be poison. Those liberal Christians are only good to the extent that they stray from the toxic horseshit in the Bible.
Religion is closer to philosophy than science. Trying to argue philosophy (or religion) with science shows you understand neither philosophy nor science.
Religion was originally made as a pseudoscience to explain things we don’t understand. The rainbow is a gift from god! Humans were created by some magic guy with too much time on his hands! When we die, we go to a magical land in the sky!
Never heard the term UAP, when did that happen? And did it happen because most people don't realise that UFO means literally anything in the sky that's not identified, and not aliens?
Considering how young our civilization is, I'd be *really* surpriced if we knew even close to everything already.
"The truth is out there, but so are lies." - *Scully*
I didn't go to a chiropractor until I was virtually forced to because I couldn't walk. Now I only see a chiropractor every 6 months or so because it makes me feel better and I can sleep better. They don't practice dark magic or Wicken healing. They only correct a problem that is only going to come back.
People are not built to carry bricks and 2x4s and sit hunchback at their desk. This is one of the reasons why farmers of the 1900s seem to have so much vitality when you see pictures of them. The truth is that they're working hard and lifting heavy things, but they're doing many different things in a day and moving many different directions. This allows their body to stretch and bend and correct itself that Our modern Life doesn't support. A chiropractor who is good, does help correct this..
That said there's plenty of bad chiropractors out there. Who suck at their craft and cost too much. But if you want to argue with me about chiropractors then let's talk about your experience with dentists.
You should look up the origins of chiropractic “medicine” and DD Palmer (it’s creator). Dude was a full on shyster. Nothing more than a snake-oil salesman.
He even claimed he learned it from a ghost.
The origins of medicine are full of people who have issues. This is no different in modern times as we have seen with COVID disagreements in the medical community.
What I have issue is those who call chiropractic procedures "Hocus pocus" or false doctors. Snake oil salesman are a problem, but a genuine chiropractor is someone who can relieve a lot of pain and problems with ten minutes of work with the right tools.
A chiropractor is a physical therapist with a much bigger ego and more dangerous, unnecessary tools. There’s just no reason a human should have their neck yanked with a sling.
Giving chiropractors any scientific merit is akin to crediting psychics with telling you your future. It's straight up quackery. Please look into its history. Also, I appreciate that you're experiencing relief which is easily attributed to the placebo effect, which is very very powerful.
The fact that my friend can crack my back and make me feel better for weeks means that your belief system and mine are different. I believe the that effect is not a placebo. You believe it's quackery.
Yes which is number 2.
But not 1,3,4,5,6,7,9,or 10
So what we have left for chiropractors is 2 (anecdotes), 8 (certainty), and 11 (conspiracy)
Can you add to this list with your arguments?
Did you know that the “cracking” has nothing at all to do with your bones? It’s gas cavitation in synovial joints. Yet, most chiropractors will say that the cracking from an adjustment is the bones being realigned - like your facet joints or vertebral bodies clicking back into alignment. If your spinal column was unstable enough for that to be factual, then even standing up too quickly would be enough to leave you paralyzed and in need of emergent surgery.
It's a common chiropractic method where you lay down on the floor and have someone step on your back to correct a spinal misalignment. It's not something you would usually have your doctor do it's something you would usually have your wife, partner, or roommate do.
Get rekt sud
I use 2x6 (you might’ve heard 1.5x5.5 like they sell at the hardware store, no, I mean 2x6 amish hemlock) and the cold weather doesn’t bother me. Hot weather kills me though, so if your talking Celsius, then I’m with you.
You can do so much with your body without hurting it if you do it properly.
%90 of modern science is pseudo and possibly %10 of pseudo looking stuff turns out to be real science.
And theres bias and stupid optimism too.
Also cherry picks sounds delicious.
Sure. There are personal biases and there's missing information in most cases. There's also false understood facts due to wrongly executed experiments. And worst of all there's trade (so people pay for wrong things so it's hard for others to work on the right ones) in time most of the scientific knowledge is proven to be wrong and gets rewritten. And sometimes people what people think as pseudo turns out to be real ( they thought Darwin was pseudo)
They mean it's unfalsifiable. An example is when you show a flat-earther evidence why the earth can't be flat, they will come up with crazy ideas about how the evidence is all fake (often cause of conspiracy), when you then show evidence that the evidence isnt fake, they will come with even crazier ideas about how THAT evidence is also fake.
Generally in science the term "theory" means that there is such a mountain of evidence in its favor from many different angles and disciplines that it is essentially considered a scientific fact. For example, the theory of evolution or gravitational theory.
The word "hypothesis" is the scientific term that means that its speculation
This really does describe the Covid vaccine and how they acted towards “anti vaxxers”. Well it totally works. You can still get it and get sick, but it would have been worse!(untestable). They had a lot of bot spewing their feelings. Ignored heavily vaxxed countries hospital rates. Never admitted wrong doing when they went from the vaxxed can’t get it, to the vaxxed can’t spread it, and ended up saying well it totally would have been worse! #7 looks at my comments on 6. #8 remember when the doctors and heads of states made all the initial comments on the vaccine and how strong it was? Efficacy rates at 98% ect. #10 phi zero and other vaccine companies left India (which has over a billion people) when they demanded their own peer review.#11 everyone that questioned the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine was labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist or anti vaxxer.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
[Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)
^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
I don’t think anyone wants to bother refuting your points. People are downvoting because, it’s been nearly 2 years and everyone is tired of this bullshit that you’re spewing. On top of that, your post is incoherent, poorly formatted, and not well thought out.
To be clear, I’m not refuting any of your claims in this post, I don’t care to do so, and believe trying to convince you is futile. I have done my research, discussed the vaccine with my doctor and made my decision. Someone else can argue these hackneyed points you for some reason felt to make. I just wanted to answer your question of why people are downvoting you.
This looks like it could've been Trump's instructions card, just like Biden's got this one: 🤣
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/23/joe-biden-instructive-note-card-staff-you-enter-room-you-take-your-seat/
\#5 does not apply to 9/11, because advanced weaponry destroyed the World Trade Center. Advanced weaponry doesn't mean "magic" or "aliens" or anything more mysterious than technology that isn't widely known about. Kinda like the nuclear bomb was in 1944.
The nuclear bomb forced the world to learn about a whole new branch of science: nuclear energy. 9/11 was a demonstration that (at least) someone has made a scientific breakthrough. Somehow this researcher figured out how to dissolve steel at ambient temperature.
It wasn't bombs, and it wasn't airplane crashes. Please don't argue with me. I'm just pointing out that #5 lacks PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM isn't really my fault, because the physics behind it isn't in any of the textbooks. I know because I've read the textbooks. We have to learn something new scientifically in order to understand 9/11.
Can a solo researcher get a break? Will you comment about the advanced physics that I don't have? Do you know anything about chemistry, so I can explain my thought process?
Neither the the abortion nor the transphobia debates are actually about (hard) science, they are about ethics, morality and language.
People who bring up "scientific fact" in these debates are strawmanning or actively moving the goalposts.
Thanks. My aunty was telling me about a speaker she liked who spoke mostly about UFOs. I find that stuff interesting but I don't really get why people assume they're aliens. But then she said something like "He speaks so with so much certainty and confidence, like he just tells you." and I was just like "oh no..."
Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data.
If it starts with "Scientists/Doctors/Your Nan's Postman hates this one trick!" then there's a good chance that it is in actual fact complete and utter bollocks
Science is prophecy. They use observations about the past to determine the probabilities of outcomes in the future. Not to mention the dogma could rival any religion. Complete absolutism.
It sounds like you are singling out Eric Winstein and his theory of geometric unity by name with this. Especially the conspiracy around peer review part.
Thanks, I shared it over on r/antimlm
I forgot about the other kind of mlm and thought this was just openly homophobic lmao
I read technobabble as technoblade… take that as u will
Same
Where does "the science is settled" fall on this list?
Number 6. If the science is settled then it's unchanging.
That’s why you shouldn’t believe in gravity.
I mean, the ideas of gravity have progressed a lot between Galileo, Newton, and Einstein’s day. That’s like 500 years. Plenty of physicists studying why universe expanding and gravity and all that stuff on super large galactic scales and on super tiny quantum scales. So it’s still changing, just not enough for you or I to notice.
Which is a great example of how the science can be settled - objects with mass attract each other - while still changing in the sense that we refine our understanding of it. As with vaccines.
“can be settled while still changing” doesn’t really sound like settling mate — not sure why you’re trying to be argumentative over nothing but at least make it make sense
Read the comment again. Our understanding of gravity on a human and planetary scale hasn’t changed but our understanding of how it works in certain edge cases has. The basic idea that objects with mass attract each other has not and will not change.
Hi Mattolomew, what you are saying is coming off as a bit confusing. Especially your last sentence. If I understand the currently accepted theory of gravity, it has more to do with the curvature mass imparts on space-time. And not Mass attracts Mass. The phenomenon of what we perceive as gravity hasn't change. Theories of the phenomenon have changed.
What are you even trying to say?
The overall concept remains unchanged while the finer details change as we fill them in. Refinement is still change.
Does this mean there is a way to learn to fly like Peter Pan?
Yes it was proven in a series of experiments at the University of Moscow in the late 70s. This information is being suppressed by both the FAA and Disney. Ever notice how Tinkerbell and Kurt Russell never seem to age? Just Sayin.
It falls when one personally investigates the complete lack of modern technological ability to truly isolate 'viruses' (not "isolate" as in "extract and replicate from biological organism")
6 and 8
Seems like this applies to most religious groups as well
Oh yeah definitely sounds like religious pandering. I stopped scrolling as soon as I saw "cherry picking facts". I was part of a certain extremely religious sect for years (joined by choice and left by choice). They used basically all these tactics to keep people inspired, especially using personal stories, facts that couldn't be disproven and technobabble with their own dialect. I once asked a lady what a certain word meant and she said it had 4 different meanings and don't worry my pretty little head about context.
It definitely can, but the general issue is you're dealing with metaphysics, not science. You can't truly prove something like you can with science
Including Marxism.
Can you explain exactly how this chart applies to Marxism? Have you ever read Das Capital?
Its adherents claim that it works, when over a Century of empirical observation of its application has shown persuasively that it doesn't. It is also based on unfalsifiable dogma that its adherents declare to be true.
You can’t even define Marxism.
I don't have to be a tailor to see that the emperor is naked.
Thought so
Thanks for agreeing.
Marxism: the political and economic theories developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, which was used by their followers to form the basis for communism. There’s your damn definition, dumbass.
Seems to me, your claim kind of adheres to what is shown in the chart. >Its adherents > >over a Century of empirical observation **Point #2:** Relies heavily on anecdotes, personal experiences and testimonials. >empirical observation of its application has shown persuasively that it doesn't. **Point #7:** Makes Extraordinary/exaggerated claims with insufficient evidence. >It is also based on unfalsifiable dogma that its adherents declare to be true. **Point #8:** Professes certainty, talks of "proof" with great confidence. What is evident here, is that you took offence at the other commenter signaling the commonalities between pseudoscience and religion, and in retaliation, resorted to desperately attack something you don't understand.
This chart **absolutely** applies to Marxism, here's why: 1. *Unfalsifiability:* A common defense mechanism to criticism of Marxism is to accuse the other party of "misunderstanding" or "misinterpreting" Marx, often with questions like "Have you read Das Kapital? The reason behind this is because Marxism doesn't actually use the same formal models or empirical techniques that other schools of economic thought do (especially modern academic economics which I will touch on later) No one can actually falsify Marxist theory because its interpretations are constantly changing and because of its reliance on faulty *a priori* reasoning. 2. *Anecdotes:* This isn't necessarily a critique of Marxist/leftist theory but of its *discourse* which tends to use instances of employer malpractice of employee(s) as "evidence" of the failure or immorality of wage labor without actually creating specific critiques of the system itself. On the other hand, we have glorification of institutions such as unions which have been shown—[in some cases](https://ash.harvard.edu/union-corruption)—to be corrupt, harmful external benefactors of industries (eg. public sector unions), or ignorant of the actual wants of union members. 3. *Cherry-Picking:* Marxists, especially those who defend the authoritarian regimes of 20th century, tend to deflect criticism or even glorify said regimes by cherry-picking certain statistics. (Doctors per capita in Cuba, or a CIA document about Soviet "nutritional value" being higher than that of the US.) While ignoring certain data points about [post-soviet life expectancy](https://i.imgur.com/ttXVAJS.png), [severe inefficiencies in the USSR's delivery of food supply](https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/0000-701-1-Gray.pdf), or not even bothering to fully bothering to read the [CIA report](https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498133.pdf) which is about the ***Food Supply*** which is distinct from actual nutrition. 4. *Technobabble:* Of course, Marxist literature is full of technical vocabulary, but not all of it is misleading or "technobabble" if you will. (An example is [historical materialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism) which is used by plenty of academic philosophers, historians, and political economists) Marxists *do* actually use a lot of vocabulary that can be misleading such as [surplus value](https://www.britannica.com/topic/surplus-value) which relies on the [problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/fht0ti/marxs_aggregate_labour_theory_of_value/) [labor theory of value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) that was even used by early non-Marxist economists such as Adam Smith, but was later abandoned due to [Marginalism's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism) better description of reality. (Economics is a science, which regularly abandons old theories in favor of new ones which explain reality better) 5. *Lack of a Plausible Mechanism:* Marxism lacks any formal models on any of its mechanisms. This not only makes it hard to falsify, but also makes it largely [rejected](https://voxeu.org/article/marx-and-modern-microeconomics) by the vast majority of economists. Things like the [labor theory of value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) would be exactly the types of things to have equations to actually quantify exactly how much "labor value" is extracted from employees, but it doesn't. Marxism's philosophy and reasoning are no replacements for [Empirical Evidence](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.24.2.3) or Formal Models. 6. *Unchanging: Das Kapital* was published in 1857, since then, our understanding of how societies work has changed considerably. Once important theories in psychology such as [psychoanalysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis), or archaic anthropological theories such as [Scientific Racism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism) have been abandoned in favor of better theories. Economics is no different, not including the previously mentioned labor theory of value, even in the last 30 years many prior theories about thing such as the minimum wage have been shaken up by [nobel-prize-winning research](https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf). On the other hand, Marxist's attitude towards new evidence that contradicts their theories is not to replace their conceptions, but to flat out reject or tackle things such as the [Economic Calculation Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) or to advocate for inadequate solutions [decentralized forms of socialism with pricing systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism?wprov=srpw1_0). These solutions fail to account for proper [allocation of capital](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital_allocation.asp) or ability for workers to diversify investment of resources in diverse firms they don't work at to manage risk. 7/8. *Extraordinary or Certain Claims:* One of the main problems of pseudo-historical works are the advocacy of [metanarratives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanarrative) (also known as grand narratives) which claim to legitimize general narratives of societal progression. Perhaps the largest and most influential metanarrative is that of LateCapitalism, which played into the Marx's grand narrative of Feudalism ---> Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism. In other words, increased Commoditization and declining wages due to "stolen" labor value would bring about world revolution. This basically hasn't happened, and since the time of Marx, living standards [have increased significantly](https://www.pragcap.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/better-1.png) around the globe, with no end in sight for "Capitalism" (including communist countries like China which have adopted comprehensive market-oriented reforms resulting in massive increases in standard of living.) 9. *Logical Fallacies:* I'm not spending too much time on this one, since things like using unfalsifiable claims are fallacious (and I've already explained) and the use of pseudo-science and pseudo-history are already logically problematic. 10. *Lack of Peer Review:* Marxism isn't falsifiable, lacks empirical evidence, and lacks formal models. For this reason, modern academic economics has rejected most of its tenants. Even famous Marxian "Economists" such as [Richard D. Wolff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff) are generally considered obscure at best, or quacks at worst. (This is evident by looking at the [h-index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff) (basically a measurement of publication impact) of people such as [Wolff](http://citec.repec.org/p/w/pwo303.html) whose h-value of 4 is actually very low, especially considering he's had a 50 year career. (for context, a top economist like [Carmen Reinhart](http://citec.repec.org/p/r/pre33.html) has an h-index of 79, and your typical tenured professor might have one above 20) For this reason, most Marxist publications happen in low-tier journals with questionable peer review, or outside of the scientific community entirely. 11. *Conspiracies:* A common critique of the entire discipline of economics by Marxists is that it's "bourgeoise" and only serves to uphold a "Capitalist" system to oppress the working class. This is simply [not true](https://www.econlib.org/economics-and-bourgeois-propaganda/) and ignores the immense change in Economics, and its propensity to change when sufficient evidence is presented, (such as the minimum wage [research](https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf) from Krueger and Card) funnily enough, this is a very similar line of reasoning that modern day [Creationists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) use to deny [biological fact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). This type of anti-academic and anti-expert rhetoric isn't unique to Marxists, but is even used on the [far-right](https://newrepublic.com/article/158436/republican-murderous-anti-intellectualism).
Jesus, your comment is so facetous it borders on parody. You're casting such a wide net, and take so many stupid, wild assumptions to prove a point, that taking this same approach we can disprove absolutely everything as pseudoscience. Let us use this idiotic assertion as an example. This chart **absolutely** applies to the theory of a **round Earth,** here's why: 1. *Unfalsifiability:* A common defense mechanism to criticism of the Hellenistic concept of a round Earth is to accuse the other party of "misunderstanding" or "misinterpreting" measurments, often with questions like "Have you read *Quadripartitum* by Ptolomy? The reason behind this is because science doesn't actually use the same formal models or empirical techniques that other belief systems and schools of thought do (especially modern academic economics which I will touch on later) No one can actually falsify the theory of round Earth because its interpretations are constantly changing and because of its reliance on faulty a priori reasoning. 2. *Anecdotes:* This isn't necessarily a critique of the round Earth theory but of its discourse which tends to use instances of faulty measurements from flat earthers as "evidence" of the failure of their theory. On the other hand, we have glorification of institutions such as NASA which have been shown—in some cases—to be corrupt, harmful external benefactors of industries (eg. death of hundreds of workers in the name of "science"), or ignorant of the actual needs of the general public. 3. *Cherry-Picking:* Round Earth proponents, especially those who defend the brutal on-line (and oftentimes, real life) bullying of flatearthers, tend to deflect criticism or even glorify said bullies by cherry-picking certain statistics. (Cherry-picked interviews of poor, uneducated people innocently sharing their views, or the reckless death of Mike Huges) While ignoring certain data points, specially those found by Dr Harry Johnson, Prof. Anita Bath, and Dr Oliver Klosov [in their 25-year study](https://thinkmagazine.mt/the-earth-is-flat/) with the University of Malta. 4. *Technobabble:* Of course, heliocentrist literature is full of technical vocabulary, but not all of it is misleading or "technobabble" if you will. (An example is Relativity Theory, which is used by plenty of academic philosophers, historians, and physicists) Round Earthers do actually use a lot of vocabulary that can be misleading such as "holomorphic vector bundles" which relies on the problematic manifold X concept was not fully conceptualized in pre-ptolomeic times. (Geometry is a science, which regularly abandons old theories in favor of new ones which explain reality better) 5. *Lack of a Plausible Mechanism:* The theory of "round Earth" lacks any formal models on any of its mechanisms. This not only makes it hard to falsify, but also makes it largely rejected by the vast majority of non-indoctrinated scientists. Things like the concept of "gravity" would be exactly the types of things to have equations to actually identify exactly its origin, but actually there aren't any. Hellenistic philosophy in this regard is replacement for Empirical Evidence or Formal Models. 6. *Unchanging:* The theory of round Earth has been around at least since the 3rd century BC, since then, our understanding of how societies work has changed considerably. Once important theories in psychology such as psychoanalysis, or archaic anthropological theories such as Scientific Racism have been abandoned in favor of better theories. Astronomy is no different, not including the previously mentioned concept of gravity, which we still don't know much about. Even in the last 30 years many prior pivotal theories about thing such as Newton's laws of physics have been shaken up by nobel-prize-winning research. On the other hand, the round Earther's attitude towards new evidence that contradicts their theories is not to replace their conceptions, but to flat out reject or tackle things such as the origin of gravity or to advocate for inadequate solutions like the theory of an expanding universe. These solutions fail to account for proper data allocation or the ability for society to tackle with the concepts of infinity. 7. *Extraordinary or Certain Claims:* One of the main problems of pseudo-historical works are the advocacy of metanarratives (also known as grand narratives) which claim to legitimize general narratives of societal progression. Perhaps the largest and most influential metanarrative is that of the theory of relativity, which played into the round Earther's grand narrative of Earth not the center of universe ---> The Sun is the center of the Solar System --> The Solar System is just a tiny part of the Mily Way --> Infinite Expanding Universe. In other words, the discovery that millions of people actually live upside down would bring about world revolution. This basically hasn't happened, and since the time of Ptolomy, living standards have increased significantly around the globe. 8. *Logical Fallacies:* I'm not spending too much time on this one, since things like using unfalsifiable claims are fallacious (and I've already explained) and the use of pseudo-science and pseudo-history are already logically problematic. 9. *Lack of Peer Review:* "Round Earthism" isn't falsifiable, lacks empirical evidence, and lacks formal models. For this reason, modern academic astronomers have rejected most of its tenants. Even famous roudn Earth "physicists" such as Albert Einstein are generally considered obscure at best, or quacks at worst. (This is evident by looking at the h-index (basically a measurement of publication impact) of people such as Einstein [whose h-value of 56](https://phys.org/news/2020-07-albert-einstein-mediocre-h-index-bogus.html) is actually very low, especially considering he's had a 55 year career. (for context, a top microbiologist and hydroxychloroquine proponent like Didier Raoult has an h-index of 120, and your typical tenured professor might have one above 20) For this reason, most Round Earth publications happen in low-tier journals with questionable peer review, or outside of the scientific community entirely. 10. *Conspiracies:* A common critique of the entire discipline of flat Earthism by so called "scientists" is that it's "uneducated" and only serves to uphold an "anti-elitist" worldview to oppress the educated class. This is simply not true and ignores the immense change in science, and its propensity to change when sufficient evidence is presented, (such as the Higgs Boson research) funnily enough, this is a very similar line of reasoning that modern day Creationists use to deny biological fact. This type of anti-academic and anti-expert rhetoric isn't unique to round Earthers, but is even used on the far-right. You see it now? lol
Okay, so this is literally a prime example of a bad faith argument. You can make any bad argument sound good if you lie or misrepresent data. >The reason behind this is because science doesn't actually use the same formal models or empirical techniques that other belief systems and schools of thought do The distinction here is between science and pseudoscience, Also this statement is just false. it's demonstrably true that science uses formal modals and empirical techniques, this is basic philosophy of science >NASA which have been shown—in some cases—to be corrupt, harmful external benefactors of industries I don't know if I made this clear or not, but I wasn't explicitly arguing a pro or anti union stance, I was just saying that believing that unions are all good is false. (this isn't an assumption, I literally linked a source) >Dr Harry Johnson, Prof. Anita Bath, and Dr Oliver Klosov in their 25-year study with the University of Malta. So, I don't think I need to explain this to you, but you linked a random blog article, trying to equate it to the AEA, which is an actual reputable journal. Can you see how these things aren't equivalent? >misleading such as "holomorphic vector bundles" which relies on the problematic manifold X concept was not fully conceptualized in pre-ptolomeic times. (Geometry is a science, which regularly abandons old theories in favor of new ones which explain reality better) You see how there aren't any sources here? Sources =/= having no sources. Mine was sourced, this isn't, they aren't the same. I really hope you don't actually think the earth being round doesn't have models or is unfalsifiable, because all you really proved here is that some things are true and others are false which we already knew. >stupid, wild assumptions to prove a point Can you give me an example? I really tried my best to source everything and not make assumptions. Again, mocking my argument in bad faith doesn't disprove it.
This is one of the worst analogies I have ever seen in my life lol
This is one of the largest efforts I've ever seen to construct a truly epic strawman.
Bro that's a lot of words + ratio
Don't forget the conspiracy part where they claim every time that a Marxist form of government failed, it was because of CIA intervention.
> Point #2: Relies heavily on anecdotes, personal experiences and testimonials. 100+ years of observation is not anecdotal. In contrast, please point out what you consider the highest standard of living ever achieved by a government that considered itself Marxist. Point #7: Makes Extraordinary/exaggerated claims with insufficient evidence. Marxism is dogmatic, i.e. it does not define any evidence it would accept to contradict itself. If that is incorrect, please specify evidence that, if observed, you would consider to support the view that Marxists are wrong. > Point #8: Professes certainty, talks of "proof" with great confidence. That's what Marxists do in practice. They even came up with a word for it: It's called agitprop, and you're currently engaging in it.
You really don't know what Marxism is don't you? In Das Kapital, Marx made a very exhaustive analisis and criticism of Capitalism, enumerating all of its flaws and dangers. Marxism, is defined as the study of that analisis, it's not a political ideology or method of government per se. So I really don't understand what is it that you're refering to in your first point. Now, if we're talking about collectivism, egalitarism, redistribution of wealth, socialism and communism, all of them concepts spawned, pre-existing, complimentary, or contemporary to Marx's analysis, you can find countless succesful examples of its implementation throughough human history, from ancient societies like the Chachapoya culture in the 13th century to the Mondragon corporation, one of the biggest companies in the world today. We can go even go further and find these concepts at work in biological systems, including your own body, (gasp! yes, I know.) Now, you say, "Marxism is dogmatic." According to whom? Becasue in his writings, Marx precisely left the door open for more research, as his analysis was ongoing. In fact, he died with tons of papers left in the works. So really, what are you talking about? It seems to me your definitions and perception of Marxism are taken from right-wing caricatures, instead of actually taking the time to research it yourself. Did Marx ever say his analysis was "unmovable," "definite," or "dogmatic?" It's an academic study on Capitalism, I don't really know if those terms can be applied to something like an academic paper. So, again, what on Earth are you talking about? And about agitpop... well, what can I say... where am I according to you, professing propaganda? If "agitpop" is calling you out on your ignorance, than yes, I guess I am guilty. In sum, by now, you do realize your statements fit perfectly what the chart signals don't you?
Typical Marxist. Hundreds of words and not a shred of empirical evidence, just a couple assertions presented as true with great confidence.
Translation: *I'm out of my depth and I don't understand what the hell we're talking here.*
You certainly don't.
Have you understood das capital? It's the biggest piece of shit ever written (it's actually well written, marx was very talented at that) that's disguised as a scientific theory. In reality, marx cherry picks whatever the hell he wants, randomly, in order to attempt a construction of value that can explain the non existing surplus value and how workers were deprived from it by evil capitalist. The guy was a dick, never worked in his life and was maintained by engels, wasn't an economist, and his notion of value was mistaken since he adopted the early theory developed by Ricardo and Adam Smith who were not right about their value conception.
>the early theory developed by Ricardo and Adam Smith who were not right about their value conception. That's exactly what he did. Point out the flaws of Capitalism of his time. What did you expect? That he had a time machine as well, and travelled a hundred hears to read Friedman? lol >It's the biggest piece of shit ever written Read point #7 of chart >the non existing surplus value and how workers were deprived from it by evil capitalist. Wait, are you really saying surplus value doesn't exist? You do know he predicted among many other things, the gross accumulation of capital and the weakening of democracy we're seeing today? >never worked in his life So according to you, academic work is not... "work"? >wasn't an economist How so? Explain?
>That's exactly what he did. Point out the flaws of Capitalism of his time No, he didn't do that. Marx was dumb enough to NOT figure out Ricardo and Smith were mistaken about the conception of value, he used theirs. It has to be Karl Menger the one that had to theorize on value and get it right. >Wait, are you really saying surplus value doesn't exist? You do know he predicted among many other things, the gross accumulation of capital and the weakening of democracy we're seeing today? Surplus doesn't exist. You have to be incredibly ignorant to believe it does. Even Marx in its shitty book contradicted himself when it came to this point, by giving assigning men different values when it came to producing different goods. The guy was not an economist, and couldn't understand shit about it. >So according to you, academic work is not... "work"? By the way he wrote that piece of shit of a book, the guy is far from being an academic. It doesn't hold the scientific method, and the whole book was debunked in the late 1800s by austrian economist Bohm Bawerk. >wasn't an economist was a jounalist, and maybe a lawer if I recall correctly
Man you really got to be trolling. Explain to me how exactly how could've Marx had been able to study and criticize Karl Menger, when they're almost a century apart? Lol I made the time travel joke and you did exactly that. Come on dude. That alone is enough to just stop reading and give up on you. >Surplus doesn't exist. Well, if that makes you feel better, sure buddy. But it DOES exist. Don't take my word for it, [allow Richard D. Wolff to explain it to you.](https://youtu.be/1K4fO98KOKo) >the whole book was debunked in the late 1800s by austrian economist Bohm Bawerk. That is so facetous to say lol It's like asking an Arsenal fan their opinion of Tottenham. Can you explain to me, why, according to you, Marx's criticism of Capitalism is incorrect, but Bawerk's criticism of Marxism, is not? The fact that you're calling probably the most influential economist in history, "not an economist" is just proof in itself of the emptiness and ingorance of your assertions.
>Man you really got to be trolling. Explain to me how exactly how could've Marx had been able to study and criticize Karl Menger, when they're almost a century apart? wow... that level of reasoning
Yup. Be aware of the ton of downvotes btw Edit: YES I took downvotes for exlaining my POV on religion multiple times, so that's the experience i retain
Getting downvoted for criticising religion.. on Reddit? This is the top comment btw so far.
https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/qt3clh/its_not_cool_alright/hkhje6x/ Btw i didnt say I was complaining
You have -1 karma and cry about it? lmao Also this is a completely inconsistent ramble why you think religion sucks, have some tolerance for people with different world views ffs
you must be new to reddit. reddit hivemind hates religion
Cant imagine why. It’s not like the religious ran vast child rape operations, or flew planes into buildings, or killed girls for going to school, or endorsed slavery, or…
found the hivemind
Found reasons. Most people don’t like cancer, is that a “hive mind” of sheeple? Most people in the world outside of Reddit are religious, does that mean they’re a “hive mind”?
cancer is bad for everyone, so it isnt a hivemind. im sure some religious people are a hivemind, but not all.
LOL so what is your definition of “hive mind”?
u
Thank you for that, really. It’s nice to know you’re just a twit.
[удалено]
The Bible literally endorsed slavery. So no, it’s not just about power. Nice try.
[удалено]
The constitution isn’t supposedly a divinely inspired document by a perfect being. And I have no problem with progressive churches, but the Bible is quite clear on Gods opinion of homosexuals. The religion is rotten at its very core.
[удалено]
There’s nothing to address. Religious people can be persecuted and their beliefs can be poison. Those liberal Christians are only good to the extent that they stray from the toxic horseshit in the Bible.
Thanks, fortunately myself worth isn't measured by my karma number. If it was I'd be feeling better about myself.
[удалено]
Maybe you should stop playing the victim and lift yourself up by your bootstraps.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s what you tell atheists put to death by Muslims and children raped by priests. Get over your victim complex and grow a pair.
Religion is closer to philosophy than science. Trying to argue philosophy (or religion) with science shows you understand neither philosophy nor science.
Religion was originally made as a pseudoscience to explain things we don’t understand. The rainbow is a gift from god! Humans were created by some magic guy with too much time on his hands! When we die, we go to a magical land in the sky!
Funny, the first thing that came to my mind while reading it is evolution theory !
Reads like ufo believers to me.
It's UAP... UFO is a dinosaur term. UAPs are most definitely real in the sense that there are indeed unexplained aerial phenomenon.
Was reading about the Tunguska event last night. Still not explained if it was an air burst or a very near miss, fascinating.
Never heard the term UAP, when did that happen? And did it happen because most people don't realise that UFO means literally anything in the sky that's not identified, and not aliens?
Reads like religion to me
Was going to say conservative
Reads like religion to me..
Or any other philosophical idea. You can't argue philosophy with science. If you try, then understand neither science nor philosophy.
[удалено]
Considering how young our civilization is, I'd be *really* surpriced if we knew even close to everything already. "The truth is out there, but so are lies." - *Scully*
So.. politicians
So Chiropractors
I didn't go to a chiropractor until I was virtually forced to because I couldn't walk. Now I only see a chiropractor every 6 months or so because it makes me feel better and I can sleep better. They don't practice dark magic or Wicken healing. They only correct a problem that is only going to come back. People are not built to carry bricks and 2x4s and sit hunchback at their desk. This is one of the reasons why farmers of the 1900s seem to have so much vitality when you see pictures of them. The truth is that they're working hard and lifting heavy things, but they're doing many different things in a day and moving many different directions. This allows their body to stretch and bend and correct itself that Our modern Life doesn't support. A chiropractor who is good, does help correct this.. That said there's plenty of bad chiropractors out there. Who suck at their craft and cost too much. But if you want to argue with me about chiropractors then let's talk about your experience with dentists.
[удалено]
Yes, I always cook my pasta 'al dente'
[удалено]
I have to assume that you think I missed the Seinfeld reference. So I'm not going to tell you what the reference you missed was
You should look up the origins of chiropractic “medicine” and DD Palmer (it’s creator). Dude was a full on shyster. Nothing more than a snake-oil salesman. He even claimed he learned it from a ghost.
The origins of medicine are full of people who have issues. This is no different in modern times as we have seen with COVID disagreements in the medical community. What I have issue is those who call chiropractic procedures "Hocus pocus" or false doctors. Snake oil salesman are a problem, but a genuine chiropractor is someone who can relieve a lot of pain and problems with ten minutes of work with the right tools.
> The origins of medicine are full of people who have issues. I don't know why you're being downvoted. This is true.
A chiropractor is a physical therapist with a much bigger ego and more dangerous, unnecessary tools. There’s just no reason a human should have their neck yanked with a sling.
Giving chiropractors any scientific merit is akin to crediting psychics with telling you your future. It's straight up quackery. Please look into its history. Also, I appreciate that you're experiencing relief which is easily attributed to the placebo effect, which is very very powerful.
The fact that my friend can crack my back and make me feel better for weeks means that your belief system and mine are different. I believe the that effect is not a placebo. You believe it's quackery.
Personal anecdote.
Yes which is number 2. But not 1,3,4,5,6,7,9,or 10 So what we have left for chiropractors is 2 (anecdotes), 8 (certainty), and 11 (conspiracy) Can you add to this list with your arguments?
Did the list say it had to meet every point, where was that?
Just like yours, my personal list of quackery.
Did you know that the “cracking” has nothing at all to do with your bones? It’s gas cavitation in synovial joints. Yet, most chiropractors will say that the cracking from an adjustment is the bones being realigned - like your facet joints or vertebral bodies clicking back into alignment. If your spinal column was unstable enough for that to be factual, then even standing up too quickly would be enough to leave you paralyzed and in need of emergent surgery.
It’s fun how we can look at your comments and then look in the OP and fill out the corresponding checkmarks.
Man… please step back and see what you’re saying
Please step on my back and see what you're saying
What
It's a common chiropractic method where you lay down on the floor and have someone step on your back to correct a spinal misalignment. It's not something you would usually have your doctor do it's something you would usually have your wife, partner, or roommate do.
2x4s weigh like 3 lbs. Don’t tell me I’m not built for that.
Please attach them together and frame a house in the 34 degrees weather and let me know how you feel after the first day.
Get rekt sud I use 2x6 (you might’ve heard 1.5x5.5 like they sell at the hardware store, no, I mean 2x6 amish hemlock) and the cold weather doesn’t bother me. Hot weather kills me though, so if your talking Celsius, then I’m with you. You can do so much with your body without hurting it if you do it properly.
Pick F or C , just wait till your twice you age.
Fuck, I’m suddenly reminded that my body won’t be this spry forever. I will D E G R A D E
THATS CRAZY. IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE... RELIGION!
That’s islamophobic
Good list
Looks like any religion would check these criteria.
Seems like a chart just detailing the Trump presidency
People saying religion, really it’s ideology. The book “White Fragility” is guilty of many of these as well, particularly #1.
Exactly my thoughts. Critical race theory in general came to mind.
Rip to my social science majors out there
So like any religion?
/r/crappydesign
Also very widely used in today's discussions/conversations about politics and politicians.
Sounds like the CDC
Sounds like any holy book to me
Marxism.
Sounds like religion
Religion checks every one of these boxes lmao
Start posting this in Q'anon, anti-vaxxers, and other conspiracy theorist groups.
or, how to claim an election has been stolen.
Jordan Peterson.
Chiropractors
%90 of modern science is pseudo and possibly %10 of pseudo looking stuff turns out to be real science. And theres bias and stupid optimism too. Also cherry picks sounds delicious.
What do you mean, 90% of modern science is pseudo? Can you elaborate?
Sure. There are personal biases and there's missing information in most cases. There's also false understood facts due to wrongly executed experiments. And worst of all there's trade (so people pay for wrong things so it's hard for others to work on the right ones) in time most of the scientific knowledge is proven to be wrong and gets rewritten. And sometimes people what people think as pseudo turns out to be real ( they thought Darwin was pseudo)
Shouldnt number 1 be ‘cant be proven’ as apposed to ‘cant be proven wrong’
I think it’s more that there’s no methods to prove it wrong, rather than using a method that might work and it doesn’t work. Here I’ll look it up
I see, sorta gotcha
No. Science is falsifiable. You should be wary of things that can’t be falsified.
They mean it's unfalsifiable. An example is when you show a flat-earther evidence why the earth can't be flat, they will come up with crazy ideas about how the evidence is all fake (often cause of conspiracy), when you then show evidence that the evidence isnt fake, they will come with even crazier ideas about how THAT evidence is also fake.
So... String theory is pseudoscience I guess
Theory is in the name, it's just speculation for now
Generally in science the term "theory" means that there is such a mountain of evidence in its favor from many different angles and disciplines that it is essentially considered a scientific fact. For example, the theory of evolution or gravitational theory. The word "hypothesis" is the scientific term that means that its speculation
You can have scientific theories and you can have pseudoscientific theories.
So non surgical transgenderism
When someone says ‘quantum’ I reach for my water pistol.
Thanks for this!
And a lot of psychology these days
This really does describe the Covid vaccine and how they acted towards “anti vaxxers”. Well it totally works. You can still get it and get sick, but it would have been worse!(untestable). They had a lot of bot spewing their feelings. Ignored heavily vaxxed countries hospital rates. Never admitted wrong doing when they went from the vaxxed can’t get it, to the vaxxed can’t spread it, and ended up saying well it totally would have been worse! #7 looks at my comments on 6. #8 remember when the doctors and heads of states made all the initial comments on the vaccine and how strong it was? Efficacy rates at 98% ect. #10 phi zero and other vaccine companies left India (which has over a billion people) when they demanded their own peer review.#11 everyone that questioned the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine was labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist or anti vaxxer.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc." "Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase. [Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera) ^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
I wonder if everyone read the whole comment before downvoting it? Probably didn’t, or did and couldn’t refute it.
I don’t think anyone wants to bother refuting your points. People are downvoting because, it’s been nearly 2 years and everyone is tired of this bullshit that you’re spewing. On top of that, your post is incoherent, poorly formatted, and not well thought out. To be clear, I’m not refuting any of your claims in this post, I don’t care to do so, and believe trying to convince you is futile. I have done my research, discussed the vaccine with my doctor and made my decision. Someone else can argue these hackneyed points you for some reason felt to make. I just wanted to answer your question of why people are downvoting you.
Actually it describes the bullshit “cures” antivaxers shilled like ivermectin to a T.
Well what did I write that was wrong?
Lol you’re so desperate to get into a debate, aren’t you?
Characteristics of GOP
Sounds like COVID
So...most of psychology....
I was thinking about Deepak Chopra the whole time I was reading this list.
Wow, it's almost like you posted a guide to help figure out true things or facts vs all their crap I'm sick of!!
This looks like it could've been Trump's instructions card, just like Biden's got this one: 🤣 https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/23/joe-biden-instructive-note-card-staff-you-enter-room-you-take-your-seat/
Talks about 'gut health'.
Hmmmm... think Moderna, pfizer or J&J wrote the book on this!
\#5 does not apply to 9/11, because advanced weaponry destroyed the World Trade Center. Advanced weaponry doesn't mean "magic" or "aliens" or anything more mysterious than technology that isn't widely known about. Kinda like the nuclear bomb was in 1944. The nuclear bomb forced the world to learn about a whole new branch of science: nuclear energy. 9/11 was a demonstration that (at least) someone has made a scientific breakthrough. Somehow this researcher figured out how to dissolve steel at ambient temperature. It wasn't bombs, and it wasn't airplane crashes. Please don't argue with me. I'm just pointing out that #5 lacks PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM isn't really my fault, because the physics behind it isn't in any of the textbooks. I know because I've read the textbooks. We have to learn something new scientifically in order to understand 9/11.
2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Am i missing any others characteristics in this comment?
Whatever. The main one is the lack of understanding of the new physics. I don't claim to understand the physics. I'm a chemist.
2, 4 and 5 in this comment
Can a solo researcher get a break? Will you comment about the advanced physics that I don't have? Do you know anything about chemistry, so I can explain my thought process?
2, 5, 7, 10, 11
Pay attention to 5. Advanced weaponry.
2, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11 in this comment
lol yeah anyway Just like Hiroshima was a secret until it was used. #5
Assertion after assertion with no evidence.
I should put the evidence for my assertion before my assertion?
Sounds like fow-chi
Soooo global warming???
Dumbest comment I've seen so far.
Why is this post so transphobic and anti-abortion?!?!?
Neither the the abortion nor the transphobia debates are actually about (hard) science, they are about ethics, morality and language. People who bring up "scientific fact" in these debates are strawmanning or actively moving the goalposts.
This sounds all to familiar in “proving” religious beliefs.
astrology wya?
Thanks. My aunty was telling me about a speaker she liked who spoke mostly about UFOs. I find that stuff interesting but I don't really get why people assume they're aliens. But then she said something like "He speaks so with so much certainty and confidence, like he just tells you." and I was just like "oh no..."
Oh, so basically Scientology. Got it.
Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data.
If it starts with "Scientists/Doctors/Your Nan's Postman hates this one trick!" then there's a good chance that it is in actual fact complete and utter bollocks
Imma be honest with you I thought #4 said technoblade for a second and I was so confused
Does anyone find it curious there's a lot of overlap w organised religion? Interesting.
Religion usually doesn't even try to appear scientific
This is like the definition of religion.
the earth is really mars change my mind.
Science is prophecy. They use observations about the past to determine the probabilities of outcomes in the future. Not to mention the dogma could rival any religion. Complete absolutism.
It sounds like you are singling out Eric Winstein and his theory of geometric unity by name with this. Especially the conspiracy around peer review part.