Science thread Anonymous 115805[Reply]
Since there's too much talk about moids in our boards, I decided that I should do my part and contribute something non-moid related. So I'm making this thread about science, maths are included as well of course. I personally think that the soft sciences are actually closer to the humanities than to the hard sciences, but in the spirit of avoiding a flame war, I'll try to avoid this point as much as I can from now on.
You can ask questions and discuss stuff about science here, I'll try to answer whatever I can and perhaps attempt to guide posters in the right direction if I'm not familiar with the topic. I'm a physicist by training but I have a basic understanding of general chemistry, geology and biology as well. I know the most about astrophysics and meteorology/climate stuff, I'm OK at mechanics, thermodynamics and quantum physics and not so great at electromagnetism, relativity and maths in general (as in, compared to a mathematician, for a physicist I'm average at maths). Sorry if that came off as a bit pedantic, I just wanted to let you know the kind of stuff I'm more likely to give good answers to.
So yeah, ask away!
65 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.Anonymous 325199
I was reading a book on the subject of quantum physics recently and the amount of times the author said something along the lines of "scientists quickly realized there was an issue with their theory…so they made some shit up in order to make the theory work" had me laughing my ass off the entire time. It happened so often it became a gag and whenever the author pointed out an issue I'd say "let me guess, they just made some shit up" and sure enough I'd turn the page to find out they did in fact make some shit up. So of course I drew obvious parallels between modern academia and the religious shamans of old. To my surprise this very subject was touched upon by chance in some random lecture I was watching on YouTube. The important bit here is that according to said lecturer secret societies exist within all academic fields. Now naturally the connection between secret societies and the occult should be obvious and so this seemed to strengthen the idea that whether it be science or religion, humans ultimately rationalize our existence by making shit up. Now naturally this sent me in search of books on the occult and to my surprise there is documented evidence of many early scientists who were apparently well known members of secret societies at the time. I say all this to pose a simple question:
How much of modern academia is built off of the old structures established by the secret societies that predate it and how much of that structure still exists?
I suppose it's more of a rhetorical question to remind you to think for yourself regardless of how prestigious the organization behind the information you're consuming may be
Anonymous 325209
Everything is illegal, everyone is a criminal, everyone is under surveillance 24/7, and no one cares.
Living in a police state means that you must live in dread of being arrested. You can't help feeling hopeless.
Anonymous 325210
Saw this video recently which asserts that birth decline is most strongly associated not with women's rights, not even with how much it sucks to live in a particular environment, but smartphones. I think this is very interesting and I wanted to share it with more people.
>>325199That's very interesting. I wonder if "secret society" is less sinister than what it sounds like. It makes sense people would get better results when they're sharing information amongst each other, so maybe this is the reason these early scientists were often part of their secret societies?
>So of course I drew obvious parallels between modern academia and the religious shamans of old.Makes sense, one thing that really separates them is how strict/rationalist the tradition for "rituals" and "loremaking" has become.
Anonymous 325211
>>325210What a coincidence I was recommended the exact same video but have yet to watch it.
As to your point, the desire for secrecy certainly strongly implies the existence of heterodox and controversial beliefs but I don't necessarily believe secret societies need be malevolent. Not too far into the past, being part of a secret society was considered a symbol of status among the elite and thus many weren't shy about broadcasting their membership. I should hope it would be obvious how a relatively small group of people can influence the presentation of empirical data. It need not be strictly intentional for a group of people to subtly skew data to support their worldview. These posts are not a blanket rejection of science but a call to be skeptical of any and all information you might take as granted
