When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on.
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha "Scientists SHOCKED by..." thing scientists researched, painstakingly gathered evidence for, wrote and, crucially, *published* a paper on.
-
@jascha Scientists don't want you to know about Roko's Basilisk.
-
Not exactly, for example, medical research is riddled with misogyny. The bias towards white males in scientific studies does lead to conclusions which are incorrectly applied to the whole of humanity.
@GutterPoetry these studies aren't very sciencely imo
@knowprose @jascha -
Scientists generally want you to know, the people that finance their work on the other hand? It depends on how marketable is the discovery
@csolisr this obsession with demonising funders is the same strand of anti-science, honestly.
Most funders are also people, part of an org set up to... Fund science.Globally, much research is funded by governments (so via taxes, interested in R&D and the benefits to local areas that brings, primarily), charities (and ultimately citizens for the most part) and industry. And some big donors, but again mostly because they have pet causes.
Sure there can be some conflicts of interest with industry and government and wealthy individuals. But overwhelmingly it's just... Funding.It's disclosed in publications. The scrutiny should be on scammers - in the US, medical insurance systems for example, and the 'wellness industry', multibillion dollars wasted on trash studied and marketing worldwide. And 'alt med'.
This idea that scientists' funders are all out there making nefarious decisions and invalidating research findings is just as rubbish as making scientists out to be evil secret-hoarders.
-
@jascha
There's a conspiracy theory that's been around for as long as I know; that a cure for cancer has been found, but is being kept secret because the pharmaceutical corporations have paid off the discoverer(s).
As if someone could resist the acclaim, the historical significance and the Nobel Prize. -
@jascha "*anyone* don't want you to know" is one of the title templates that I simply skip altogether. Other honorable mentions are "# must things to do to/before/with #" and "*any statement*, and why it is a good thing".
@luboganev @jascha “One simple trick” for avoiding clickbait.
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha Scientists would duct tape you to a chair and infodump it if they could.
-
-
@csolisr this obsession with demonising funders is the same strand of anti-science, honestly.
Most funders are also people, part of an org set up to... Fund science.Globally, much research is funded by governments (so via taxes, interested in R&D and the benefits to local areas that brings, primarily), charities (and ultimately citizens for the most part) and industry. And some big donors, but again mostly because they have pet causes.
Sure there can be some conflicts of interest with industry and government and wealthy individuals. But overwhelmingly it's just... Funding.It's disclosed in publications. The scrutiny should be on scammers - in the US, medical insurance systems for example, and the 'wellness industry', multibillion dollars wasted on trash studied and marketing worldwide. And 'alt med'.
This idea that scientists' funders are all out there making nefarious decisions and invalidating research findings is just as rubbish as making scientists out to be evil secret-hoarders.
@noodlemaz Not entirely wrong there! There are both good and bad patrons of science - in one side we have government agencies, public universities, specific charities, while on the other side we have... governments, universities and charities whose funds are ultimately controlled by people with less charitable interests. It's less of a damnation of science in general, and more of a sad reality of current capitalism. -
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha Scientologists don't want you to know.
-
@jascha
There's a conspiracy theory that's been around for as long as I know; that a cure for cancer has been found, but is being kept secret because the pharmaceutical corporations have paid off the discoverer(s).
As if someone could resist the acclaim, the historical significance and the Nobel Prize. -
@jascha that makes total sense in the real world. but you cannot overlook the fact that these motherfuckas are LARPing.
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
-
@noodlemaz Not entirely wrong there! There are both good and bad patrons of science - in one side we have government agencies, public universities, specific charities, while on the other side we have... governments, universities and charities whose funds are ultimately controlled by people with less charitable interests. It's less of a damnation of science in general, and more of a sad reality of current capitalism.
@csolisr problem of capitalism, fully agree. So many things are
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha Which was always why I found the fake Moon landing claims so hilarious. The number of nerdy talkative scientists and engineers they'd have had to keep silent was in the thousands and yet not one came forward with evidence of the fake. Hmmmm.
-
@jascha Which was always why I found the fake Moon landing claims so hilarious. The number of nerdy talkative scientists and engineers they'd have had to keep silent was in the thousands and yet not one came forward with evidence of the fake. Hmmmm.
@azphilosopher @jascha Most of these people believe the government is both too incompetent to be trusted with any power and also so incredibly competent at keeping an explosive and important secret. Sounds plausible!
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
This is how the supps cartels operate.
There's a reason the last place I worked started every meeting by warning us no information must leave the room or we'd be fired, but that it was vital for us to know, in-order to be able to squeeze the phrase 'may/can support' before every promising empty broad statement to get people to buy a $60 bottle of root dust.
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha At most, I've seen instances of their bosses not wanting you to know things, but those tend to also be the same people bankrolling the people saying "scientists don't want you to know"
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha often true, but I studied astronomy and have had professors hesitant to talk about the protests against telescopes on Hawaii and why they were actually protesting against them
(astronomers took the space using force, it was sacred to the locals, and are filling it with trash and shit)
-
@GutterPoetry @jascha That is a valid issue.
That is a science issue but it is a blind spot that is being addressed.
I'll give you an example.
My father was in a diabetic coma, but he had no ketones in his urine. Why? He was East Indian. The medicine around that has changed.
Not misogyny. Misogyny requires intent. Medicine has been biased toward white males. No question. But I won't say every doctor who built it hated women. That seems extreme.
Some did. Maybe many. But not all.
Science is only as unbiased as the researcher, and given that most people (even women) carry unconscious bias against women, there is little chance that this issue will be addressed so easily. The same goes for racial bias. Knowing about the problem doesn't alleviate it, huge changes must be made, studies replicated, new investigations carried out.
Misogyny can be overt or not & through direct and indirect means. Neglect of female health is misogyny & wasn't accidental.
