OK. On topic of anti-intellectualism.
I have noticed lately, that there is a consensus on both sides of the political divide, that there seem to be a HUGE problem with people refusing to reason. Anti-intellectualism seems to be the name of this trend.
Well, the problem isn't exactly with the people refusing to learn, as much as with people adopting completely different view on what tools of learning seems to be valid.
People on the left do believe in institutional construct of academic science. They LOVE posting names of old dudes who agreed with their current belief, as well as pointing to a definition, that was changed 1 week ago. When we raise to them the fact, that all of these institutions are bending the knee in fear of their wrath, I am not exactly surprised, that they see that as dishonest unprovable hypothesis. (So, no matter what scientific paper I bring, you will just say, that people making it were afraid to disagree with the mob? Ain't that convinient)
On the other hand, the right does LOVE to use the common logical shortcuts. Rules like "No medication can be called 100% safe and effective by definition" are not written in any science jurnal, but their application does lead to an ability to form a solid world view long before information can go through a peer review, and are also completely free of any need for an authority to confirm them. Yet, when we come to a leftie with a 6 step logical chain, they look at us as loonies, since not a single one of these steps is formalized in an academic style. (Do you have a paper, saying that castrating kids will lead to a worse luck in finding a life partner????)
So, that means, that maybe, the time for constructive debate might be completely over. We no longer live in the same world, and no way of communication can bridge these two worlds.
Rightoids don't bring scientific papers. I don't remember seeing any here, that despite contending a few times over whether race is a concept that exists.
Strawman, nobody thinks trans people have an easier time finding partners.
@latein
> Rightoids don't bring scientific papers. I don't remember seeing any here, that despite contending a few times over whether race is a concept that exists.
So, tell me. Were you too lazy to read my post, or did your head reach so deep up your ass, that you couldn't smell the premise correctly?
The premise that rightoids bring scientific papers that get rejected for frivolous reasons is bullshit.
@Witch_Hunter_Siegfired @latein
I don't like the term post truth world, but if you simply believe everything, that has a "peer review" stamp on it, then it is an adequate one.
The insulting part though is, that they seriously think, that agreeing with every headline is the science.
Any concrete examples?
Also sounds like projection, this kind of stuff is daily here https://youtube.com/watch?v=ewXqB7g7t1A&t=3495
@Witch_Hunter_Siegfired @latein
I ha e already written my example, but here it is again.
>Covid 19 MRNA vaccines are 100% safe and 100% effective.
That line is so far beyond any reasonable standart, that you do not need a peer reviewed paper to know, that it's bullshit. Especially, since it was a new technology, and new technologies require decades of testing to be considered safe in a medical environment.
The covid vaccines do however appear to not be as dangerous as prophesied by cranks.
Narratives widely held by the left which can be demonstrated to be built on lies are what I'd be interested in.
Right-wing equivalents would be "15 minute cities" hysteria and holocaust denial
The Feminist Wiki of all things has a good article on it feministwiki.org/wiki/Autogynephilia
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
So, is that your "scientific opinion"? That as long as you can find an opinion more extreme on the other side, you can lie as blatantly as you want?
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
Nah, you just cannot argue your own opinion in good faith.
If you cannot even confirm that lying about something as blatant as 100% safe and 100% effective undermined the trust in both political establishment and scientific community without immediately going "but muh holocaust", then you are not capable of arguing on principles. All you debate for is some stupid team sports.
It is safe and effective, not 100% but only a salesman would say such a ridiculous thing, as not even water is 100% safe. But the vaccines are much safer than covid-19.
I never appealed to the holocaust only affirmed it happened and had it's denial as an example of a widely propagated lie I can blame the masses for propagating.
But if you'd misread my comment that way I take it you also think "15 minute cities" are not about pedestrianised cities, but rather are about a NWO control grid, in which case you are the type of loon that is immune to reason.
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
Of course I believe, that there was a push for lockdown, that later got renamed to push for 15 minute cities, after the total lockdowns failed.
And again, I can reason about it, but sorry, I don't have a jew approved scientific paper about it.
So, what is the point of this "15minute cities" project? A city structure, that allows you to have all needed necessities within 15 minute distance.
Do you have any idea what a city looks like? Within 15 minutes, I have 5 cinemas, 20 shopping malls, 6 gyms, 2 train stations... Evety city is a 15 minute city. You do not need a camera infrastructure and post covid push for that idea.
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
And what do you mean by "only salesman would say that"? The 100% safe and effective was my entire issue about the vax push. And it truly shook me, that it became a forbidden topic to bring out.
Nah... It was the governments saying that. Not just some salesmen. And this historic revisionism is getting way too old really fast.
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
So... the anwser is no. You have no idea what a city looks like.
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
BTW, what exactly is your problem?
I wrote my idea on the topic as clearly as I could only for you to call me immune to reason, because I didn't shit on people who might have a different worries in life then you.
Yet, all you actually wrote so far was: But muh holocaust. But muh 15 minute cities. You cannot even address that the claim of safe and effective was being pushed on people as a scientific fact.
Do you SERIOUSLY not understand, how that undermined the trust in scientific community to it's core?
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/08/how-do-ulez-cameras-work-and-how-many-are-in-london-18573707/
Does this fit the 15 minute cities theory?
If it were up to me such vehicles would be dismantled on entry.
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
Guess what the next step will be, after you prode an example... 
>>> Yet, when we come to a leftie with a 6 step logical chain, they look at us as loonies, since not a single one of these steps is formalized in an academic style.
On the contrary, I've never seen a chud say something in which both the premise and the logical inference were both valid.
For example -
1) Homosexuality is defined to be attraction to males be they child or adult
2) Pedophiles rape boys at a higher level than men in the general population are gay
3) Therefore pedophiles are more likely to be gay
But usually the fallacious bigot will skip over 1) and assume that, when in fact it is not a given that the men in 2) are attracted to adult men.
Any concrete examples?
There is a whole scientific literature on the systematic failures of the peer review process colloquially known as The Replication Crisis.
I think it's fair to say people smugly clapping back with "trust the science, bro" who lack sufficient epistemic depth to even be aware of the replication crisis, much less have a cogent response to its salient critiques are just engaged in vapid sloaganeering, not intellectual discourse.
I think Luke's point is that for some of us, the replication crisis papers merely confirmed (and to be fair, quantified) what was already clearly true just from applying Feynman's Cargo Cult Science model.
I don't think this is the defining cleft between right and left, I find Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory to be persuasive. But it is undeniably the case that broad swaths of 'the left' are actively out-grouping anyone who strays from strict ideological conformity. So people like dave rubin and barri weiss who were firmly on the left until they used an independent mental model to go "Now hold on, that doesn't really make sense..." got completely exercised from 'the left' and painted as "far right" despite having 90+% policy alignment with the median 2012 Obama voter.
@nicholas @latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
Heidy had to be dragged by gunpoint to even admit libertarians exist. Not yo mention, that his new pet project is "muh phones bad".
Don't get me wrong, I know he's 10 times smarter then I am, but I think his research is nice example of result oriented research, where he doesn't bother looking into a topic, unless he already has a clear result in mind.
@nicholas @latein @LukeAlmighty @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired There's also a simpler rationalist issue: there's a chain of trust that starts at you, you have to decide who and what to trust and if you can't use your own head to make judgements you can't reasonably conclude that the experts are worth trusting
if you can't use your own head to make judgements you can't reasonably conclude that the experts are worth trusting
True, but in fact it's even simpler than that:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
— Richard Feynman
@nicholas @latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
How the F did you manage to put links into a post? 
Lol.
Pleroma does what mastadosn't
@nicholas @latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
> Cargo Cult Science, by Richard Feynman<
Thank you, that was such a breathtakingly amazing video.
@nicholas @latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
It reminds me of Veritasium video on Luck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LopI4YeC4I
That astronaut example will never leave my nightmares.
@latein @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired
Old one, but should explain it well
@latein
Where did I say that both sides were anti-intellectual?
You are an idiot, who cannot read a simple post, without pushing your own agenda onto it, and yet, you expect me to go through 30 page paper and expect me to see it the same way that you do?
Nah... You are on the anti-intellectual side, and your inability to read is a greater proof, then I could ever ask for.
Where's this "but they're just as anti-intellectual as us!" coming from? The source of the problem is obvious, hence why I went from chud to socialist.