The cunt worked out how to make millions from gouging money from kids with cheaply produced pop, and caused a massive collapse in the quality of the British music scene, from which it’s never really recovered
There are people in the comments denying literal, established, concrete facts. That’s not questioning anything,; that’s ignorance at best and malevolence at worst.
You decide what’s fact. Everything you ever thought you knew is stuff someone told you and you believed it based on their presentation. You’ve never seen evidence. You’ve seen them telling you there’s evidence.
I agree with you that science publishing can be of variable quality. One solution for the reader IS to never trust one paper alone, scientific knowledge is established when many papers are published about the same topic and give the same conclusions.
Journal Impact Factor (JIF), is a very important part of establishing credibility.
Reputable journals are very selective about what they publish. They’re worried about their JIF.
If you get published in a journal with a high JIF, you can be as close to possible as establishing a foundation of fact, as their articles have a high chance of being both reproducible and accurate.
If there was a casino that took bets for which scientific discoveries would be true ten years from now, I would make money all decade long by betting on high ranking JIF articles.
What if you’re doing the research real-time? What if you, yourself, have done the experiments which logically are evidence? There are a lot of things you can scientifically prove yourself. And there are a lot of phenomena you can mathematically prove without even doing the experiments, although you have to try to mitigate or account for chaos / the specific environment you’re working with.
Conspiracy bullshit like “you haven’t seen the scientific evidence so it might just all be made up by so-called scientists” is garbage. You are a nut if you think that. It is on the same level as flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers.
Oh yeah, I’m not against the idea of science. Doing it yourself from the ground up is pretty solid. All of your own experiences are at the very least valid as you experienced them.
If you can believe the scale of vote fraud Trump pulled off, you can believe that textbooks are often written with an interest in influencing our young. I’m mostly against history as it’s taught. It’s written by the victors and so much of it comes off as fables and allegories to keep people in line.
All of your own experiences are at the very least valid as you experienced them.
Scientific rigor states otherwise. You must be able to prove or repeat your experiences for them to be accounted as valid within the context of experimentation.
‘Doing your own research’ isn’t the silver bullet you may think that it is. Most laypeople don’t know what effective research actually looks like; let alone understand how to actually do it or the covariates that may truly be impacting their observations or research. Further still, some may not even care to know as they may already have established biases. More often than not, it simply leads to further conspiratorial thinking.
I’ve always thought the classic Hunter - Gatherer gender division of labor was bullshit. I think that theory has gone out of fashion but I always thought it seemed like a huge assumption. It seems so much more plausible to me that everybody hunted some days (like during migration patterns) and gathered others. Did they even have the luxury of purely specialized roles before agriculture and cities?
Another reason I think that is because prehistoric hunting was probably way different than we imagine. Like, we imagine tribes of people slaying mammoths with only spears. It was probably more traps and tricks. Eventually, using domesticated dog or a trained falcon or something.
I always assumed that hunter gatherer division was mostly down to the individual, some traits make some better at hunting than others.
I struggle to locate static objects, I for the fucking life of me just can’t see it. I’ll be looking for something and either look right over it or walk past it multiple times
But if I go outside and look in the trees I can spot all the squirrels within seconds. Not like that’s a talent or anything special, but my point is that I’d starve if I had to look for food in the brush, and likely I imagine these types of traits are what defined who did what job, meaning who was good at what, and likely considering lots of hunting was endurance based and not skill based at all, then most adults probably participated to some degree.
I’ve also gone shroom hunting and had to come back empty handed because I can’t see the god damned things.
i’m rather convinced that stuff like ADHD and autism was at least co-opted by evolution (if not outright created by it) because tribes with a certain percentage of it had an advantage.
For example ADHD seems great for foraging, that provides the stimulation that is desired and the ability to completely lose track of time is pretty nice to stave away boredom from trudging through the forest for hours on end;
and autism is pretty obvious in how a defining feature is having special interests that you LOVE doing and get extremely competent in.
I myself have autism and i have no doubt that in a hunter-gatherer tribe i would have been having a blast creating tools and stuff like wicker baskets and trying to improve them as much as i can.
When you start looking at older debunked theories that lasted for a long time you can see the human bias in them. Not just a human bias but a a western bias.
Two that stick out for me:
Trees compete for sunlight - I think it makes sense to us humans because we compete for resources but in truth trees are way more ‘community’ based
The male alpha wolf - It’s how the western world has been organized for centuries so it’s easy to see that in a wolf pack even though its not true.
I am pretty sure that modern archeology agrees with you in at least some ways (know an archeologist, not an archeologist). I don’t have any specific evidence for mammoth trapping but there are these really interesting stone funnel traps that were used to trap gazelle herds …blogspot.com/…/ancient-gazelle-killing-zones.htm…
Also consider how long humans have walked the earth as hunter gatherers. Agriculture goes back to around 10.000 BCE. The entirety of time between 300.000 BCE and 10.000 BCE was likely (mostly) spent as hunter gatherers. Imagine in how many ways local roles and culture could have differed in that time!
The hunter-gatherer gender division is actually proven wrong now.
Also, hunting mammoths was a very rare activity. I would expect it to be some kind of desperate activity in fact. People weren’t more crazy than we are, they would rather live than to be trampled by a mammoth.
You can read the dawn of everything book which is a very interesting take at a lot of those assumptions which are indeed false. This book goes deep into the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence.
the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence
Surprised you didn’t get downvoted here. It’s like if you tell people science is done by humans and humans arre flawed people flip out and call you a science-denier.
Our bias tells us we can confidently assert such simple statements, but the truth is, unless we spend an agonising length of time understanding the most insignificant and asinine facts, we NEED biases to understand the world.
The point of understanding we have biases is to think more critically about which ones are most obviously wrong.
This is one of the things that killed the unpopular opinion subreddit, and made Reddit in general so annoying. The upvote/downvote is not an agree/disagree button, it’s for promoting valuable discussion and hiding the opposite
For these types of threads, I usually upvote things that are actually hot takes with some justification or unique insight. People that post an extremely popular decision or just insult something that a lot of people see value in get downvoted. Mostly it’s moderately common takes or unusual opinions with no elaboration, so I don’t vote on those.
The counterargument for this line of thinking is that it’s just theoretical. You don’t have actual experience with the scenario, so you can’t truly know how you’d behave.
We all like to think we’re paragons of virtue. But when the chips are down, most people behave in ways they never expected to.
In the words of an eminent poet, “Everybody got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
Sure, I don’t know how I’d react. I know for sure I’d do dodgy, illegal things. I also know that legal and moral are not synonyms. And I also know that the only person I have no choice but to live with is myself, and I have no intention of doing anything that makes me hate myself. Stopping time doesn’t change that.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘fake.’ Do you mean people have a different public persona than a private persona? Because I think that’s been true for most of the history of civilization.
Older than that. I, as a layman, suspect it might be one of the points that indicate the development of conscious thought.
Because Chimps, Cuttlefish and Crows can and do lie to each other in the wild.
Chimps will cheat on each other(i.e. a non-dominant male in a group will pair off with a female chimp, but the female chimp remains paired to the more dominant male of the group. Even going so far that the "other guy" will shield his erection from the first guy to avoid a beating.
Large Cuttlefish males will create and defend "harems" of female cuttlefish during their breeding periods. Smaller male cuttlefish are known to pretend to be female to sneak into a harem and mate with them.
Crows will make false caches of food if they suspect they are being watched by another crow.
Oh for sure. We already had complex social relationships that involved lying when we were only homo erectus and likely incapable of speech and were hunting full grown elephants and hippopotami(yeah, simple stone tools against those monsters required some serious teamwork). I think that creating a social face for those you DON'T know, though, had to come about once we were in a situation where there were people we interacted with that we didn't know. Hunter/gatherer societies generally still operated with too much of a cohesion for you to truly be "fake".
Not necessarily licking (I mean, if you do it enough…), but this is a thing
Cool story with interesting social, cultural, and scientific interactions.
It may have been discredited outside of simple iron deficiency since I last read about it, but dietary studies on humans are notoriously difficult to do.
We used one of these with our daughter when she had a concerning iron deficiency. I’m not super sure if it helped since we also started feeding her more iron containing foods, but it didn’t hurt 🤷♂️
This specific thing? Or just an iron chunk of some type?
The reason I know about this is the social aspect of trying to get people with endemic iron deficiency to use a supplement. If you’re from the more industrialized would, I’d figure you’d take supplements that, while more expensive, may or may not be more effective.
Our daughter was less than 12 months old and had a cow milk protein allergy that was causing her to throw up most of the formula we were giving her (the allergy took us a while to figure out). We opted for trying to improve iron intake before going to pills, though if she was still deficient at her next check up that would have been what we did.
You should change your thought process and listen to the experts.
They also would have recommended dietary changes if they actually were applicable. It is this kind of belief that leads to increased harm and is solely the reason why so many children are being harmed and killed by extremely preventable causes.
I’m not accusing you of being someone as heinous as an antivaxxer, but this is the thought process that leads people down that path.
I do. I also have a PhD from a medical school. That’s why I know if eating less milk were the best solution for this individual, they would have said that.
Managing parents’ anxieties is a major part of being a pediatrician. You don’t suggest things that might scare parents when they are not necessary.
Trust me, I’m nowhere near an antivaxxer, if the pediatrician pushed even slightly harder for medicine as the solution then we’d have gone that way from the start. They were fine with us trying diet adjustments first and doing another visit soon after to see if the issue was resolved (it was).
Im pretty sure the doctor gave them the thumbs up on trying dietary first, and Im pretty sure the doctor knows better than the guy trying to historically lecture that doctor retroactively.
The doctor is unable to stop them from their behavior.
Imagine yourself as a doctor. The patient has the plague. You say, “Take this antibiotic. It will go away.” They say, “We prefer quarantine and chicken noodle soup”.
Do you say ok? Or do you admonish them and risk they get angry and do nothing? Or do you say, that is better than nothing. It is their body.
The only ethical behavior for a physician in this situation is to say, “sure, try dietary modifications”.
They were trying to prevent long term brain development issues by resolving the anemia the fastest evidence-based way, but the patient refused expert advice.
A doctor suggests a solution, via direct supplements.
The parents ask if they can try dietary first, because they are correctly nervous about direct supplementation for an infant even if it is needed, and want to go for a safer option first if possible.
The doctor sees that the situation could also be solved via dietary supplementation, and is not so severe as to require direct supplements only, and says yes. Lets start with dietary.
The baby gets better, because dietary solved the problem.
Decades later, an internet troll tries to pretend that asking for alternatives and discussing your options with your doctor is akin to anti vax mentality, while drinking heartily from a solid lead mug.
Here, real medicine was practiced, and then someone who doesnt actually know what they are talking about tried to shame a parent for doing the completely normal thing of discussing options with their doctor
Yeah, couple times, but not for years now. Fetishizing pre-industrial times sounds nice if you aren’t one of the many people who would have died or lived with an untreated illness or condition your whole life. You should look into what they did to that man in college. Then find someone more stable making similar points and saying similar things. Industrial skepticism isn’t unique to Ted Kaczynski. The truama and subsequent mental illness that pervade his theory and philosophy is.
A very impressive but ultimately harmless piece of shark jawbone washes up on the beach of beautiful Amity Island, where it is later taken to the city hall to be displayed under glass. The summer tourist season continues on with little to no issue.
With reddit having way more people and being only a casual browser, I would never make it early enough to a post to contribute in a meaningful way. Whatever I would have said would be commented dozens of times before I got to the thread. At best my comment wasn’t made yet, but I’d be sure someone with more knowledge on the subject would’ve contributed in greater depth soon.
Here I see plenty of posts hours old with no comments. There’s a greater chance whatever I might say won’t get buried or overshadowed.
Tax the income of corporations not the profit. The same way you get taxed your VAT. That means that corporations can’t tax evade: if they make income in a country, they get taxed. They can’t go an declare the profit in the Netherlands or Ireland and skip paying taxes.
Create and use parallel institutions to allow society to thrive without needing to play the billionares economy game. Example: communication tools outside of a market involvement such as Lemmy, Element (matrix). Economy tools. Association tools. See the application of Dual Power by socialists, which is what you are proposing here, a redistribution of power and wealth.
It’s not even a new civil war. The last civil war only ended technically. In reality it went cold and has still been being waged all this time. It turned from a war of the rural South against the industrialised north. To a war on the industrialized from the rural.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.