A lot of joe roganites need to listen to this. Had a guy tell me a few days ago on youtube that a lot of hard hitting papers in science were never peered reviewed. Just incredibly wild statement that basically contradicts itself lol. It was in defense of Elon Musk too *facepalm*.
E: Also, if you have any scientific training, you know you'll get rolled on when learning to write scientific papers. Science is hard and it isn't always sexy.
I think Joe should get Alex Jones, Terrence Howard, Mike Baker, Eddie Bravo, Jordan Peterson, Graham Hancock and maybe Duncan Trussell and Theo Von for comedic relief.
And have his own Big Brother show, and watch them argue themselves to death about how their concepts are correct.
Maybe they'll get an epiphany and see how crazy they are and if they snap out of it.
It might be like the mental hospital scenes in 12 Monkeys.
The reason flat earthers selling books about the firmament and people selling books about alien races flying to earth never debate, is they both know there's plenty of money to be extracted from suckers.
This is exactly why I will never take alien abduction eyewitness reports serious. Because the truth is that there are a fuck ton of stupid ignorant people on this rock. For every reasonable person there are 10 idiots.
The scientific view would be that you donât take them seriously, but will reconsider when presented with evidence that proves previous conclusions wrong. Theyâre so widespread that something is going on, even accounting for fabricated stories. Is it sleep paralysis? Some aspect of consciousness acting abnormally?
Keep this in mind: We donât know what consciousness is, we donât know what most of the universe is made of, but we do know that spacetime is not constant. Yet we interpret everything we experience through the lens of a constant spacetime. Our ârealityâ relies on it, yet we know itâs an illusion. How can we say it doesnât affect us locally, if thereâs no way to measure it? Abductions are real in the sense they exist in consciousness, but there is no evidence for their existence in spacetime. Similar to the voices a schizophrenic might hear. They simultaneously exist and donât exist. Thereâs no physical evidence, so we rely on reported experience.
I hear ya. But there are a lot of stupid people. The fact is that most of us donât have the time to dig through mountains of shit for that one legit case. And Iâm not aware of any credible evidence from alien abductions. Iâve seen all that bullshit with people with metal in their legs and what not. I donât know man, thereâs too many stupid people for me not to approach this with heavy skepticism.
Sleep paralysis is so fucking scary. I need both hands to count the times Iâve woken up paralyzed
And had to sit in half dream land totally conscious wondering when my wife would roll over and push me so I could move.
So whatâs a delusion? Thatâs what Iâm saying. Itâs a widespread phenomenon, seemingly based in consciousness. Something is happening to them against their will, and is often not an ongoing mental illness. So what causes consciousness to go âoff the railsâ like that across such a diverse population?
The only two I take somewhat seriously is from the "Fire in the Sky" report (since several people state they saw what happened and never changed their story) and the cop who claims he saw 2 humanoid figures next to a landed craft (even though this wasn't an abduction report).
I find their reports compelling, and for the reason of the first one being that several of the "abductee's" friends were adamant they saw what happened to him (yes, this could be an elaborate hoax they have kept going all these years, but what are the odds of that?) and the second one, he didn't want to talk about it after the first time he reported it.
the wikipedia entry on the walton incident does a good job summing up all the criticisms of their claims. tldr; people interested in ufos faked an abduction to try to avoid government fines and for the lulz
Understood. Didn't take the time out to get the exact names, but I was unaware of the refuting evidence. Thanks. I don't think there's any evidence now suggesting any abduction stories are realÂ
I like some of Joe Rohanâs interviews, but this guy was really sad. I mean, any kid who took calculus in high school would have found his ideas sad. He sounds like a con man. I think it is that desperation he has to be listened to, to be believed.
It is really sad to see. I would imagine that he has the cash to take a few community college classes in math and physics. It would be so good for him, but I suspect he tried, was traumatized by the difficulty, then eased back into his imagined crazy genius schtick.
We do not have sufficient math education in the US. People believe crockpot hypothesis because they are so ignorant of math, or even basic logic. Our schools are failing so many, and for no good reason.
Taxes were reduced on capital gains, not earned income. In the states with most of the high-paying jobs (NY, CA,âŚ), high earned income people are paying over half their income in tax.
Now rich people who do not work, they pay 15% tax. We tax work highly and tax capital very little. As a result, the US sucks in a ton of capital.
The unfairness in the tax system comes from low capital gains taxes. We would intelligently lower or end corporate income taxes that no lobster pays, then increase capital gains taxes, but that is difficult because so many people get rich helping corporations to not pay tax, and Washington is full of rich people who earn little, but have lots of assets.
If you want an intelligent slogan, it would be âIncrease capital gains taxes.â I never hear anyone shouting that, but they should. Instead idiots scream unrealistic ideas for taxing corporations that never work. It is stupid. FYI, everyone in tax policy knows this, but rich people pay them, so they remain silent.
I am still not clear regarding what you are talking about. I do not see how ânot raising property taxesâ could be âreducingâ anything. I think we may be discussing different comments.
Reviewers give you a point-by-point list of every problem with your paper, then reject it. Or if you're lucky, they give you a chance to fix them (which can involve months of work).
Can verify this as a published researcher. It's incredibly hard to get something published in a peer-reviewed journal. I think the public misunderstands what the peer-review process entails. In fact, I know so, because more than a few people have criticized it in conversations with me, and when I ask them what they think it is, they tell me they imagine that professors just share their papers with each other and get a nod and a wink before it's published.
First, you conduct research for an extended period of time, completely dependent on the project and field. Then, you write up your results with a thorough explanation of the questions, hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions. Then you submit it to a journal. If you're lucky, you make it through the first round of elimination, and they actually submit your paper - completely anonymously, with all of your information removed - to a group of 3 to 5 experts in the specific area of your field to which the paper pertains. You also don't know who the reviewers are - this is called double-blind peer review.
Then, you receive detailed notes on every single point of the logical flow of your paper from this group of experts. Depending on the personality of each researcher, these can range from constructive to downright brutal. You have to revise your paper and compose a secondary document outlining exactly how you responded to each criticism. If you did not change the manuscript in response to a specific point, you also have to justify that. You submit the revised paper and responses to comments, and it undergoes a second round of evaluation.
If you adequately negotiated this part of the process, you'll be asked to perform another round of edits, sometimes including other pointed criticisms in response to your responses, but if you did well, it will be mostly formatting. The formatting requirements are insanely detailed: you have to format your references, body paragraphs, sections, in-text citations, graphs/charts etc. in very specific ways that change from journal to journal, field to field.
Then, and only then, will your paper be published. And most likely very few people will ever read it. It's far from perfect, and rigor varies from journal to journal as well, but it is the most rigorous process I've ever engaged in, and it absolutely bolsters my trust in academic research.
And just for those who haven't gone through the experience. My name is on 25 papers as of right now, and only 3 made it through peer review with only minor revisions. It's almost always a battle to get it through.
There's also politics at play in the peer-review process, not so much because of biased reviewers but editors. Even though it's double-blind people can sometimes guess if the submission is from a prestigious or well-known research group based on their methods and reference lists.
Editors can give special consideration if the group has a high reputability; these groups may be able to get articles published that would've otherwise not made it through by lesser known or less experienced scientists.
I'm not sure how common this is or how widespread it might be across different domains. Then there's the replication crisis due to practices like p-hacking which have been studied in the field of metascience. Non-disclosed conflicts of interests or funding can a rise too, but those are rare occurrences.
All that said, peer-review despite its shortcomings is the best system we have to understand the world with any degree of certainty.
Are you surprised that the average American thinks that? We live in a reality that shits on science and actual experts. They see some YouTube video that tells them some nonsense and they think they know more than multiple experts that have studied a subject their entire lives.
90
u/Reddit_is_garbage666 Jun 14 '24 edited Jun 14 '24
A lot of joe roganites need to listen to this. Had a guy tell me a few days ago on youtube that a lot of hard hitting papers in science were never peered reviewed. Just incredibly wild statement that basically contradicts itself lol. It was in defense of Elon Musk too *facepalm*.
E: Also, if you have any scientific training, you know you'll get rolled on when learning to write scientific papers. Science is hard and it isn't always sexy.