all 87 comments

[–]aHobbitsTale 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

I've not read the link, but I will tell you that no true practitioner of the discipline of science is ever beset of panic because of new information that challenges their worldview. They welcome it.

It is only people with an agenda, a desire for hierarchy, or some pre-supposed outcome, that would be bothered by what the instrument reveals.

This is the difference between "the science" and Science. Scientific knowledge is always open to revision, by anybody.

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

"Scientists" are easier to buy than politicians.

[–]Insider 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Academia used to be one of the last lines of truth after the media, church, government, and NGO's became compromised. The CIA then worked their way to infiltrate them too.

Every politician is bought

Only a very small percent of scientists are bought

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

very small percent

The vast majority of "scientists" are bought.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Climate scientists perhaps.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All scientists. The practice of science depends on grant funding. And the funding profile of a typical science professor is far below the sum of the bribes a mid-tier politician receives.

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's not how bribing in science works.

With grants, you come up with a project, apply for a grant and they accept/reject based on the innovation/significance of your proposal in addition to your proven background in the field.

Bribes in science come more so with drug (or other) companies directly giving money to scientists or regulators. Or companies are the ones setting up academics in the first place. Similarly with government, they insert their own controlled scientists into various positions.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Similarly with government, they insert their own controlled scientists into various positions.

Who do you think funds the grants? Don't you think NSF and NIH may have some vested interests that influence the process?

While the scientific review forum does try to rank proposals based on merit, it's still a process that is based on personality and fashion (source: I have participated in these panels). However, the panel simply sends a list of rankings to the officers who choose grants based on "funding priorities". These choices don't necessarily align with the rankings.

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most "scientists", especially the ones in "climate" and "health".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You actually can believe that.

But you don't have to.

There still are topics that seemingly never have "big" changes though a lot of "sciencing" is happening there.

If you dive into specialties of these, there only are small circles which is no actual surprise.

[–]pyropulse 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As someone pursuing a physics degree, there is so much dogma here. I've presented data that contradict 'accepted view,' and they call you a quack and refuse to look at the data.

This is how it works, and the study of paradigm shifts is well known. The 'old guard' laughs and clings to the old, until the mounting evidence completely shatters the old paradigm, thus allowing the new paradigm to enter

Scientists are humans with biases; there are very few that actually live up to the ideal standard

I've looked at some 'alternative' hypothesis that explain the data far better, but my peers literally think of it as flat Earth stuff and refuse to look

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Scientists I've talked with tend to have this stupid belief that they are enlightened compared to the stupid people in the past, certainly I'm happy that we have a better understanding of the world than or forbearers but the hubris to assume we have it right simply ignores that those before also thought they had it right and thought so fervently.

Hell the big bang theory itself was crafted by a Catholic to counter the mainstream scientific view at the time that the universe had existed forever. And the name of the theory was mocking it for being silly. Then as time went on more and more scientists gravitated towards it and it became the mainstream model.

But in light of new data models must always be adjusted or abandoned for better models. A good scientific education should cover many different models. Yes including the flat earth model as well, since it's historically relevant.

[–]RedEyedWarrior 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Too bad that a lot of "scientists" are too egotistical to welcome new information and try to censor it. They're not scientists, they're either activists or they are greedy.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Ah the old "no true scottsman" fallacy. That's a good one.

All science is controlled by propagandists. No "real practitioners" of science exist in the institutions any more. We live in the new dark ages.

Let's be realistic about what they all are and revel in this epic egg on thier face.

[–]LtGreenCo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

"All science is controlled by propagandists" is a contradiction since Science by definition can't be politically biased. The minute you introduce bias into the scientific method, it's no longer the scientific method. So it's not really a no true scottsman fallacy since there is a very clear and well-defined line that cannot be crossed, else the label of 'science' or 'scientist' no longer applies.

So back to OP's point. A scientist would not be panicking from this news. They would not feel as though there's egg on their face because the big-bang has never been a certainty. It is simply the best guess we have given what we can currently observe about the expansion of the universe. But any scientist must concede that there's a lot we still don't know, and any new information that challenges the current wisdom must be welcomed and rigorously studied.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You literally described exactly how the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is constructed as your reasoning for why it is not that fallacy. 🤣

All those fallacies claim that the definition of thier term ("Scotsman" or "scientist") excludes those who can be described by the offending description.

[–]LtGreenCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes I realize there are "scientists" out there who can be bribed into tainting evidence or misrepresenting data, but in doing so they are not practicing science by definition.

Just because an argument follows the pattern of the scotsman fallacy doesn't make it an actual fallacy. E.g. "No true bicyclists have never ridden a bicycle" is logically okay because bicycle riding is a necessary trait of a bicyclist. Just as actually doing science is a necessary trait of a scientist. If you still want to insist they are scientists because their degree or nametag says they are then that's fine, but be clear you are now talking about 'scientist' as a job title, rather than simply 'one who practices science'.

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most of "science" labeled "science" isn't (and never was) science then, if you want to get technical. Most of today's "scientists" aren't being secretly bribed to taint, some are, but that's not how the bigger picture functions. The vast lot of them are already brainwashed retard-globalist-political zealots who are willfully enjoying being paid to poison and taint and misrepresent in the open, presented as legitimate, while they falsely believe themselves to be "scientists" because they're accredited by fellow posers of globalist institutions of the highest order. And it's a big joke to high IQ people who watch these reddit-tier poison-pushing airheads under our scopes.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

All humans are biased. It's true that science should avoid bias but that's an idealized goal rather than an achievable outcome.

Scientists pour their lives into developing theories and they will rabidly defend their life work from detractors even if those detractors are observational reality itself.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That only explains individual bias. That has nothing to do with systemic institutional narratives. Those are carefully crafted and religiously defended.

There is a reason you can't publish anything that contradicts global warming, Trans propaganda, sexual deviance induced by nurture, IQ, etc. Some of it is personal bias, but when all the journals walk in lock step, all the media outlets speak the same script, all the educational institutions teach the same sources it's more than bias, it's an agenda.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Individual bias is influenced by institutional bias which therefore goes onto further influence the institutional bias in the future. I think the main problem is most people prefer to believe blindly in a dogma, to have other people tell them what to think rather than do the mental legwork to evaluate ideas themselves. I think this is why you see such mainstream disdain towards fairly harmless and rediculous movements like the flat earth model. They're scared of it because they are utterly incapable of forming non-emotional arguments against it due to their own scientific illiteracy. And also because it illustrates greatly what happens when people choose to believe in a model over objective experimental results. In a way they really hate those kinds of people because they aren't all that different at their core and it creates a dissonance between what they clearly see as dogmatic viewpoints and their own dogmatic adherence to their viewpoints. In other words, most people don't believe the earth is round because they know it is round and can deduce the shape from experiment, they believe the earth is round because institutions have told them that it is round, and the mere presence of other contradictory models lays bear their inability to deduce their own beliefs and defend them.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If there were people with power manipulating everyone how would that look different than what we see today, and you write off as simply bias?

To me bias just can't explain how everyone with authority always refuses to allow scientifically rigorous facts to contradict certain narratives.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

People in authority with power are biased. It's very simply a matter of follow the money. You make studies that validate the elite you get more funding to do more studies. You go against the grain you don't get funding and have difficulty making more studies.

Most of the powerful elite are just as ignorant of good science as the unwashed masses. They care about money that's about it. It's what happens when science becomes financially incentived and universities become focused on profit rather than immaterial goals.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

People in authority with power are biased. It's very simply a matter of follow the money.

There is a big difference between bias and corruption. People taking money to falsify data, or push a lie are not biased, they are corrupt.

People who "finesse" results are doing the latter.

Most of the powerful elite are just as ignorant of good science as the unwashed masses. They care about money that's about it.

This doesn't make sense. The people in power are the ones corrupting the institutions to push thier narratives. They know it's bullshit. They are paying to spread the bullshit.

It's what happens when science becomes financially incentived and universities become focused on profit rather than immaterial goals.

You have this weird loopy logic going on where you seem to think all the corruption is just circumstantial. That it can somehow just happen without anyone intending for it to happen.

It literally can't. Without bad actors the situation would not look like this.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All your thoughts are controlled by propagandists.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sadly, Astronomy is really bad at science.
I made a long list of problems that you can read at

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I'd be willing to bet that the scientists and astronomers are simply excited about the new images of the universe, doubt there is any panic. A theory is but a theory, the new evidence may find the theory revised as we gain new understanding of the universe. All is good progress for us measly humans.

[–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The "panic" is showing in the censorship that Eric Lerner is experiencing.
Most scientists pretend to be open to discussions, until you can clearly proof that they were wrong.
Theoretical physics and astronomy are the most problematic, as they build a huge theoretical world with many different concepts.

Related to astronomy, I made a long list of problems that you can read at

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is an interesting read 👍 I'll revisit when I have the time

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The BBT in particular is rubbish and has needed many revisions and STILL isn't complete. Mostly because it's wrong.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There are papers with "Panic" in the title, relating to these new images.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)


[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

published academic papers in astronomy

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd expect emotive headlines in the tabloids for effect, but published academic papers? Disappointing.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

Christians who believe their bibles sit back and chuckle at such tomfoolery, as usual

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

Mostly "duh, god did it".

[–]jamesK_3rd 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

And that's still a thousand times better than the faith and belief of the zealous atheist.

Of course, atheists have always been willing to mass murder in the name of their deity, it's just some of them are smart enough to add fun names, and the rest of them are to stupid to know any different.. names like "abortion" or "communism", or scientism.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

atheists have always been willing to mass murder in the name of their deity

Do you even realise how ridiculous that comment is? Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, it is non-religious and has no affiliation with the political ideology of communism. The absolute ignorance is astounding.

Your comment is the equivalent to saying "those who don't believe in Santa clause have always been willing to kick puppies in the name of their belief in Santa clause".

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

99% of self-described atheists are zombie adherents of what can only be described as religions, with more zealotry than most self-described religionists.

Calling oneself an "atheist" does not make it universally so. It's come to mean very little in practice.

The worst is when someone is delusional enough to think they are "without theism" yet they are zealots: delusional. Which is the case for most now.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

It comes across as delusional referring to someone who is without religion as devoutly religious.

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

The delusion is 100% on the part of the one who calls himself "atheist" yet is devoutly religious. Such is the delusionality of most self-described atheists.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)


[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Yes, most self-described atheists are a real laugh out loud situation. They think stating they're "without theism" means they're "non-religious", and then in the same sentence they're extremist religionist worshipers of globalist ideological filth, and they try to murder nations and poison everyone, in the name of fake "social" causes, backed by international bankers seeking total control.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Political ideologies are not religions.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity

This is the fundamental error of atheism. As a non-atheist, I don't "believe" in God. I have no direct evidence of His existence.

Nevertheless, I put my faith in the existence of a creator. This is a conscious act, a behavior, as is atheism.

The honest, intelligent atheist and the honest, intelligent Christian are working from the same evidence and both know basic science. They can't help but reach the same conclusion, which is "we don't know."

It's not the conclusion that differs. As I wrote, it's the behavior. Cynically, I might say that atheists take our shared conclusion as license to abort, steal, wear fedoras, indulge in non-professional quote-making, and kill.

That's all anecdotal and it's my personal, reductionist viewpoint only. But the bottom line is that atheism isn't a belief, it's a set of behaviors (one of which is self-identifying as atheist, often conspicuously).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Agnosticism exists, as does outright atheism. You describe yourself as though you are agnostic, not atheist. I myself have zero faith in there being a creator and would not dream of having the same arrogance as the Abrahamic religions belief that said creator made everything just for a few primates on a rock. I simply don't accept the premise that their could be, I reject it fully.

There appears to be an idea of atheists being a group, no doubt an Americanism tied to the obsessive left Vs right wing dynamic everyone is stuck in. Not everything has to be seen through intersectionality.

The idea that Atheists are a group following the same political ideologies and morality is as absurd.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Agnosticism exists, as does outright atheism. You describe yourself as though you are agnostic, not atheist.

I think basically 100% of sane humans could fairly be described as agnostics.

I myself have zero faith in there being a creator and would not dream of having the same arrogance as the Abrahamic religions belief that said creator made everything just for a few primates on a rock. I simply don't accept the premise that their could be, I reject it fully.

Then I think you're delusional (and I'm not sure that "just for a few primates on a rock" claim is fair to all Abrahamic religions regardless.)

The idea that Atheists are a group following the same political ideologies and morality is as absurd.

I strongly suspect that a survey of the political positions of self-proclaimed atheists would exhibit more homogeneity of thought than a similar survey of, say, Roman Catholics. There are plenty of Catholics who are outright communists, and plenty of Catholics who are solidly behind Donald Trump. Atheists, anecdotally, seem to all hew to that "socially left / fiscally conservative" Reddit party line.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Then may we agree to disagree. While you consider me delusional for denying the possibility of a creator, I find the concept of a creator to be a primitive concept for those who seek arrogant reassurance that all this was made just for you so you can fart on a bus and drink coffee. 🤘

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, I appreciate you at least entertaining my thoughts. My philosophy is a fundamentally abrasive one, in that it sort of says "there's no way you actually believe that." Makes it difficult to get beyond "square one" in any discussion like this.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Admittedly there was a time when I was far more open to possibilities, although over the years I've taken a firmer position closer to anti-theism based on the sheer volume of terrible things that has come from religion and the belief in higher powers. I can imagine this stance even upsets the more average Joe atheist, but it is an immoveable position once attained. Our biological drive for curiosity is beset with this inexplicable tendency to diverge toward faith in the unknown without causation, without reason and without justification. I consider it something of a flaw.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The big bang theory originated in the Catholic Church.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Catholicism is against the bible so my statement stands

[–]IridescentAnaconda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

There are alternatives other than atheism and Christianity.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Every alternative to biblical christianity is a different flavor of going to hell for disbelief

[–]clownworlddropout 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)


[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Cringe all the way to hell and stay cringing with regret for eternity. It's your own choice but I recommend against.

[–]clownworlddropout 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Get a better hobby bud.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)


[–]clownworlddropout 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Get on your knees for sky daddy so you're ready for his second coming. *wink*

[–]IridescentAnaconda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Actions of a truly loving god.

More like an abusive alcoholic father.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sorry about your childhood but projecting the actions of bad people onto good ones is problematic. talk to your shrink about it this week please.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry you can only love a god whose principal interest is smiting people who don't agree with his followers. It's a very sad statement about your capacity for any kind of love.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Leaving people to their own choice isn't smiting FYI

[–]Inspector_Monkfish 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So I’m just a programmer and I’m thus just interested in shit and no expert.

But check this guy out:

He’s been saying the background radiation left over from the Big Bang is just bad science for years now. Essentially he states that because Kirchhoffs law isn’t correct we’ve been building satilites and antenna to measure the background radiation. But all they’re actually measuring is their immediate surroundings or variations in the instrument itself.

The attached clip is not the best one describing this point, but he has many.

This one might be better

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. Sky Scholar is very good at explaining these major problems.
It is just weird how these are ignored by many other scientists, but they do not want to know that they have been completely wrong for such a long time.

[–]pyropulse 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This dude is legit. He also presents valid evidence that the Sun is a liquid and not a gas; makes way more sense; transverse waves on the Sun; material hits the Sun surface and ripples are seen.

Mainstream theory says this is all an illusion caused by super complex gas interactions doing near magical stuff

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sun is a plasma. Phase of matter distinct from liquid and gas. It behaves like a liquid in many ways due to extreme gravity and heat, at least from our point of view. Were you able to visit the sun you wouldn't perceive a liquid surface but rather something more resembling flame.

[–]Totoro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nice. Would love to see what comes of this info. Maybe the universe is more of a bubble universe / megaverse. And our knowable universe is just a full bubble, afloat around other bubbles?

I still just can't wrap my head around that space is infinite, that if you go in 1 direction forever that you wont ever be stopped and that we are just floating in the middle of nothing at all but science states we are.

I can't wait to see what else the Webb tele shows us.

[–]NuclearBadger 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I actually thought about it and about 5 years ago decided big bang was bollocks, but I'm not a "got my bit of paper for 100k" scientist so I was ignored.

Get wrecked faggots.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Between this and Roe v. Wade, these must be difficult times for neckbeards.