If science has not become a cult why do people get triggered if you don't believe the standard model?

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

Models are not facts, but they are representations of theories that explain observations. Yet you are supposed to accept them as dogmatic truths about reality. If you don't people call you names and treat you with contempt like heretics in the middle ages. And scientists are like priests in that if they preach anything contrary to official dogma they lose the ability to hold their jobs, a bit like excommunication. And we are constantly to have faith (or blind trust) in the science, and incessantly reminded about all the good things science has given us, so don't lose the faith and become an infidel.

all 49 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have a blog here about scientific evidence that clearly shows the problems in "accepted" or "consensus" science.
http://thescienceanalyst.substack.com

The general problem is that one assumption is made, which later becomes a dogma in the field.
The same problem is in cults, or very weird conspiracy theories like flat-earth, scientology.
The cult-like belief hinders discussions on all sides, as people start denying clear physical evidence.

Addition:
Many "scientists" believe so much in global warming that they start denying the fact that earth was a lot warmer during the middle ages, and after the last ice-age.
Scientists are usually nerds (bad in social interactions) and not very capable of resisting social engineering and social propaganda. So they can be manipulated very easily by people with a different agenda. They also accept restrictions of freedom, because they are never free of their own thinking. The education system never learned them to be free, and just follow the narrative.

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

Is it that they truly believe it or is it that believing it is the only way to get funding and keep working in thier field?

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Science teaches us to question everything. If we can't ask questions, it is a cult, not science.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Science does ask questions. You win nobel prizes by overturning accepted paradigm.

But some you have to be a little bit familiar with the facts before all the questions are sensible.

If this "science" person responds "fuck off" to the question "is the world flat?" or "does the greenhouse effect not exist?" that doesn't mean they're a cult. Even then if the questioner is 5 years old, you'll often get a patient response.

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What about asking questions about the standard model of Physics? How come Physics of the large does not mix with Physics of the small?

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

What about asking questions about the standard model of Physics?

Lots of questions are asked about the standard model of Physics?

How come Physics of the large does not mix with Physics of the small?

That's one of them.

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Why do they refuse to answer it?

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

Why do they refuse to answer it?

Do you mean they'll say "we don't know yet"?

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No they don't say we don't know yet. They refuse to answer the question and consider me crazy or stupid for asking it.

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

What's the context here?

Who are the theoretical physicists that you're asking?

Are you tweeting them, or standing up in a lecture theatre and asking in person?

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Both.

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

Can you link me to one of these reply tweets where they consider you crazy or stupid?

[–]shitt 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

It's not a cult

No one is triggered when retards claim that scientific fact is wrong

There is scientific fact, and retards who think they can refute it

If you don't believe in science, jump off a tall building. You'll be fine because gravity doesn't exist.

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

gravity is the only science i am allowed to disagree with and when i do disagree with it i should jump off of a tall building. got it.

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are cults that promote "the science", while it is just imaginary theories.

I have been banned from several "science" reddit-subs for discussing basic scientific problems,
like quantum-mechanics and black holes.

Usually these scientists have no clue.
So I friendly point out the problem with their reasoning and the related observations,
but they never wanted to discuss anyway. They just want to remove my input.

Those that do understand what is going on, are usually in the minority and too busy with laboratory work and such. I had some friendly answers from someone on how a quantum experiment was performed exactly, and what problems he had.
Those are the scientists that are not cultists and realistic.

Discussing vaccines and masks is a modern trigger to get banned, or even arrested.
On reddit my post was edited by admin, and I was banned from the sub for "hatespeech", while I wrote that a mask totally does not work as advertised.
The same is for gender ideology and climate scare things.
Most people are already aware that these are cults,
but they are still hiding behind the word "science" or "the science".

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

Ive told banning mods before they block the replies that the reddit servers no doubt have been hacked and the data is all recorded somewhere and that THEY would be counted as among the censornazis

I also have called some "useful idiots"

[–]Site_rly_sux 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"I have a counter-theory based on the following evidence:"....

-> Nobody gets triggered

"Fake dems prove viruses aren't true so REEEEEEE"

-> Now people tell you to stfu

Yet you are supposed to accept them as dogmatic truths about reality

Nope, that's not how logical positivism works. You're supposed to design an experiment which can falsify the conjecture. That's how everyone agrees science is suppose to work: screaming and insisting that your politics entities you to alternative facts are what makes people call you a retard

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

Yup

[–]William_World 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm a scientist. I will just say don't trust any scientist unless it's an experiment you can readily reproduce yourself. Vaccine info is classified for 70 years. That tells me something. I know the earth is round because there's an experiment i can do myself to prove it. With climate change I can see from my own observations of the last 20 years that temperatures are not rising.

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

The titles scientist and doctor sure don't have the same gravitas they once did.

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

This. ☝️

Trust the sci-lenced.

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Have you read Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions"?

Science is not a cult, but people get attached to the dominant paradigm.

Particle physics has been stuck in a degenerate research programme for something like 20 years now. The last significant correct prediction was the Higgs Boson, predicted in 1964. The problem with the Standard Model is that it is amazingly accurate for what it explains, but seems to be going nowhere now. And string theory is junk science going nowhere, making no useful predictions, and unfalsifiable.

[–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The problem with the Standard Model is that it is amazingly accurate for what it explains

This is called overfitting. Accuracy is not a goal, predictability is the goal.

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

And it fails horribly at that.

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

This is called overfitting. Accuracy is not a goal, predictability is the goal.

Of course accuracy is a very important goal. When comparing two theories, if all else is equal, we prefer the more accurate theory over the less accurate one. We certainly don't want inaccurate theories no matter how elegant they are, or how many wrong predictions they make.

The Standard Model is very good at making accurate predictions. What it is not good at is making predictions outside of the SM paradigm. You can get an idea of where the SM falls down here.

I realise that that there is no particular reason why the universe should be simple enough for us to understand, but I can't help but feel that the SM and all its associated theories are epicycles upon epicycles. Nor am I convinced that either Dark Matter or Dark Energy are real.

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

What it is not good at is making predictions outside of the SM paradigm

It generalizes poorly. A typical sign of overfitting to the known data set.

And no, you are very wrong. When creating models, accuracy of the training data set is NOT the goal. The goal is predictability of data sets outside of the training set.

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

When creating models, accuracy of the training data set is NOT the goal.

You're writing about machine learning, not science. There is no "training set" in the Standard Model, it was designed by humans (not a neural network) decades ago.

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

A model created by a human or a learning algorithm has to adhere to the same principles. In the end, you end up with a model, how you ended up with this model is irrelevant. The importance is whether this model describes the data correctly. To describe the data correctly, you have to generalize well from the training data to the test data.
You can make a model that gives 100% accuracy but it wont represent reality

[–]R51 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

people get attached to the dominant paradigm

This is pretty much it. Can't be calling science itself a cult just because people in general tend to internalize popular belief and try to win arguments.

[–]William_World 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I can't believe scientists made up something called the uncertainty Principle after they couldn't figure out to justify that it is impossible to figure it out. No, get back to the drawing board.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I can't believe scientists made up something called the uncertainty Principle after they couldn't figure out to justify that it is impossible to figure it out.

Oh, you can't believe it? Okay, obviously everyone else is wrong then, and you must be correct.

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

get back to the drawing board and figure it out

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

They have figured it out. At a deep, fundamental level, nature operates according to the rules of quantum mechanics.

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

no quantum mechanics just means we can't figure it out so we never have to. really it's just too hard but they should admit that.

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

It really doesn't.

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

explain in detail

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

explain in detail

Explain in detail 120 years of evidence for quantum mechanics? If I write five hundred thousand words on the history and development of quantum mechanics, will you read them all or stop after the first sentence?

We would probably start with wave interference and the photoelectric effect:

  • wave interference demonstrates that light behaves as a wave capable of interference and cancellation;
  • the photoelectric effect demonstrates that light behaves as discrete particles;
  • so light is simultaneously both wave-like and particle-like;
  • particles of matter, starting with single electrons and going all the way up to giant molecules made up of 2000 atoms each, also demonstrate wave behaviour
  • hence matter itself is also simultaneously wave-like and particle-like.

From there go on to the ultraviolet collapse of the atom in classical mechanics and emission/absorption spectra:

  • under classical mechanics, an accelerating electric charge will generate electromagnetic radiation, causing it to lose energy
  • so the electrons in the atom would spiral into the central nucleus, giving up all their energy in an almost instantaneous burst of ultraviolet radiation;
  • emission and absorption spectra show that radiation can only be emitted and absorbed by atomic electrons in discrete, discontinuous amounts;
  • thus solving the problem of the ultraviolet catastrophe but showing that electrons do not have well-defined orbits but rather wave-like orbitals.

That's just the beginning. But the bottom line is that at the scale of atoms, matter behaves as waves, not point-like particles or tiny solid spheres. Mapping those wave functions which spread out to infinity under quantum mechanics to the localised values that we measure occurs probabilistically:

  • the wave function spreads out over a volume
  • but our measurements always give us a specific value within that volume, with some probability as given by quantum mechanics.

I'm not saying that with quantum mechanics we have reached the end of science and the Ultimate Truth Of The Universe. We still don't know how to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity and general relativity. It is always possible that the future will bring in a paradigm shift that will change our understanding of wave interference etc.

Nor am I quite ruling out some sort of hidden variable theory that would eliminate the need for wave functions to be interpreted as "probability waves". But such hidden variables would have to violate relativity.

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

back to the drawing board, figure it out

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

My opinion, is that basically the cast majority of the population can't candle scientific uncertainty, that meaning they want to believe in absolute truth as compared to "we believe this is correct based on current evidence" quote un,-quote truth.

Most people in the world are retarded when it comes to scientific thought and want religion to tell them what to think. Once we do away with religion that doesn't really do away with the issue that most people are retarded and they just take whatever the current popular scientific popular consensus as "religious truth" regardless oh whether or not it is based in objective reasoning.

Naturally this goes along closely with the popular culture which is why you see populist cosmologists giving theoretically "possible" yet entirely unproven theories as fact.

The alternative is religious types who will shit down any discussion surrounding hypotheticals that seem to disagree with church doctrine. Such as the discussion surrounding the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Ultimately most people in this world are retarded and incapable of intelligent thought. Which is why everyone should quickly realize the failure of democratic rule and appoint me as their god emperor. Since of course I am always right.

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

Science groupies take a lot of time and effort to barely understand the reigning consensus. How dare you threaten their tenuous reductionist grip on reality!

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

It doesn't explain gravity, it's got a stack of parameter's whose value has to be measured and not predicted, and it's inconsistent with Lambda-CDM.

Given that its at most a work in progress, I'm not sure what is even meant by "believe the standard model".

Who gets triggered by that?

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

I've always wondered if the scientists who said a new scientific hypothesis or theory couldn't be right, then assassinated the character of the discoverer, if they ever offered a public apology when they were proven wrong?

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

This is a very valid point. A great example is the software models we use to predict climate change, it is typical that the most broadcast data is that of the most extreme and lowest probability outcome, and yet if you point out that this climate model should be taken lightly then your considered a 'climate denier flat earther far-right nazi racist fascist who kills baby kittens'.

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

Scientism is a thing...thats the cult-like overconfidence lots of people display about scientific understanding while ignoring the downfalls and weaknesses (like how science is good at explaining some things but cannot explain everything and there is SO much we don't know).

Sincerely, someone in the sciences.

I will say though, I see this attitude so much more online, coming from "not actual scientists" aka reddit neckbears than I do in academia.

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

it's important to remember that people can get pretty passionate about their viewpoints. It's all about finding a balance, respecting each other's perspectives, and fostering healthy discussions. Science is all about exploration and discovery,

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

modern science is all about getting paid.

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

its been severely abused

Recall algore's imbecilic declaration that THE DEBATE IS OVER about global warming - was one of the stupidest things said that century

SCIENCE ABUSE - AS BAD AS CHILD ABUSE

.

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

Can you first prove that people get triggered under those circumstances? Also, who are these people? Random NPCs? Who cares about those?

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

It's not "science" that isn't "science" anymore. It's the people who are dumbed down into cultish behavior.

Granted, this also works in scientific circles, such as Ancel Keys' HYPOTHESIS that animal fat consumption leads to heart disease, which was and to this day remains purely a hypothesis. He was so vociferous in defending this idea that he successfully shut down discussion on the topic and "dietary science" was completely subverted for decades by this hypothesis. Obviously Big Food was also pushing this, so Keys had major money help pushing his agenda, but still. Most people still regard animal foods as dangerous to this day, when in fact the contrary has been clearly demonstrated.

Today, well... Climate polticial bullshit "science" or the chinese cough or... Choose your topid... Agendas dominate, the dumbasses get whipped into frenzies and here we are.