Update

soyence.md

@@ -52,17 +52,17 @@ we cannot miss the fact that this way of establishing truth has simply no longer
 - "[Women](woman.md) are as intelligent as men, if not more."
 - "[citation needed](citation_needed.md)" on everything
 - "Studies show that ..."
-- "Science popularization" (more correctly soyence brainwashing) as in building authority of so called "scientists" so as to create a political capital.
+- **"Science popularization"** (more correctly soyence brainwashing) as in building authority of so called "scientists" so as to create a political capital.
 - "This extremely lucrative [Covid](covid.md) vaccine made by us, a predatory [corporation](corporation.md), in record time is absolutely safe, don't dare question it OR ELSE, just take it 5 times a year and pay us each time you do, don't mind any side effects." --Big Pharma
 - Fandom community over "science", fanboy mentality, treating scientists as celebrities, wearing "science" T-shirts and hats, watching [Big Bang Theory](big_bang_theory.md), following "I Fucking Love Science" on [Facebook](facebook.md), "rooting for science!", hostility towards anyone who doesn't support the same team.
-- "You can't trust your everyday experience or things you see with your own eyes, only trust our SCIENTISTS, they know better."
+- "You can't trust your everyday experience or whatever you see with your own eyes, only trust our SCIENTISTS, they know better."
 - "Science says [god](god.md) doesn't exist." aka reddit [atheism](atheism.md)
 - **Peer review** (better known as peer censorship): "We can't believe this because it wasn't peer censored/fact checked and/or it didn't pass the [null ritual](null_ritual.md) and/or it wasn't published in a journal on our approved literature list." (--[Wikipedia](wikipedia.md))
 - "This gender studies expert has proven sex is a racial construct and has no biological meaning. You disagree? Well, do you have a PhD in gender studies? No? Then shut up you fucking sexist."
 - Obsession with "novelty" and similar [buzzwords](buzzword.md) ([modern](modern.md), innovative, sustainable, green, state of the art, bleeding edge, ...). Papers have to be [advertised](marketing.md) well to gain attention, e.g. with videos on YouTube.
 - "Scientists" who actually make money on YouTube and Twitter and do "science" only as a side pet project to have some "content" for their online Disneyland.
 - "This goes against SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS therefore it's pseudoscience and [conspiracy theory](conspiracy_theory.md)."
-- "This research is racist.", using terms such as "scientific racism".
+- "This research is [racist](racism.md).", using terms such as "scientific racism".
 - Bullshit "fields" like "ecology communication" and whatnot.
 - This guy's research is invalid because in his spare time he makes videos on ufology and other "conspiracy theories", his REPUTATION AND CREDIBILITY is destroyed.
 - "We should burn these old books that say things we don't like, just in case. When Nazis did it it was different."
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ we cannot miss the fact that this way of establishing truth has simply no longer
 - Neil de grass/Morgan Freeman "documentaries", emotional "science" documentaries with famous actors and a lot of "PhD" women talking heads that make wild gesticulations and excited faces trying to tell you how EXCITING science is by suggesting there must be alien life because there are so many planets or by showing you black holes, explosive chemical reactions etc.
 - Political messages and "motivational stories" inserted into "scientific documentaries".
 - HERE IS THE SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT WAY TO CUT A CAKE, YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT WRONG YOUR WHOLE LIFE!
+- Leaving the scope of science, e.g. into ethics and politics ("science says THIS should be done"), subjective judgments ("science says dogs are awesome!") etc.
 - Deducing cool facts on TV about extinct animals from their skull shapes is Neil De grass stamp of approval legit thumbs up paleonthology science yay! :)))) But trying it on humans ([phrenology](phrenology.md)) is a bad bad NONO PSEUDOSCIENCE, neil de grass frown :(((
 - "We can totally trust the results of commercial research. They will be objective and sincerely publish even results that will ruin their business because even CEOs are moral people and wouldn't dare lie even if that should cost them their career. Even if a corporation wanted to do something bad there are still the excellent good people in government who won't let this happen."
 - "These negative results are useful but unexciting so let's not publish them, we gotta entertain our readers to stay on the market. We GOTTA TELL INSPIRATIONAL STORIES with our papers. We have to publish exciting papers about which we can also make YouTube videos for our channel." --soyence journals