Update

soyence.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 { I did my own peer review of this article and give it 10/10. ~drummyfish }
 
-Soyence (also spelled soyience) is [business](business.md), [propaganda](propaganda.md) and [politics](politics.md) trying to pass as [science](science.md), nowadays typically connected to [pseudoleftism](pseudoleft.md) (hence the word *[soy](soy.md)*), [pseudoskepticism](pseudoskepticism.md), [capitalism](capitalism.md) and [corporations](corporation.md). It is what in the [21st century](21st_century.md) has taken on the role that's historically been played by the church: that of establishing and maintaining orthodoxy for the control of mass population -- this time it is so called "science" or "rationality" that's used as the tool instead of [God](god.md) and religion, however the results are the same -- this is sometimes called the *cult of science* (quite nicely summed up e.g. [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20220924050207/https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/6bi4ho/comment/dhn89le/)). Soyence is not about listening to what science says, it is about listetning to what *"reputable scientists"* say, and of course not questioning them; soyence is what the typical reddit [atheist](atheism.md) or [tiktok](tiktok.md) [feminist](feminism.md) believes science is or what Neil De Grass Tyson tells you science is. While science is about collecting facts and drawing conclusions, soyence is about setting conclusions and finding or fabricating facts that support them. One red flag to watch out in relation to soyence is a great weight put on **reputation** -- in true science reputation plays no role, only results do; reputation and its great value for one's acceptance is rather part of [politics](politics.md) (and maybe show business). Notice for example how in the past it was more common to hear "science has found X" (as in "logic itself shows this fact") rather than "scientists have found X", which is more common nowadays -- mentally we have shifted to separate people to "scientists", those who "know" and dictate what's true, and non-scientists, those who don't know and must just listen. Soyence calls itself the one and only science^TM and [gatekeeps](gatekeeping.md) the term by calling unpopular science (such as that regarding human [race](race.md), questioning official versions of [historical](history.md) events or safety of big pharma [vaccines](vaccine.md)) "[pseudoscience](pseudoscience.md)" and "[conspiracy theories](conspiracy_theory.md)". Soyence itself is pseudoscience but it has an official status, approval of [state](state.md), strong connection to [politics](politics.md), it is mainstream, popular, controlled by those in power, [censored](censorship.md) ("moderated") and intentionally misleading. Soyence can be encountered in much of [academia](academia.md), on [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) and in other popular/mainstream media such as TV "documentaries" and [YouTube](youtube.md). A soyence supporter wrongfully believes that reason wouldn't allow such a large scale mass population manipulation (despite this happening over and over throughout history) -- people at large aren't reasonable and reason [cannot](yes_they_can.md) beat [propaganda](propaganda.md); only the highest naivety could make you believe that politics will follow science -- it's the other way around, and always has been. With enough power [anything is possible](yes_they_can.md). Big science is a big dirty game just like big politics or big corporate business, anyone thinking that corruption avoids big science or that it's only present in small amounts is naive like an unborn child, it is literally like believing big politics is free of corruption and done by good selfless people who are concerned about securing well being for the citizens.
+Soyence (also spelled soyience) is [business](business.md), [propaganda](propaganda.md) and [politics](politics.md) attempting to pass as [science](science.md), nowadays typically connected to [pseudoleftism](pseudoleft.md) (hence the word *[soy](soy.md)*), [pseudoskepticism](pseudoskepticism.md), [capitalism](capitalism.md) and [corporations](corporation.md). It is what in the [21st century](21st_century.md) has taken on the role that's historically been played by the church: that of establishing and maintaining orthodoxy for the control of mass population -- this time it is so called "science" or "rationality" that's used as the tool instead of [God](god.md) and religion, however the results are the same -- this is sometimes called the *cult of science* (quite nicely summed up e.g. [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20220924050207/https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/6bi4ho/comment/dhn89le/)). Soyence is not about listening to what science says, it is about listetning to what *"reputable scientists"* say, and of course not questioning them; soyence is what the typical reddit [atheist](atheism.md) or [tiktok](tiktok.md) [feminist](feminism.md) believes science is or what Neil De Grass Tyson tells you science is. While science is about collecting facts and drawing conclusions, soyence is about setting conclusions and finding or fabricating facts that support them. One red flag to watch out in relation to soyence is a great weight put on **reputation** -- in true science reputation plays no role, only results do; reputation and its great value for one's acceptance is rather part of [politics](politics.md) (and maybe show business). Notice for example how in the past it was more common to hear "science has found X" (as in "logic itself shows this fact") rather than "scientists have found X", which is more common nowadays -- mentally we have shifted to separate people to "scientists", those who "know" and dictate what's true, and non-scientists, those who don't know and must just listen. Soyence calls itself the one and only science^TM and [gatekeeps](gatekeeping.md) the term by calling unpopular science (such as that regarding human [race](race.md), questioning official versions of [historical](history.md) events or safety of big pharma [vaccines](vaccine.md)) "[pseudoscience](pseudoscience.md)" and "[conspiracy theories](conspiracy_theory.md)". Soyence itself is pseudoscience but it has an official status, approval of [state](state.md), strong connection to [politics](politics.md), it is mainstream, popular, controlled by those in power, [censored](censorship.md) ("moderated") and intentionally misleading. Soyence can be encountered in much of [academia](academia.md), on [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) and in other popular/mainstream media such as TV "documentaries" and [YouTube](youtube.md). A soyence supporter wrongfully believes that reason wouldn't allow such a large scale mass population manipulation (despite this happening over and over throughout history) -- people at large aren't reasonable and reason [cannot](yes_they_can.md) beat [propaganda](propaganda.md); only the highest naivety could make you believe that politics will follow science -- it's the other way around, and always has been. With enough power [anything is possible](yes_they_can.md). Big science is a big dirty game just like big politics or big corporate business, anyone thinking that corruption avoids big science or that it's only present in small amounts is naive like an unborn child, it is literally like believing big politics is free of corruption and done by good selfless people who are concerned about securing well being for the citizens.
 
 *"I don’t care about individual scientists, only a consensus of scientists. [...] I don't care, titles don't matter, what matters is consensus."* --Neil de Grass on Del Bigtree's TV show
 
@@ -12,20 +12,20 @@ Compared to good old [fun](fun.md) pseudosciences such as [astrology](astrology.
 
 Soyence uses all the cheap tricks of politics (also not dissimilar to those of [greenwashing](greenwashing.md), [openwashing](openwashing.md) etc.) to win stupid people, it builds on the cult of bullying religion and creating a [war mentality](fight_culture.md), overuse of twisted "rationality" ([pseudoskepticism](pseudoskepticism.md)), creating science [bloat](bloat.md) and bullshit "scientific" fields to obscure lies, punishment of the correct use of rationality, building cults of personality ("science educators", the [gatekeepers](gatekeeping.md) of "science") and appealing to egoism and naivity of wannabe smartasses while at the same time not even holding up to principles of science such as genuine objectivity. A soyence kid will for example keep preaching about how everything should be proven by reproducible experiments while at the same time accepting [de facto](de_facto.md) irreproducible results, e.g. those obtained with billion dollar worth research performed at [CERN](cern.md) which can NOT be reproduced anywhere else than at CERN with thousands of top scientist putting in years of work. Such results are not reproducible in practice, they are accepted on the basis of pure faith in those presenting it, just as religious people accept the words of preachers. The kid will argue that in theory someone else can build another CERN and reproduce the results, but that won't happen in practice, it's just a purely theoretical unrealistic scenario so his version of what "science" is is really based on reproducibility that only works in a dreamed up world, this kind of reproducibility doesn't at all fulfill its original purpose of allowing others to check, confirm or refute the results of experiments. This starts to play a bigger role when for example vaccines start to get promoted by the government as "proven safe by science" (read "claimed safe by a corporation who makes money off of people being sick"), the soyence kid will gladly accept the vaccine and [fight](fight_culture.md) for their acceptance just thanks to this label, not based on any truly scientific facts but out of pure faith in self proclaimed science authorities -- trusting an authority (be it pope, priests, holy book or a scientific journal) is by definition [religion](religion.md) and here the soyentist is relying purely on faith, a concept he would like to think he hates with his soul.
 
-The "[citation needed](citation_needed.md)" craziness that indicates lack of any brain and pure reliance on the word of authority is seen e.g. on [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md). Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, observation or EVEN LOGIC ITSELF as a basis for presenting something -- everything, even trivial claims have to have a "citation" from a source WITH mainstream political views (unpopular and controversial sources are banned); Wikipedia is therefore one big propaganda ground for those with power over the mainstream media.
+The "[citation needed](citation_needed.md)" insanity that indicates lack of any brain and pure reliance on the word of authority is best exemplified by [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md). Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, observation or EVEN LOGIC ITSELF as a basis for presenting something -- everything, even trivial claims, must have a "citation" from a source WITH mainstream political views (unpopular and controversial sources are banned); Wikipedia is therefore one big propaganda ground for those with power over the mainstream media.
 
 Soyence relies on low [IQ](iq.md), shallow education and popular "science education" (e.g. neil de grass), while making its followers believe they are smart. It produces propaganda material such as "documentaries" with Morgan Freeman (i.e. people who are good at persuasion rather than being competent), series like The Big Bang Theory and [YouTube](youtube.md) videos with titles such as "Debunking Flat Earth with FACTS AND LOGIC", so there's a huge mass of [NPCs](npc.md) thinking they are Einsteins who blindly support this cult. Soyence attacks science from within by attacking its core principles, i.e. it tries to ridicule and punish thinking outside the box and asking specific questions -- in this it is not dissimilar to a mass [religion](religion.md).
 
 For the ones who possibly still don't get it, here is a little comparison. It is good if for now you don't see it as "good" vs "evil" (this is a separate step, left for later on), just as a comparison of what science is vs what's politics. The first step is simply to see the difference.
 
 - example of science: "Objects close to Earth dropped in vacuum fall and accelerate at the same rate no matter their weight. Do whatever you please with this information. If you don't believe it, check it yourself. If you find a more accurate law, please let it be known."
-- example of NOT science: "This claim has been published in a top science magazine and reviewed by 100 people each one having 10 PhDs and 100 science medals, so trust it or you'll be bullied."
+- example of NOT science: "This claim has been published in a top science magazine and reviewed by 100 people each one having 10 PhDs and 100 science medals, so trust it or be bullied."
 
-A **red flag** often giving soyence away is **use and embedding of political mechanisms** such as authority, credibility, voting, "[democracy](democracy.md)", consensus, peer review, fact checks, [censorship](censorship.md), [codes of conduct](coc.md), popularization, promotion, [marketing](marketing.md) etc. True science, by definition, is something that cannot be deceiving, it is self proving and doesn't need policing, equations either work and predict or they don't, knowledge is either useful or not, there is no room for belief or ideology. Nowadays we already implicitly assume deception by requiring peer reviews, we distinguish "morally bad fact" and "morally good lies", we elect priests whose word is to be taken for fact just by the title before their name -- this is NOT true science.
+A **red flag** often giving soyence away is **use and embedding of political mechanisms** such as authority, credibility, voting, "[democracy](democracy.md)", consensus, peer review, fact checks, [censorship](censorship.md), [codes of conduct](coc.md), popularization, promotion (posters, social media, ...), [marketing](marketing.md) etc. True science, by definition, is something that cannot be deceiving, it is self proving and doesn't need policing, equations either work and predict or they don't, knowledge is either useful or not, there is no room for belief or ideology. Nowadays we already implicitly assume deception by requiring peer reviews, we distinguish "morally bad fact" and "morally good lies", we elect priests whose word is to be taken for fact just by the title before their name -- this is NOT true science.
 
 Of course, once science advances, it may stop being so simple as for everyone to be able to for example check the results that scientists found, that's without doubt, the point is simply that at the stage when the field starts being a religion, for whatever reason at all, we can no longer call it science, it is simply religion that evolved from science. That is all.
 
-Basically with science we can utilize **[freedom distance](freedom_distance.md)** to measure "how much of a science" something is -- here we may define freedom distance as the average distance to someone who can completely grasp the presented "science" with ALL that's required, including understanding the results, verifying the himself and so on. If this distance is within a small village, we can consider it science; if it's several countries, it is not science anymore.
+With science we can utilize **[freedom distance](freedom_distance.md)** to measure "how much of a science" something is -- here we may define freedom distance as the average distance to someone who can completely grasp the presented "science" with ALL that's required, including understanding the results, verifying them himself and so on. If this distance is within a small village, we can consider it science; if it's several countries, it is not science anymore.
 
 Soyence [popularizators](popularization.md) also like to contaminate science with emotion, with "stories" and [heroes](hero_culture.md) and other kind of bullshit that has no place in true science: true science is pure rationality, it aims for highest objectivity possible and to that emotion is an obstacle. Science is a cold, emotionless tool -- if you don't see [beauty](beauty.md) in this fact alone, science is not for you.