Update

soyence.md

@@ -31,21 +31,24 @@ Some further examples of soyence:
 
 - Relying on **consensus**: This is one of the great identifying features of soyence -- what is true or not depends on whether the majority of (approved) soyentists agree it is true. When we think about it for just one second, 
 we cannot miss the fact that this way of establishing truth has simply no longer anything to do with science: we no longer establish facts based on rigorous, logical conclusions, but based on VOTING, by accepting the OPINION of majority. This is POLITICS and nothing else. Common people accept this for one simple reasons: the words *consensus* and *[democracy](democracy.md)* [sound positive](shortcut_thinking.md) and 99% of common people NEVER think things through, they literally only react to whether a word sounds good or not, they never think deeper to check actual consequences. The opposing 1% -- usually true scientists, i.e. people who DO think things through -- are simply bullied out based on the consensus rule: "majority of people like this, so shut up". Everyone who knows anything about history of science knows many, if not most of the greatest advancements of science were those that went AGAINST consensus, including those of Galileo and Darwin for example -- big breakthroughs are so significant exactly because they show something assumed to have been true is in fact false -- and this is what soyence suppresses by strictly rejecting anything that goes against consensus. If science was conducted by maintaining consensus, we would have no theory of relativity, we'd still keep believing in aether, we'd be teaching children that Sun revolved around Earth, which is flat and only 6000 years old by the way, we wouldn't believe in rational numbers and in fact wouldn't even have the heretic number [zero](zero.md).
-- [gender studies](gender_studies.md) [LMAO](lmao.md)
-- "Believe in science!" The irony of such sentences is so striking it shouldn't need any further comments, but just in case: science should be the exact opposite of believing.
-- "[Race](race.md) is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and doesn't have any biological meaning."
-- any [pseudoskeptical](pseudoskepticism.md) shit trying to look "scientific"
-- Bullshit degrees, e.g. someone getting [PhD](phd.md) in "user experience", "level design", "diversity in software engineering" or "making youtube videos" (like that fucker from Veritasium [lmao](lmao.md)).
+- **Hostility towards [religion](religion.md)**, seeing religion as incompatible with science and as its [COMPETITION](competition.md). Perceiving religion as a competitor to "science" reveals that such "science" IS in fact a new religion that wants to occupy the spot previously occupied by religion. True science is distinct and complementary to religion and in fact most of the greatest scientists (Newton, Tesla, Pythagoras, Einstein, ...) were religious or at least had faith in something supernatural. True science deals with the rational, provable and knowable while true religion deals with the supernatural, that which must be felts and is improvable. Both are part of EVERY human's life.
+- **[gender studies](gender_studies.md)** [LMAO](lmao.md)
+- "Believe in science!" The irony of sentences like this one should be so striking to not need further comments, but still: science should be the exact opposite of believing.
+- "[Race](race.md) is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and doesn't have any biological meaning." (proven by consensus)
+- Any [pseudoskeptical](pseudoskepticism.md) talk trying to look "scientific", for example using jargon, [buzzwords](buzzword.md) and large thesaurus to make opinions sound "scientific".
+- [Bullshit](bullshit.md) degrees, e.g. "[PhD](phd.md)" in "user experience", "ecology communication", "game level design", "diversity in software engineering" or "making [youtube](youtube.md) videos" (like that fucker from Veritasium [lmao](lmao.md)). This creates an army of relatively stupid (110 [IQ](iq.md)) conformists who are extremely [proud](pride.md) and grateful for the prestige of having become the "[soldiers](fight_culture.md) of science" and will be ready to in turn support the political consensus which will subsequently be used to cancel the true scientific minority.
 - "[Women](woman.md) are as intelligent as men, if not more."
 - "[citation needed](citation_needed.md)" on everything
-- "Science popularization" 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 in record time is absolutely safe, don't dare question it, just take it 5 times a year and pay us each time you do, don't mind any side effects." --Big Pharma
-- Fanboy mentality over ideas people, theories etc.
+- "Studies shows ..."
+- "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."
 - "Science says [god](god.md) doesn't exist." aka reddit [atheism](atheism.md)
-- "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))
+- **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, ...). Papers have to be [advertised](marketing.md) well to gain attention, like videos on YouTube.
+- 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".
 - Bullshit "fields" like "ecology communication" and whatnot.
@@ -54,27 +57,28 @@ we cannot miss the fact that this way of establishing truth has simply no longer
 - Strategically setting up experiments and/or cherrypicking facts (as well as censoring inconvenient counter evidence) so as to achieve desired results :]]]
 - "This research was made by a [racist](racism.md) so it is invalid, also we should [lynch](cancel_culture.md) the guy just in case."
 - 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 "stories" inserted into "scientific documentaries".
+- Political messages and "motivational stories" inserted into "scientific documentaries".
 - 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."
+- "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
 - "No, you can't research the details of historic events such as Holocaust. It is declared to have happened like this and if you suggest otherwise, you go to prison." (see anti [Holocaust](holocaust.md) denial laws)
 - great part of [economics](economics.md)
 - Ignoring and/or censoring results of unethical or controversial research, for example the cruel experiment performed by [Nazis](nazi.md), i.e. mixing in political decisions.
-- "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence", but only when it's convenient for them -- for example "humans are of recent origin because there is no evidence of older humans existing" (so as to support their claims about human race) or "God doesn't exist because we have no evidence for it", but when asked about whether life exists anywhere besides Earth they will go "YES YES YES" (because that supports science hype). { Stole this observation from Luke Smith's podcast. ~drummyfish }
+- "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence", but only when it's convenient for them -- for example "humans are of recent origin because there is no evidence of older humans existing" (so as to support their claims about human [race](race.md)) or "God doesn't exist because we have no evidence for it", but when asked about whether life exists anywhere besides Earth they will go "YES YES YES" (because that supports science hype). { Stole this observation from Luke Smith's podcast. ~drummyfish }
 - Obsession about words rather than ideas and concepts, e.g. what is a "disorder" and "illness" vs "divergent", emotional arguments about whether Pluto is a "planet" or not etc.
-- "Feeling sexually attracted to 17.99 years old chick is a serious mental illness, please consider lobotomy and castration. 18.00 is OK."
+- "Feeling sexually attracted to 17.99 years old chick is a serious mental illness, please consider lobotomy and castration. 18.00 is OK. QED"
 - Number of rapes has escalated by 1000%! (Because we redefined rape to include any interaction of man and woman.)
-- "[pedophilia](pedophilia.md) is a mental illness while pure [homosexuality](gay.md) is not"
+- "[Pedophilia](pedophilia.md) is a mental illness while pure [homosexuality](gay.md) is not. QED"
 - ...
 
 Here are a few tips on how to spot soyence:
 
 - Is trust involved? Things like authority of publishers, censorship, reviews etc.? If so, it is by definition NOT science.
-- Is questioning anything at all prevented and/or punished? It is [dogma](dogma.md), not science. True science encourages questioning EVERYTHING.
+- Is questioning anything at all prevented and/or punished? It is [dogma](dogma.md), not science. True science encourages questioning EVERYTHING. Once it can't be questioned, it can't be refuted and this BY DEFINITION kills the scientific method on the spot.
 - Is emotion involved? Is someone putting energy into promoting it? Are they waving their hands in air and making content creator faces when explaining something to convince you by excitement rather than by pure logical arguments? If yes, it's probably a preparation of business/politics grounds, not science.
 - Is money involved? Is any form of [capital](capital.md) (money, attention, power, ...) in play? Is there any form of business connected? If so, it is business, not science.
 - Is politics involved? Will the results help some currently active political group? It's highly suspicious, it almost definitely can't be trusted, it's most likely not science.
+- Is the mainstream spending resources on promoting it? It's soyence almost with 100% certainty soyence.
 - ...
 
 ## See Also