drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Update

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2025-08-13 18:38:39 +02:00
parent a62675cb93
commit a64b3eb7a9
19 changed files with 1978 additions and 1966 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
soyence.md
View file

@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Soyence uses all the cheap tricks of politics (also not dissimilar to those of [
If someone accepted as a fact a sentence written on a piece of paper solely on the basis of that the paper being signed by an authority ("peer reviewed", ...), will we call it a RATIONAL deduction of the fact? If so, then call the middle ages the golden age of rationality and the Catholic church an example of rational thought.
Soyence is trying to introduce to science absolutely anti-scientific concepts such as [political correctness](political_correctness.md), "politeness", [censorship](censorship.md), [democratic](democracy.md) voting on official truth (AKA "consensus") and veto powers of authorities. While the non-scientific majority of population (those who in "democratic" systems make decisions) might not immediately see a problem with this, scientists must get alarmed because the mentioned concepts effectively **remove falsifiability**, a very basic pillar of the scientific method. Once a hypothesis becomes unquestionable -- by whatever means (even political or [cultural](culture.md) pressure, [fear](fear_culture.md), [law](law.md), economic obstacles, ...) -- it cannot be falsified and as such cannot be examined by science at all. If someone argues that it's enough for a hypothesis to be falsifiable in theory, ignoring other possible [de facto](de_facto.md) obstacles to it, then it must be admitted the discipline we are subsequently talking about is also science ONLY IN THEORY, not necessarily in practice. This is however a very subtle thing to realize, something that escapes even to many "professional scientists" -- the problematic is similar to a situation that arouse in [free software](free_software.md) where many programs are already "free only on the paper", "free" by a [license](license.md) but non-free in practical terms, e.g. due to [bloat](bloat.md).
Soyence is trying to introduce to science absolutely anti-scientific concepts such as [political correctness](political_correctness.md), "politeness", [censorship](censorship.md), [democratic](democracy.md) voting on official truth (AKA "consensus") and veto powers of authorities. While the non-scientific majority of population (those who in "democratic" systems make decisions) might not immediately see a problem with this, scientists must get alarmed because the mentioned concepts effectively **remove falsifiability**, a very basic pillar of the scientific method. Once a hypothesis becomes unquestionable -- by whatever means (even political or [cultural](culture.md) pressure, [fear](fear_culture.md), [law](law.md), economic obstacles, ...) -- it cannot be falsified and as such cannot be examined by science at all. If someone argues that it's enough for a hypothesis to be falsifiable in theory, ignoring other possible [de facto](de_facto.md) hurdles that may come up, then it must be admitted the discipline in question is science likewise ONLY IN THEORY, not necessarily in practice. This is however a very subtle realization, something that escapes even many "professional scientists" -- the problematic is similar to a situation that arouse in [free software](free_software.md) where many programs are already "free just on the paper", "free by brand", "free" by a [license](license.md) but non-free in practical terms, e.g. due to [bloat](bloat.md), dependence on clown disservices etc.
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.