They will do and say whatever is necessary in order to get those grants.
Why do you think every environmental scientist is always screaming about how the world is ending if people don't pour money into their specific specialty?
If they said everything was going well then they wouldn't get any funds, because nobody cares about that.
They do. It's other areas where the null hypothesis is ignored. For example, if some whackjob P-hacked a study that shows that listening to Mozart makes you smarter, and you do another study showing that it's false, the journal will be much less interested in publishing something that shows an obvious falsity to be false, rather than a new "eating blueberries makes you smarter!" study that will have been P-hacked by then.
Nobody is paying to be disproven. Nearly all people who have claimed they would do so have had their bluffs called, and usually it was always political theater instead of science.
Bitches love to be proven right though, and they will pay decent money to have vague "scientists/experts" tell them that. So that they can then sell that fact.
Whatever-his-name ( Wong? )and his "insulin hypothesis" for his "it's-not-your-fault-you're-fat" du-jour pseudo self-help book had his hypothesis falsified by his own study.
Participants lost the predicted amout of weight based on calculated caloric deficit regardless or if the diet was high or low carbs.
His hypothesis predicted high carbs would result in little or no weight loss through the magic of insulin somehow keeping your body running its basic functions, without taping significantly into fat stores despite the same caloric deficit as someone eating low carb.
So of course he simply doubled-down and keeps asserting his falsified hypothesis as truth.
Meanwhile, anyone who hasen't had their brain damaged by Fatlogic understands if the insulin of fat people is constantly elevated, it's because they eat too much so their body pretty much always has immediately avaliable exess energy to use and store ( so the pancreas must secrete insulin, otherwise the kidneys have to eliminate the excess, and kidneys get damaged if they do that too often ).
And by some "miracle" that just so happened to get confirmed again by Wong's own study. Which he promptly ignored.
I had a sociology professor that told the class that he knew a guy in the field who did studies by commission for companies. When he would get one, he would find whoever in the company commissioned the study (generally the boss or whoever was in charge of commissioning studies) and what he wanted to hear and would simply make the study show whatever that was. That guy made a ton of money because the guy he placated would always call call him back when they needed a new study.
That's not really uncommon. Most sociology/psychology people do that, though often with a lot more lying to themselves about it, because its the only way you can actually have money in the field.
Its actually a pretty shitty situation, because even if you want to do the right thing and pursue truth you just won't get paid, the study won't be published, and you won't get to work anymore. Its a complete waste of time and energy.
And unlike most fields, you can't just go into the applied side to make your money. Because sociologists don't actually have a use, and Therapists make even less money.
One of the NPCs in the tweet responses kept asking for "conspiracy theories" that were proven correct later down the line. Does anyone have a convenient list of recent ones, for future use?
The food pyramid. “Low fat” diets. Margarine being pushed in the 70’s-‘90’s that was later determined to be way worse than butter. The whole tobacco business until the 1980’s. Asbestos.
If you want to dig further back the movie Radio Bikini about the men the government sent in to check the aftermath of the nuke tests at Bikini Atoll is pretty enlightening. It’s on YouTube.
Oh, for roughly 30-ish years. There are some people who have heart conditions who legitimately need to reduce fat. But there are 100x more normies who think “low fat” = “healthy.” Look into it at the grocery store. Observe for a while. You’ll see land whales buying everything low fat. Especially ice cream.
And shit that isn’t even low fat is marketed as “1/3rd less fat” or something similar.
I honestly can't remember the last time the supposed "experts" were ever right about anything. It's beyond parody how often these people are wrong. As we all know by now the consistent wrongness isn't by chance, it's serves for the purpose of propaganda and propaganda alone. They are fighting a war with reality and sadly it's working on many. It's actually insane the amount of people we share the earth with who never even stop and access the situation. If they did they'd know that they are being lied to daily.
Experts are right all the time. However, their true field of expertise is how to get themselves more money, prestige and power. It's like the people who give you advice on how to get rich. They know how to get rich, and the way they do it is by giving poor suckers like you worthless 'advice' for money.
Paying the priests to tell you want is an ancient practice. Great Men didn't drop stacks on the oracles to hear they should disband their armies and become hermits; although, dropping two stacks could ensure that was told to their enemies.
To be fair, the secret to being a good oracle is coming up with answers that can be interpreted multiple ways, so you can claim to be right whatever actually happens.
Science involves getting grants awarded.
They will do and say whatever is necessary in order to get those grants.
Why do you think every environmental scientist is always screaming about how the world is ending if people don't pour money into their specific specialty?
If they said everything was going well then they wouldn't get any funds, because nobody cares about that.
Same thing with clinical trials for new drugs.
Studies that don't show a positive result never see the light of day.
They do. It's other areas where the null hypothesis is ignored. For example, if some whackjob P-hacked a study that shows that listening to Mozart makes you smarter, and you do another study showing that it's false, the journal will be much less interested in publishing something that shows an obvious falsity to be false, rather than a new "eating blueberries makes you smarter!" study that will have been P-hacked by then.
There is nothing more permanent than a temporary give program.
Nobody is paying to be disproven. Nearly all people who have claimed they would do so have had their bluffs called, and usually it was always political theater instead of science.
Bitches love to be proven right though, and they will pay decent money to have vague "scientists/experts" tell them that. So that they can then sell that fact.
Whatever-his-name ( Wong? )and his "insulin hypothesis" for his "it's-not-your-fault-you're-fat" du-jour pseudo self-help book had his hypothesis falsified by his own study.
Participants lost the predicted amout of weight based on calculated caloric deficit regardless or if the diet was high or low carbs.
His hypothesis predicted high carbs would result in little or no weight loss through the magic of insulin somehow keeping your body running its basic functions, without taping significantly into fat stores despite the same caloric deficit as someone eating low carb.
So of course he simply doubled-down and keeps asserting his falsified hypothesis as truth.
Meanwhile, anyone who hasen't had their brain damaged by Fatlogic understands if the insulin of fat people is constantly elevated, it's because they eat too much so their body pretty much always has immediately avaliable exess energy to use and store ( so the pancreas must secrete insulin, otherwise the kidneys have to eliminate the excess, and kidneys get damaged if they do that too often ).
And by some "miracle" that just so happened to get confirmed again by Wong's own study. Which he promptly ignored.
I had a sociology professor that told the class that he knew a guy in the field who did studies by commission for companies. When he would get one, he would find whoever in the company commissioned the study (generally the boss or whoever was in charge of commissioning studies) and what he wanted to hear and would simply make the study show whatever that was. That guy made a ton of money because the guy he placated would always call call him back when they needed a new study.
That's not really uncommon. Most sociology/psychology people do that, though often with a lot more lying to themselves about it, because its the only way you can actually have money in the field.
Its actually a pretty shitty situation, because even if you want to do the right thing and pursue truth you just won't get paid, the study won't be published, and you won't get to work anymore. Its a complete waste of time and energy.
And unlike most fields, you can't just go into the applied side to make your money. Because sociologists don't actually have a use, and Therapists make even less money.
Trust the science!
One of the NPCs in the tweet responses kept asking for "conspiracy theories" that were proven correct later down the line. Does anyone have a convenient list of recent ones, for future use?
The food pyramid. “Low fat” diets. Margarine being pushed in the 70’s-‘90’s that was later determined to be way worse than butter. The whole tobacco business until the 1980’s. Asbestos.
If you want to dig further back the movie Radio Bikini about the men the government sent in to check the aftermath of the nuke tests at Bikini Atoll is pretty enlightening. It’s on YouTube.
When was this a conspiracy?
Oh, for roughly 30-ish years. There are some people who have heart conditions who legitimately need to reduce fat. But there are 100x more normies who think “low fat” = “healthy.” Look into it at the grocery store. Observe for a while. You’ll see land whales buying everything low fat. Especially ice cream.
And shit that isn’t even low fat is marketed as “1/3rd less fat” or something similar.
Morons: I ****ING LOVE SCIENCE!
Billionaires: So do I.
I honestly can't remember the last time the supposed "experts" were ever right about anything. It's beyond parody how often these people are wrong. As we all know by now the consistent wrongness isn't by chance, it's serves for the purpose of propaganda and propaganda alone. They are fighting a war with reality and sadly it's working on many. It's actually insane the amount of people we share the earth with who never even stop and access the situation. If they did they'd know that they are being lied to daily.
Experts are right all the time. However, their true field of expertise is how to get themselves more money, prestige and power. It's like the people who give you advice on how to get rich. They know how to get rich, and the way they do it is by giving poor suckers like you worthless 'advice' for money.
Nearly all problem solving industries are a scam. The problem, if it even exists, will never be solved because the money will dry up if it does.
Paying the priests to tell you want is an ancient practice. Great Men didn't drop stacks on the oracles to hear they should disband their armies and become hermits; although, dropping two stacks could ensure that was told to their enemies.
To be fair, the secret to being a good oracle is coming up with answers that can be interpreted multiple ways, so you can claim to be right whatever actually happens.
If you invade the Persians, you will destroy a great empire.
Username applies.
This is the problem with climate "science" - panic gets funding.
Trust the science. Believe the magic 'science man'.