Maybe it's time for dissident scientists to create their own journal. They could follow good transparency practices like including their raw data and any code they write as part of the analysis. It's a given that the academic establishment would try to blacklist the new journal, but as long as the editors maintain scientific rigor and don't become comprised they would have a lot of credibility with anyone who isn't a woke retard. There's a lot of demand for real science instead of the politicized shit that "the experts" are peddling.
A dissident mad science joirnal would be pretty cyberpunk.
But there are some massive hurdles to overcome. What we call "science" uses network effects like citation and prestige to convey legitimacy. That network took decades if not centuries to manifest organically.
The network itself wouldn't be difficult to create. The problem is, science requires money, and all that money is held by universities and the government, both of whom belong to the leftist hegemony. The only way dissident science could be achieved is via private funding, and unfortunately most wealthy right wing people don't care about buying nudges to the Overton window, unlike nearly all wealthy left wing people.
Thousands of scientific journals exist and new ones get created on a regular basis even by dissident scientists who want to publish their own research, however crazy it might be (there is notably long-running one even for cold fusion topics, I'm aware several exist for parapsychology, etc), but they don't have the "Impact Factor" of Nature, so almost nobody cites or even reads the papers they feature.
All science journals are laughable garbage. Their entire purpose is knowledge laundering:
Random nonsense-> write in journal -> citation magic! -> scientific knowledge.
Burn the whole system. Peer review is superstition. Science that works is called engineering. If you don't have a product or real-world result, fuck off.
There exists useful science that doesn't produce an immediately-usable product: Theoretical mathematics.
Coincidentally, this science ALSO has no real place in a scientific journal. "I found a cool way to multiply sums-of-primes" doesn't make for dentist waiting room literature.
You're never going to convince the mainstream media not to shill for the current establishment. That doesn't mean that there's not a significant demand for honest science from people who already know not to trust the media.
One of my favorite stories from the so-called experts was a scientist admitting that her and other scientists believed early on that the virus came out of a lab, but they didn't want to say that because they didn't want to be associated with Trump.
Don't forget https://arxiv.org/. Their eprints are a model of what actual open publishing should be. You could add a review system through simple forum software.
It's also completely hypocritical. They never care about the "harm" done by "data" that shows how white people or men are evil or oppressive. It's just an a priori assumption that it's true and therefore just fine to report on.
Its because publishing, as a field, is overwhelmingly controlled by women. It is safe, indoors, clean, social, and doesn't have any objective criteria for performance.
So of course "professional" women jump on whatever current trend and herdmind that is going around.
So we shouldn't say to black people "stop eating so much fried chicken, it'll stop you getting heart issues later" or to gay guys "stop having random orgies, your group fucking the next plague!"
Maybe instead of this, we just put all the information ever available for free on a big website unredacted, that way we can all read it and be informed and the idiots that whine all the time that you're oppressing them will never read it as it's longer than a tweet.
The Belmont Report, a beautiful turd shat out by the public health establishment of the 70's, already got the ball rolling on that. Almost all researchers working at universities read it, and at a public university you have to agree to follow the guidelines before getting any funding. Take special note of the section on Justice. Learning that while in school was a little red pill on how much a sham our institutions are. Now thanks to Nature they get you from both sides. Only a matter of time before other journals follow suit and sCieNcE becomes as dead as an AI chatbot caught typing NI...
justice demands both that these not provide advantages only to those who can afford them and that such research should not unduly involve persons from groups unlikely to be among the beneficiaries of subsequent applications of the research.
So... if I need to study, IDK, autism, and I need a control group without autism. I can't have one because the research won't benefit people without autism.
Ensuring that ethically conducted research on individual differences and differences among human groups flourishes, and no research is discouraged simply because it may be socially or academically controversial, is as important as preventing harm.
Bullshit. The entire premise of these new guidelines is saying the exact opposite.
I work for a science(ie) / engineering tech company that used to have a very expensive company wide subscription to Nature.
We dropped it a couple years ago because it turned into useless woke trash.
There's definitely a market for a reasonable alternative. Same with National Geo and a lot of the other formerly Gold Standard journals that have been infiltrated and subverted.
I am now convinced this divide is along generational lines.
Anyone coming out of a university over the last 10 years is woke as fuck and all in with identity totalitarianism, neo-racism, neo-Marxism, or whateverthefuck we're calling it this week.
Maybe it's time for dissident scientists to create their own journal. They could follow good transparency practices like including their raw data and any code they write as part of the analysis. It's a given that the academic establishment would try to blacklist the new journal, but as long as the editors maintain scientific rigor and don't become comprised they would have a lot of credibility with anyone who isn't a woke retard. There's a lot of demand for real science instead of the politicized shit that "the experts" are peddling.
A dissident mad science joirnal would be pretty cyberpunk.
But there are some massive hurdles to overcome. What we call "science" uses network effects like citation and prestige to convey legitimacy. That network took decades if not centuries to manifest organically.
The network itself wouldn't be difficult to create. The problem is, science requires money, and all that money is held by universities and the government, both of whom belong to the leftist hegemony. The only way dissident science could be achieved is via private funding, and unfortunately most wealthy right wing people don't care about buying nudges to the Overton window, unlike nearly all wealthy left wing people.
Thousands of scientific journals exist and new ones get created on a regular basis even by dissident scientists who want to publish their own research, however crazy it might be (there is notably long-running one even for cold fusion topics, I'm aware several exist for parapsychology, etc), but they don't have the "Impact Factor" of Nature, so almost nobody cites or even reads the papers they feature.
All science journals are laughable garbage. Their entire purpose is knowledge laundering:
Random nonsense-> write in journal -> citation magic! -> scientific knowledge.
Burn the whole system. Peer review is superstition. Science that works is called engineering. If you don't have a product or real-world result, fuck off.
There exists useful science that doesn't produce an immediately-usable product: Theoretical mathematics.
Coincidentally, this science ALSO has no real place in a scientific journal. "I found a cool way to multiply sums-of-primes" doesn't make for dentist waiting room literature.
You're never going to convince the mainstream media not to shill for the current establishment. That doesn't mean that there's not a significant demand for honest science from people who already know not to trust the media.
One of my favorite stories from the so-called experts was a scientist admitting that her and other scientists believed early on that the virus came out of a lab, but they didn't want to say that because they didn't want to be associated with Trump.
Don't forget https://arxiv.org/. Their eprints are a model of what actual open publishing should be. You could add a review system through simple forum software.
"just create your own X" is always immediately followed by "no you aren't allowed to make that, it's illegal"
Honestly makes me sad how scientific publications have bent the knee to this nonsense. I can handle unflattering information.
It's also completely hypocritical. They never care about the "harm" done by "data" that shows how white people or men are evil or oppressive. It's just an a priori assumption that it's true and therefore just fine to report on.
I know! That’s what is most annoying
Its because publishing, as a field, is overwhelmingly controlled by women. It is safe, indoors, clean, social, and doesn't have any objective criteria for performance.
So of course "professional" women jump on whatever current trend and herdmind that is going around.
Women = college graduates = woke totalitarian assholes and the soyboys who want to fuck them..
if anythingi'd consider being in nature a mark against now.
So we shouldn't say to black people "stop eating so much fried chicken, it'll stop you getting heart issues later" or to gay guys "stop having random orgies, your group fucking the next plague!"
Maybe instead of this, we just put all the information ever available for free on a big website unredacted, that way we can all read it and be informed and the idiots that whine all the time that you're oppressing them will never read it as it's longer than a tweet.
The Belmont Report, a beautiful turd shat out by the public health establishment of the 70's, already got the ball rolling on that. Almost all researchers working at universities read it, and at a public university you have to agree to follow the guidelines before getting any funding. Take special note of the section on Justice. Learning that while in school was a little red pill on how much a sham our institutions are. Now thanks to Nature they get you from both sides. Only a matter of time before other journals follow suit and sCieNcE becomes as dead as an AI chatbot caught typing NI...
So... if I need to study, IDK, autism, and I need a control group without autism. I can't have one because the research won't benefit people without autism.
Bullshit. The entire premise of these new guidelines is saying the exact opposite.
Protect pedos, mutilate and kill peds. Ethics. Got it.
Reminder, it is Nature that published Michael Mann's Hockeystick paper. They have never been legitimate.
I work for a science(ie) / engineering tech company that used to have a very expensive company wide subscription to Nature.
We dropped it a couple years ago because it turned into useless woke trash.
There's definitely a market for a reasonable alternative. Same with National Geo and a lot of the other formerly Gold Standard journals that have been infiltrated and subverted.
Your title should be Nature, a "scientific" "journal", published....
It's time to regulate scientific journals so they can't pull crap such as this.
NO. I do not want government deciding what is science and what is not.
Ok, but what about banning people from calling things racist/sexist/whatever?
Calling on the state to fix a problem propagated by the state will never work.
Eh, in a way they already do with grant funding.
I am now convinced this divide is along generational lines.
Anyone coming out of a university over the last 10 years is woke as fuck and all in with identity totalitarianism, neo-racism, neo-Marxism, or whateverthefuck we're calling it this week.