Are black holes bullshit

You didn't link to those scientists. You linked to rationalwiki, the site that attacked Crothers for being a gardener (poisoning the well) even though, by that idiotic standard, there is something wrong with relativity because it was "invented" by a patent clerk. Also, Rationalwiki engaged in "OMG he said that!" cheap attacks and not addressed the actual argument that black holes doesn't exist. And rationalwiki seemed less concerned with scientific arguments and observations for the existence of black holes than getting a list of scientists to say "these totally awesome guys hate this fucker so you should hate this fucker to" (appeal to authority). Rationalwiki treats science like its some sort of high school in-group clique and not the objective methodology that it is.

Next time, just link evidence that addresses the argument and not a rationalwiki hit piece. Something showing errors in Crothers' arguments or evidence proving the existence of black holes would have gotten you further.

>BAWWWW RATIONALWIKI SAID SOMETHING MEAN ABOUT DADDY TRUMP THEY ARE LEFTWING DON'T LINK THEM PLEASE IT TRIGGERS ME ;_;
holy shit /pol/ needs to leave, rationalwiki is a good source to debunk woo and pseudoscience

Rationalwiki can't even avoid engaging in ad hominems with people and ideas they disagree with

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivist

There's plenty of good avenues to criticize Objectivism, they just prefer to circlejerk over how obviously wrong it is and how obviously superior they are. The actual criticisms behind all the ad hominems are appeals to authority.

Fuck you. I never said anything about Trump.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Microaggression
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Privilege
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mansplaining

These are links to pseudo-(social)science that rationalwiki promotes. Even left-leaning (but not so left-leaning that they're to the right of Chairman Mao) individuals like Amazing Atheist find rationalwiki to be rational in name only.

>the amazing atheist
>2017
>people still describe themselves as atheists
kek or something

The article links to several scientists debunking Crothers. But instead of responding to their arguments you focus on rationalwiki saying mean things. No one cares, look at where you're posting. Ironically, the video posted by OP is full of immature insults yet I don't see you complaining about that. Hypocrite.

Your idiotic analogy to Einstein fails completely since Einstein also happened to be a working physicist at the time he was a patent clerk. The point is that Crothers has no expertise in what he's talking about, not that he's a gardener.

>Rationalwiki can't even avoid engaging in ad hominems with people and ideas they disagree with
So? I don't think rationalwiki is attempting to present itself as an unbiased neutral source. That would be wikipedia. I think it's trying to debunk frauds while laughing at them. Your demand for civility is irrelevant.

They should re-brand themselves as Progressivewiki, in that case.

There is nothing rational about engaging in logical fallacies.

An insult is not a logical fallacy, moron.

>The article links to several scientists debunking Crothers. But instead of responding to their arguments you focus on rationalwiki saying mean things.

Post the link to the arguments instead of telling people to go digging for it in a regressive septic tank like (ir)rationalwiki.

No. There's a list right there with citations. Now fuck off, crank.

>all these counters to some overhyped comclusion

it doesnt surprise me at all that the "tasmanian devil" isnt involved in academia in any way. Professors (and students) shove that sensationalist bullshit into every paper they publish so they can get/maintain funding. thats how it works. drum up excitement. if you're going to sperg out over that and claim to be le rebellious intellectual then you are every bit as ignorant.

Reminds me of this guy.

youtu.be/_ihDYUiPZcI