What is a common science thing that you don't believe in?

Google 'feminist glaciology'

Quantum mechanics is all bunk. Einstein agrees with me.

Homeopathy sounds like bullshit.

There's two kinds.
Homeopathy the diluted water nonsense that was debunked by James Randi, and Homeopathy which is the old name and still sometimes used name for Holistic Medicine, which is about treating the whole body as a working machine [although new agers also jacked that term as well].

accepting a grant from big pharma to do research on vaccines after writing and failing to get 40 others from the NIH sure makes you a biased shekelstein trying to shill

Gravitons

Current particle zoo we have identified

Basically most stuff we think we know about the brain

First rule of thermodynamics

Want to add a lot of the stuff we think about early universe structure (inflation is flat out bullshit) but I don't think that is accepted science yet

...

Are you saying that biased scientists working for biased companies aren't actual scientists? The op was asking about common science. I doubt that he was asking about your ideals on what true science is.

>QM, but its more that I just doubt it.
>Quantum Nonsense
>Quantum mechanics is all bunk

QM is a huge problem for Veeky Forums types.
Anybody who wants to seek out the answers to the big questions is bound to be upset when we get to the chapter in the book where there are some unanswerable questions.
Never mind experimental evidence, "I refuse to believe God plays dice with the Universe".

Recognize your personal emotional shortcomings.
Embrace the empirical evidence.
There rally are some questions without answers, some truly random phenomenon, even if it hurts your precious feelings.

>First rule of thermodynamics
Now THIS guy is just a nutbag.

GHOSTS. I DON'T CARE WHAT DR VENKMAN SAYS.
I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYONE GETA BLOWEE FROM A GHOST, AND LOADS OF PEOPLE DO THAT THEIR WHOLE LIVES!
SO IM SKEPTICAL AS SHIT.
- REDNECK SCI GUY

cont. Also that whole it isn't true science if it doesn't work is one of the perspectives about capitalism/socialism/communism and religion that annoys me.

Proof by Induction.

It's bullshit and you all know it, stop pretending!

Have you ever heard of the reheating of the early universe? Where did that energy come from and where did it go??

Sounds like energy was dumped into the system from magic land yeah?

First rule violation of the highest order!

This list is just retarded.
Relativity is listed along with flat Earth.

no, my post was sarcastic

>Even more serious conflicts arise

it's dumb to think industry funding is somehow a bigger issue than ideological and personal biases

honestly I found your post incoherent so I had trouble understanding the sarcasm. sorry. Maybe I should study up on sci's memespeak, or maybe I could do something useful with my life. What do you think?

cont. As for your second point, I'd agree on the basis that industry funding is caused by people with those ideological and personal biases, too bad that society pushes the vast majority towards being dumb through social conditioning. Considering the realm of the shaper and the shaped, it's the shapers of the past that make the shapers of the future. Especially when the shapers of yesterday and today are primarily interested in profit above all else.

Law of excluded middle

Well, there is one popular scientific belief which is pure bullshit, and it's actually supported by a small cadre of conspirators on the boards of Nature and Science.

I'm pretty well convinced that the HIV AIDS epidemic in humans was caused by the Oral Polio Vaccine given to half a million people in 1957 - 1957 in the Belgium Congo. This was an accident, perhaps negligent. The short version is that the vaccine, like many other vaccines, is grown in animal tissue, and this particular vaccine was grown in chimp livers and kidneys, some of which were infected with SIV, the precursor of HIV, and that's how SIV got into humans where it quickly mutated into the now familiar HIV.

The bushmeat theory of human HIV AIDS is utter bullshit.

Oh, and vaccines in general are great. The whole autism thing is a bullshit.

My complaints apply only to this one particular vaccine, in this one particular place, because it was prepared in chimp parts, and as far as most people know, no other vaccine was prepared in chimp parts.

Fusion is viable.

I doubt that the randomness in QM is more than simply apparent randomness.
I doubt that our universe is the only universe, though I don't have any patience for many-worlds or multiverse.
I doubt the validity of much of the social sciences, global warming/climate change, and that racial differences are mostly attributable to differences in environment
That's probably about it.

>he thinks patient 0 of HIV received the polio vaccine

He probably did. And there was probably multiple crossover points.

Ex: There is not a single confirmed case of Human HIV AIDS before 1957, and the earliest cases all date to the Belgium Congo, with a strong statistical correlation in location to the sites of the OPV vaccinations.

Autismspeaks.org

>Quantum anything
That's really it for the biggest part

Fascinating.

Darwinian evolution, total crock with so many logical holes it's unbelievable that generations of sub-130IQ brainlets have fell for it

See:
aidsorigins.com/

Mustn't... Take... Shitty bait...

global warming:
I don't see enough evidence that it is
a) manmade
b) preventable
c) actually a bad thing

For an introduction, this might be good:
bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/Dildine15.pdf

i choose not to but i still stay on the ground

I'm pretty sure global climate change is the scientifically supported model, and global warming is the political buzzword popularized by Al Gore.

It's funny, most of our funding comes from an explosives company and they are the most ethical reseachers I've ever known (moreso than us who are trying to nit pick to get publications out).

The first law of thermodynamics really does have a lot more shaky foundations than we want to admit.

We've had to keep amending it every time we go outside the thermodynamic limit; the further we get from the limit the more we need to amend it, yet (with a questionable math tricks) we used it to deduce most of what we know about particle physics.

Thank you for redpilling us user. I think you might have something here.

With emphasis, modern vaccines are very safe, and very good. This is largely an isolated incident.

I'm not retarded...

Some people are. That comment was for those people.

Psychology, but that could have something to do with the fact that the only psychologists i've ever known was a vapid 43 year old feminist, and quite rude.

You have a point, if you're right about this I'm actually glad there are people working to prevent this from getting out, maybe once the vaccine -> autism meme dies down, but society isn't ready for this.

So everything else in science is correct, but evolution is wrong.
Is that about right?

The counter-argument is that this is not an isolated incident. Just, for example, HeLa, which was even worse. There's a serious problem w.r.t. certain medical and scientific publishing and research practices, and they need to be fixed. Know about HeLa?
uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Pascal91.html

Also, I have some sympathy for that position, but my general position is that the truth will always have more benefit than a politically convenient lie in the long-run.

Global warming, but not in the way you think.

I believe global warming is actually happening, I can even accept if you must insist that we are causing it with CO2 emissions.

The thing about the global warming meme that I don't believe in is that it is bad for the planet. I think it is the best thing that could possibly happen. I think more species will thrive with more global warming, that weather will become more temperate across the globe and that there will be fewer and less harsh deserts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

>more species will thrive
then hopw do you explain pic related?

Don't make this a "free will" issue.

This is shit some preteen atheist who doesn't understand science would say. Obviously studies, journals, or even entire fields could be biased.

bigbangtheory is a pile of crap, and I have a proof to my words: arxiv.org/abs/1402.0354
(do you wanna know how I even started digging for somebody telling otherwise? it doesn't answer the question "where did it ALL come from" and you know what's the substance that this question isn't appliable to? NOTHING, great nada, pure vacuum - though it's an abstraction, and we can only speak of infinitesimal and it's the less the further in the past we rewind.

A volcano erupts spreading ash across the globe, nope it wasn't the ash or volcanic winter killing everything it was that evil CO2. God you people are retarded.

Even where there are no volcanic eruptions (yet discovered) I think I could come up with a convincing argument that the CO2 rise could be attributed to the mass extinction instead of the other way around.

Through most of earths history the oceans have been more acidic than now. And in fact the last time they where quite acidic we had things like marine mammals evolve. Not saying there wont be loosers with global warming, just that there will be more winners than loosers.

I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers. What a crock of shit. If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity , then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed. Same for algebra solutions that basically say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is". Thats what the math said transcribed to words but god forbid if i wrote in down in english instead of the ancient math runes the teacher word mark me wrong.

Math is logical and numbers never lie my ass. Math is just as flawed as any other human construct.

> isolated system
they do not exist.
the only reason they invented this notion is to brainwash us that there's no perpetuum mobiles, so we would prepare to pay for something that may come for free.

>this brainlet doesn't have an intuitive understanding of complex analysis

Say goodbye to half of the technology we use today then, cause it's based on shit like fourier transforms.

Very interesting. I just remembered that plane full of aids researchers which crashed not terribly long ago. I wonder if this is connected.

The while intuition behind complex numbers is rotation though. It's not pulling anything out of the air, it's just adding another "dimension" if you will to the numbers we usually think of; another attribute. It's the same as negative numbers; they might not make sense in terms of counting 'things', but they do make logic sense as they represent a direction; input/output; presence/absence; back and forth.

Complex numbers do the exact same thing conceptually; you're not really using the numbers to count more things, but to give the numbers you already have and that already make sense a direction, and this direction expands beyond just back and forth but it includes full rotation; all 360 degrees. Do you not think that giving a number both a value and a direction could be useful?

btw I just read the rest of your post and I realise now that it was bait, but I'm gonna post this anyways because suck my dick fgt

Doubt it. There's general dishonest discrediting and lying, and then there's fucking mass murder. I'm not accusing the conspiracy of half a dozen people of the second, just the first.

Why the fuck did you just post illegal pornography? What part of the discussion asked for it?

God I hate weeaboos.

>I doubt that the randomness in QM is more than simply apparent randomness.
Read about Bell's theorem and the experiments that prove it.

Basically, Bell took the idea that quantum systems were actually governed by hidden variables that we couldn't measure and showed that a certain inequalitiymust hold when performing experiments with entangled quantum systems. If you predicted the results with quantum theory then this was violated.

A few years later people did actual experiments to test this and the inequality was violated, implying quantum randomness, rather than unknown randomness. Even today you get people repeating the same results with the entangled systems separated by larger and larger distances (in the order if kilometres).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

It's not illegal in the US. Your country must be a shithole for possession/distribution of certain cartoons to be illegal.

Daily reminder that superdeterminism is a perfectly valid answer to Bell's theorem

>superdeterminism
My first time looking into this with any detail. Doesn't that imply a crazy amount of hidden variables though? Like enough hidden variables to be able to predict what choices that a human will make at a distance? At first glance, this doesn't sound like a plausible theory at all.

Personally, for purely aesthetic reasons, I'm a fan of spontaneous collapse models of quantum physics.

>Doesn't that imply a crazy amount of hidden variables though
Depends how you look at at it, its equally reasonable to say that the entire universe is a single variable with a single value

>Like enough hidden variables to be able to predict what choices that a human will make at a distance
In principle a hypothetical observer with perfect knowledge of initial conditions could perfectly predict the entire history of the universe, in practice you cant ever do it from within that universe

I'm a fan of this kind of theory mostly because I literally cannot conceive of how non-determinism could be true

>I'm a fan of this kind of theory mostly because I literally cannot conceive of how non-determinism could be true

Meh? It seems straightforward enough. Imagine a process whose initial conditions can be replicated perfectly, and the rules of physics are simply such that sometimes it goes to the left, and sometimes it goes to the right.

Free will not existing

Yeah the whole branching-universes thing I can accept in principle, buts thats not quite the same thing as "randomness" in my understanding

But why on a blue board?

Oh, you just mean "against Veeky Forums rules"? "Again Veeky Forums rules" does not mean the same thing as "illegal", which usually denotes "against the law of some country / government in meatspace".

Yea, that is against Veeky Forums rules.

Meh? I didn't mean branching universes. I literally meant that sometimes the particle goes to the left, and sometimes it goes to the right, from exactly equivalent initial conditions. Seems pretty comprehensible to me. And maybe it's true.

>In principle a hypothetical observer with perfect knowledge of initial conditions could perfectly predict the entire history of the universe
In principle you haven't read a single modern physics book. by all accounts quantum processes operate probabilisticly.
>superdeterminism is a perfectly valid answer
it's presumptive speculation. an ad hoc hypothesis only those too immature to accept god plays dice would cling too.

>In principle you haven't read a single modern physics book. by all accounts quantum processes operate probabilisticly.

according to the copenhagen interpretation

>it's presumptive speculation. an ad hoc hypothesis only those too immature to accept god plays dice would cling too.

how is that immature ? because it does not suit your bigoted worldview ?

Sorry buddy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faddeev–Popov_ghost

It is massively non-local.
Here's a discussion of the theory:
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34217/why-do-people-categorically-dismiss-some-simple-quantum-models

>according to the copenhagen interpretation
according to all experiments on quantum effects.
>how is that immature ? because it does not suit your bigoted worldview ?
because it's a pointless ad hoc theory. and what's your reasoning for accepting it? what does it add to QM or help explain? nothing, it only allows for determinism in the face of all experiments that suggest otherwise and that's your justification for believing in it. You believe in ad hoc, un-testable, un-scientific garbage just because you can't let go of your belief in determinism and that's immature, you child. It's certainly possible (however unlikely), so is the possibility that this is all just your/my brain in a vat. There's no particularly good reason to believe in either of those though and they certainly have no place in science. You're welcome to believe it, but saying it's a perfectly valid answer to anything is as ridiculous as attributing anything you don't understand to God.

What is massively non-local?
I just read your new link, and it describes something called superdeterminism that is local. It just has a /massive/ amount of hidden internal state.

What are you talking about? Am I missing something big?

For the record, IMHO, Bohmian mechanics is plausible, and it's deterministic. It is non-local though. It doesn't require anywhere near the ridiculously big local hidden state of superdeterminism.

This

Super determinism just means that the experimenter isn't able to freely choose which experiment he performs - its predetermined. Aka hard determinism.

Yes, I understand.

However, this local theory, just like all local deterministic theories of quantum mechanics, require massive, massive amounts of hidden variables. In short, for every single classical particle, it needs to carry hidden variables for the entire universe - or at least for the entire set of classical particles in its past light cone. That's a lot of hidden variables.

Chinese and Indian papers. Most of that stuff is plain bullshit, at least for chemistry.

I see. Well it may be my ignorance but it seems like many hidden variables is more plausible than the Copenhagen interpretation. If you know of a reason to think otherwise I'd love to be enlightened.

Well if the cross infection was purposeful (or accidental, really) and came from a state influence, the resources and willingness to bring down a plane to keep the secret getting out would be quite forthcoming.

that amount of hidden information is pretty steep. i'm not a physicist but i find quantum decoherence the easiest explanation to accept.

Quantum science is a memescience.
>look at cat
>it has 50/50 chance of being dead
>but it is both unless you look at it
What the fuck?

qm initially reinvented statistics
it's funny aside from the actual implications it ended up having

...

I wouldn't be so sure all of these things are paranormal, just look at these plane interiors. Planes have been spraying chemicals for years, leaving cloud trails that are thicker and noticeably different from water vapor (contrails). These "chemtrails" could be any number of dangerous chemicals, and many planes are outfitted with the equipment to distribute them to wide areas

Actually reading this some more its become apparent that HIV will eventually become harmless; its mortality in humans is an anomaly. It should over time become harmless like SIV is to the primates it naturally infects, for the same reasons its harmless to them.

Naw, it was probably accidental, maybe negligent, and it was done by a small private company, just a few people really, entrepreneurs.

Today, there's some direct motivation to avoid direct financial and moral responsibility, and a larger effort to avoid responsibility on the medical industry at large, and a noble but IMHO misplaced goal of lying about it to protect modern vaccines from backlash.

lol