Has there ever been an issue that 99% of scientists agreed on, and then we found out that it was just politically motivated and the scientists were wrong or lied?
I mean, with the state of affairs now regarding climate change, there are many people who insist that it's all a lie. But has a lie on this scale ever leaked through the scientific community before? I'm genuinely curious.
P.S. Why the captcha take 60 seconds to do now
Other urls found in this thread:
freethoughtblogs.com
whatisepigenetics.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ajpregu.physiology.org
chd.ucsd.edu
faculty.uca.edu
phys.org
cam.ac.uk
twitter.com
The biggest one i can think of is earth being the center of the universe. The church was powerful and to have any sort of career or influence you had to follow the church's way. Most people are followers and don't want to rock the status quo.
I think climate change is somewhat similar. You have 99% who will agree to whatever their funders believe (government) because it puts food on the table. I think the recent discrepencies in the actual data and models showing the warming isn't as severe and perhaps the feedback mechanisms are stronger than thought puts funding at risk for so many people that they are just doing what any would do if they were at risk of losing their job.
GMOs and vaccines being safe.
There hasn't, I'm guessing because the scientists and politics motivating it are too powerful to fail.
There was a thing called climate gate a while back, but it turned out to be a lie fabricated by environmentalists. Basically an environmentalist targeted the Cato institute (often targeted because they assert opinions that go against the mainstream i.e. Supporting smoking and denying climate change) and made it look like they were trying to hide information, but they actually weren't. Doesn't sound like that's what you're looking for though.
Wasn't lamarckianism pushed in Soviet Russia the same way (or something)? What am I thinking of?
>lamarckianism
It has been proven many times in modern science
>You have 99% who will agree to whatever their funders believe (government)
Except the governments of the world would really prefer if it weren't true and they would fund climate science to pretty much the same level since climate science is economically useful independent of global warming.
Eugenics
Race differences today
>The biggest one i can think of is earth being the center of the universe. The church was powerful and to have any sort of career or influence you had to follow the church's way
Read a fucking history book before speaking out of your ass.
But they were right about these, we just pretend they were wrong because of muh feelings
You forgot to post a gorilla
That's the point
99% of current scientists are wrong about it today simply because of those feelz or bias.
>GMOs being safe
I can see this one
>vaccines being safe
Kill yourself
Theory of relativity
>Has there ever been an issue that 99% of scientists agreed on, and then we found out that it was just politically motivated and the scientists were wrong or lied
There never has been.
There have been many incidents, however, in which industry has hired scientists to provide false information to go against the consensus regarding their activities and/or products, or otherwise created campaigns to rail against scientific findings that were not in their interest.
You do realize if the theory of relativity weren't a thing, the satellites that allow this internet function wouldn't work.
Or maybe that Einstein was just a hack reading off data from Poincare and Hilbert and Planck.
homosexuality being a mental disorder
we're getting there with trannies too
That wouldn't make relativity wrong, that's just make the credit misplaced.
*not being a mental disorder
Psychology only deals with your adjustment within a particular social context, not absolutes. Whether or something is or isn't a mental disorder, or merely a variant within the norm, depends entirely on whether or not it disrupts your ability to function within that society.
In other words, mental disorders are social constructs. If schizophrenia wasn't disruptive to society, it wouldn't be classified as a mental disorder, only yet another type of variant. Homosexuality and the like are only mental disorders so long as they are considered disruptive to society.
Granted that's also among the reasons psychology is largely pseudoscience.
Examples?
There's a lot that science has been wrong about. Some of it was politically motivated. A lot of it was just plain wrong. For example, eugenics seemed tenable at one point.
Right about satellites. However, the internet works just fine without satellites - except for those on a satellite connection. All of the traffic goes through physical cables, including undersea cables.
Former doctor andrew wakefield.
>that 99% of scientists agreed on, and then we found out that it was just politically motivated and the scientists were wrong
Happens every now and then. A relatively recent one would be peptic ulcers and H. Pylorii.
It's less about political motivation than a kindergarten-level bias "of course the first explanation I heard is the right one!"
I didn't realize he was influenced by industry to promote his bullshit.
1/10 you tried
Aspartame, DDT, asbestos, nicotine, "four servings of grain", hive collapse, thalidomide, hydrocodone, the APA on torture, Coca-cola bribing the GEBN, pharmaceutical companies caught bribing the Medical Journal of Australia, Anna Ahimastos fake data being published in the NEJM and JAMA on behalf of the industry, and, of course, Wei-Hock Soon.
...among others...
Sometimes the consensus is just wrong, of course, such as with the Theory of Aether, but it's rarely a political conspiracy, generally, the political conspiracy and anti-science money comes in when the consensus is right, and stepping on someone's pocket book.
>Or maybe that Einstein was just a hack reading off data from Poincare and Hilbert and Planck.
Oh, this again?
A lot of the people who oppose climate change are paid to say they oppose it, like politicians. Or they are extremely uneducated and thus their opinion doesn't matter.
You mean like the so called "scientists" who are paid to say it's real and man made?
2/10 for effort.
By who? The entire fossil fuel industry is against climate science, which is the single most profitable industry on the planet. Where is the dozens of billions of dollars on the side of climate science?
good, you understand SOME business.
Now imagine if you could influence stocks and policies around the world.
>You mean like the so called "scientists" who are paid to say it's real and man made?
Isn't it kind of telling that the only leg you have to stand on is asserting the existence of a giant world-wide conspiracy, with barely anything that even looks like evidence, made up of people who argue constantly and cooperate as well as a bag of cats, and no clear goals to unite them?
Why would even one climatologist want to take part in something that vast, time consuming and pointless, let alone almost all of them?
>Why would even one climatologist want to take part in something that vast, time consuming and pointless, let alone almost all of them?
This is the most plausible explanation to many creationists and other religious people. I mean, when your options are that your holy books are wrong (impossible), what else is left? A global conspiracy seems pretty plausible, especially when your holy book says that a global government is going to herald the end of days, which we're living in dontchaknow (sarcasm).
>Why would even one climatologist want to take part in something that vast, time consuming and pointless, let alone almost all of them?
it's called circlejerking. People love to do that. It really does feel nice to be surrounded by people who agree with you, and to antagonize people who attack your religion.
Have you tried getting a grant to disprove man's influence on climate? I'm pretty sure you can't.
evolution
But seriously though, epigenetics probably surprised almost all biologists/geneticists
>grant to disprove
That's not how scientific inquiry works.
In modern times, it's more or less about industry. They have all the resources required to set up as many front groups as necessary to convincingly flood the literature and confuse the debate as a whole. Coupled with the scientific publishing industry and the nature of "peer review", that's a lot of power to get what you want.
but that's exactly how it works.
Falsification. look it up.
>epigenetics
Yea, it surprised them back in 1940. Or earlier. I only know offhand that "epigenetics" as a word was created around 1940.
>it's called circlejerking. People love to do that. It really does feel nice to be surrounded by people who agree with you, and to antagonize people who attack your religion.
Okay, I hope you just have no idea how science works: All of reputation, money, and fame out there exists for whoever can stand up on a stage and piss on everyone else's work. The more people's work you can piss on, the better. If those people are dead, especially if they've been dead a while, that's even better again.
Circle-jerking gets your name at the bottom of the acknowledgements of a paper. Pissing on work gets your name on the front cover of the history books.
geocentric universe
It didn't mean back then what it means now though. I'm pretty sure the concept of heritable changes in gene expression is less than 30 years olds. I still remember being told in high school lamarckism was completely wrong. It still is mostly wrong, but the examples they used and the justification didn't seem to imply a knowledge of it. for example, I remember being told specifically that buff people are only more likely to have buff children because they will impose their lifestyle on them. Schools are generally slow to assimilate new knowledge, but I doubt they're 70 years behind.
Anyway OP there's your answer. the vast majority were wrong.
It actually did mean that.
freethoughtblogs.com
And no. Lamarckism is still completely wrong. Lamarckism is the idea that speciation is driven by heritable changes made outside of the germ line, such as using muscles makes the muscle stronger, which is heritable to offspring, in spite of muscles having nothing to do with sperm or egg. Lamarckism is still just completely wrong.
saturated fats thought to cause heart disease
cholesterol thought to cause heart disease
trans fats tought to be safe
saturated fats thought to cause diabetes
...
The anthropogenic CO2 warming self-destruction is bullshit, but it is politically turned into a “consensus” among scientists who observe that climate change has happened, as it has been happening for billions of years. BTW, climate change used to be called global warming, but now it’s not warming anymore.
>I'm pretty sure
No, you're pretty fckn far from sure.
The current definition is much stricter and waddington's definition certainly didn't imply anything novel. According to this, evidence for epigenetics seems to have started building in the 1980s and the implications of the evidence didn't become apparent until the 1990s
whatisepigenetics.com
>Lamarckism is still completely wrong
i wasn't really arguing that which is why i said still mostly wrong. My point was that the justification used against it showed a misunderstanding of genetics. And the concept of traits acquired during an organisms lifetime being heritable was something thought to have been dismissed long ago, that turned out to be wrong.
theory of relativity is a math equations. all that fancy things like black holes, wormholes, space-continuum are math objects and not real objects.
what went wrong is that theory bring back idealistic approach to sciene. today all physics is idealistic.
>You do realize if the theory of relativity weren't a thing, the satellites that allow this internet function wouldn't work.
FUNFACT: data goes through big fat cables under the ocean
I've been meaning to learn about physics properly. Had a lot of people practically act like I was brain damaged when I didn't agree with their notion of what motion and location were.
>mostly wrong
No, completely wrong.
Again:
Epigenetics in terms of real world effects is basically isolated to effects inside of a single organism that does not go on through the germ line. Some minor effects may persist through the germ line, but still they will eventually end.
Lamarckianism is about change in populations over time. Lamarkianism is simply false.
/All/ of the important stuff for speciation happens at the genes, and absolutely nothing with epigenetics. Thus Lamarck was still quite wrong.
And wtf, even your own link gives the date of 1941 as the naming of it, with simply "renewed interesting" in the 1990s. The string "198" doesn't even appear directly in your link. Did you even read it!?
>No, completely wrong.
I literally just gave you an example of how a concept of it was right. Yes he was wrong in the specific case, but i'm talking about a specific concept. I don't know if you're too autistic to stop trying to disprove lamarckism when no one is saying it's 100% correct or you're too stupid to see the correlation between lamarckism and epigenetics
> is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance)
en.wikipedia.org
>that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring
en.wikipedia.org
> the important stuff for speciation happens at the genes, and absolutely nothing with epigenetics
You're the only one bringing up speciation. it's like you saw lamarckism and didn't bother to read anything else.
>And wtf, even your own link gives the date of 1941 as the naming of it
are you illiterate? I never denied it was invented in 1941, i even implicitly accept it here >It didn't mean back then what it means now though
and I explain why that's not significant in the post you JUST responded to.
>The current definition is much stricter...certainly didn't imply anything novel
try reading before responding
>The string "198" doesn't even appear directly in your link. Did you even read it!?
did you?
> Studies performed by Feinberg and Vogelstein in 1983...
The page goes on. Again, you'd know that if you actually read something and tried to understand it before sperging out and replying.
fucking trips, always the worst posters on every board. +1 to filter at least.
Kek. Tripfag btfo.
There is a formula for calculating the chance of a conspiracy being true:
L=1-e to the power of -t(1-Psi to the power of N(t))
L= the chance of a leak, t= time since the start of the complot, Psi= the chance per person to leak and N(t)= the amount of people who know the truth at time t
If global warming wasn't true, than there should be 405.000 people involved and should've leaked after 3 years and 9 months. But this is just probability.
Of course you can always ask yourself: Who benefits? If global warming wasn't real it would benefit almost every buisness and country in the world. If it is real it would benefit maybe greenpeace or something?
Global warming, race(its existence and effect on IQ and behaviour), GMOs, vaccines, socialism back in the 20th century.
The vast majority of scientists 100 years ago believed that races were a real thing and that intelligence was dependent on your genes. They also thought that homosexuality, transgenderism and pedosexuality were mental disorders.
Yet you imply in the same breath that there meaningfully exists such a thing as a "real" mental disorder.
Intelligence is relative, and most certainly is dependent in part on your genes. Genetics form the baseline. Else you could be a tomato and do just fine.
You're a product of your time and place as well, and ultimately, on the "not there yet" part of history.
>Who benefits?
I ain't even Columbo
>that 99% of scientists agreed on
Pedophilia is a disease. Sex before age of 18 will result to so-called "psychologial trauma".
>Epigenetics in terms of real world effects is basically isolated to effects inside of a single organism that does not go on through the germ line. Some minor effects may persist through the germ line, but still they will eventually end.
holy fuck, take a genetics class. there's actually quite a few epigenetic changes known to be heritable
>ajpregu.physiology.org
>chd.ucsd.edu
>faculty.uca.edu
to say nothing of GENE IMPRINTING
>The Pope
I.. honestly can't tell if you're serious or not.
>black holes aren't real things
Ok kiddo
Or did you just miss it? Look again.
Have you ever seen one?
>climate change used to be called global warming, but now it’s not warming anymore.
Nice meme.
>Researcher shows that black holes do not exist
phys.org
Except it works or your damn phone GPS and Google map's locator, and anything else involving a geosynchronous satellite would go to shit along with a good chunk of the aviation industry. Nevermind the fact that nearly all the craziest shit it predicted has been observed (including consequences of the theory Einstein thought we never could).
Where did that even come from, I see it a lot.
We'll just ignore the fact that we observe them all the time, and if relativity wasn't a thing, that it's one hell of a coincidence that the satellite clocks are off by just the amount Einstein predicted they would be, and have to be compensated accordingly.
Carbon tax is the new age tithe obviously. Sky fairies and sodomite priests are old and broken, climate priests and carbon tithes are the new hotness.
No, today in the modern world most adults understand that genetics is related to race because people of the same race tend to breed with each-other.
What's your point, what do you want us to do about that. Its effectively the ancestry of white peoples fault that black people have an average lower intelligence, they spent a long time breeding the best and fasted workers, who tend to be less intelligent, and culling those who weren't.
Your solution to this effectively non-existent problem? Kill off the bottom 90% on the flawless intelligence scale we have today? That would mean you would be killed off too unless you're Asian. And dropping off a large portion of humanity would reduce the rate of human progress more than just raising the average intelligence of the human race through better education.
>holy fuck, take a genetics class. there's actually quite a few epigenetic changes known to be heritable
And again, none of them last for enough generations in a stable way to participate in a meaningful way in speciation.
And again, epigenetics is /not/ the idea that by stretching one's neck, this changes the epigenetics of the germ line so that their children will have longer necks. Lamarck was just wrong.
Climate change is a Catholic conspiracy theory to reinstitute tithes...
...and you wonder why people don't take you guys seriously.
How autistic do you have to be to trip as "scientist" anyway?
Pasta
I think this argument is two binary. I have spoken to scientists who are skeptical about the possible effects of climate change. They don't disagree that the climate has, will and likely is changing. They disagree with proposed models of future warming and the degree of human influence, not with climate change its self.
Saying this I am a geologist, so I, and the other scientists I talk to are probably quite biased. Still a better understanding of CO2 levels over geological time would make anyone skeptical.
- Homosexuality as a brain disorder
- Women's Hysteria as a brain disorder
- Black and Women's Rights as a brain disorder
- Monsters existing in the Ocean
- Most of the shit about Black Holes
- Scientific Racism
- Freudian anything
- Lobotomies
"Man as machine".
We'd had the capacity to realize there did not exist such a thing as "mental disorder" and "mental illness" for centuries besides. It's philosophically disjointed from the start.
Unsurprisingly it's always been used for political purposes. Instill and maintain this deluded way of framing the world, and you can push people to just about anything.
Wrong again:
>cam.ac.uk
And take that goofy "Scientist" name off please.
You're clearly not a scientist as last night you stated you completely reject empiricism while you went on wild social rants dictating what others do and believe when you're not looking at them.
You're a classic example of the Dunning Kruger Effect. I'd place money on you reading a magazine or watching a documentary, hearing that most people don't "get" science, and now you think you're special because you "got" incorrectly watered down popular science...
...and so you go onto Veeky Forums of all places and call yourself a scientist.
WHILE REJECTING EMPIRICISM AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Pretty autistic. /snark
Also, that's ableist you know. Knock that off.
>Mental illness isn't real
>Science and Scientists everywhere are lying
Ok then.
You're linking to a popular non-academic report of the paper? There's an almost equal chance that they got the finding 100% wrong that they got it right. Did you actually read the paper? Let me go see if I can find the paper.
They're not lying about the underlying data. What they've observed is often real. They just have an incorrect high level opinion about what the data means, and unfortunately this spills over into how they and society approach these "problems".
From your own popular news article, from the author:
>It seems that while the precursors to sperm and eggs are very effective in erasing most methylation marks, they are fallible and at a low frequency may allow some epigenetic information to be transmitted to subsequent generations. The inheritance of differential epigenetic information could potentially contribute to altered traits or disease susceptibility in offspring and future descendants.
Sounds pretty much what I've been saying. They observed that it could survive for a few organism generations, maybe, but that it will probably be wiped out. Ergo, basically no effect on the larger picture of speciation.
And again, the example that they gave is that famine conditions may selectively turn on and off genes that might be inheritable to the next human offspring, but this is still not Lamarckianism! Lamarckianism is the very specific idea that an organism can improve some physical aspect about itself, muscle strength, neck length, through practice, and that these changes are heritable to offpsring. This example of famine turning on and off some genes is not that!
>"Science isn't Science because I made a baseless statement and the proof contradicts me. Therefore the proof is wrong"
>Mental illness isn't real
>Mental illness isn't a disease
>The Science is right and they're not wrong
>But because politics; I will say they're wrong
Aka, flip flopping because you're psychotic.
If this was a tribe, we would have thrown your "always wrong but packpeddles to save face" ass out a long time ago.
Dumb (willfully lacking) assessment of what's happening.
If you don't have a real basis for your opinions, just don't respond. It really is that easy.
>If you don't have a real basis for your opinions, just don't respond. It really is that easy.
Exception Psychiatry and Neuropsychiatry do have a basis.
The "Science is a liar...sometimes" argument is baseless nonsense.
The burden of proof when you claim Psychiatry is a lie is all on you... Psychiatrists have proven their case.
If you're going to say it's wrong, then you have to point out where. Exactly where.
No ambiguous statements.
You're just looping back on yourself and repeating the same thing, as though I never said anything at all. Read what I say and actually think instead of just responding.
Again, if you don't have a real basis and years of thought behind your opinion, just stop responding.
It really is that easy.
>and that these changes are heritable to offpsring. This example of famine turning on and off some genes is not that!
But it is. Clearly they're heritable to offspring. You're moving the goalpost after being shown up and saying "well it doesn't last long". Even on then you were probably still not right. From the link he gave you, "Our research demonstrates how genes could retain some memory of their past experiences, revealing that one of the big barriers to the theory of epigenetic inheritance - that epigenetic information is erased between generations - should be reassessed." Stop moving the goalpost. Just take the L and let it be. You're only making yourself look worse and worse every time you carry on.
You're so reddit it hurts.
Asking for proof or counter-proof isn't looping.
It's science.
>Its effectively the ancestry of white peoples fault that black people have an average lower intelligence, they spent a long time breeding the best and fasted workers, who tend to be less intelligent, and culling those who weren't.
This is what liberals actually believe
Of course your whole argument falls apart at a glance but hey who cares about facts huh?
> this effectively non-existent problem
You think a population of sub 80 iq animals can maintain civilization? Dysgenics is a reality, IQ is declining at maybe 5 points a decade among the west
Actually, before you respond I'll bother to make this clear and explicit.
Science provides hard data, it does not provide high level implication and meaning for that data. That relies on human interpretation, logic, and reason. This is why I say the science and what it shows, is often real. The opinions of experts are often incorrect.
To know by what means they can be incorrect, we need to consider what the ideal of identifying this notion of "mental illness", or deviation from a defined norm, actually is, because the definition is tied to the means and the ends. Modern day it's shifting to be more about traits and experiences that are perceived negatively by the individual. Historically this wasn't always the case. But nonetheless, the ideal is for the individual and those around them, to experience things positively.
What is the problem with this? Put concisely, there are many ways to address something, and of yet, modern psychiatry has failed abysmally in defining basic features of these supposed illness as well as properly identifying causative elements. It's framed as simply mechanical failure, and then vaguely described as "chemical imbalance", before begin to cycle people through drugs which is the equivalent of throwing shit at a wall until some clump sticks "well enough". Private interest is certainly involved, and a population indoctrinated into thinking mental illness exists only perpetuates a complete lack of proper support structures and the available of real meaningful solutions. Telling a kid (they're usually children or adolescents) a functional equivalent of "you're broken, here are your drug options" is detrimental.
Cognitive behavioral therapy and specialized treatment are the only ways forward. You cannot take a mechanistic approach without also acknowledging the person themselves IS that very machine. The brain is composed of complex feedback loops, and you can't leave out environment or personal patterns.
>Science provides hard data, it does not provide high level implication and meaning for that data.
1.) You're bringing social meaning into this
2.) Meaning in the sense of causation IS part of science
And then you go on to rant about complete nonsense you pulled out of your ass.
You use zero scientific nor logical terms.
It's just a rant with no substance.
Humans are machines.
Mental illness is a disease.
Psychiatrist is a science.
The only issue in Psychiatry is when they stereotype people, don't check on invidual facts, and end up labeling someone that isn't ill.
That's the only issue in psychiatry.
I ran out of characters. Drug-based approaches have potential in some cases, but it must be acknowledged as a lifestyle choice. Not a necessity. There are too many people walking around saying "my meds", and the language speaks volumes itself. It becomes identity.
At present there are multiple models of schizophrenia alone. No one knows how any of this actually works. Psychiatry is such a fractured mess of a field that treatment success might as well be random noise. There is no real signal. It's just a mess of people who, even if satisfied with the outcome, could be living better lives. It's more or less a randomized assembly line of finding the right drug for the right you.