ITT: Scientific Redpills

>The Culture of Critique
This has been on my backlog for ages.

this
who /لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا ٱلله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱلله/ here

2D girls are mathematically better than 3D ones.

>People in the Victorian era were more intelligent than people today

This is why I never take the term 'red pill' seriously

>no sjws
>eugenics
>greatest relative achievements of all time

dunno man I think he might be on to something.

I too am a follower of the peadophile priest

>science doesn't need proof

>implying you can """prove""" anything outside of math
the best you can do is assure validity for an extremely narrow combination of parameters.

I wish I hadn't read this book. It pretty much forced me into antisemitism, which I always associated with backwardness and ignorance. There are some things that just shouldn't be known.

Omitted variable bias exists and is widely used to justify pseudo-scientific opinions.

Studies are not often cross-examined because science journals have the tendency to promote completely unexplored aspects of a field, instead of confirming/disproving old ones.

Science journals and science-related media prefer sensational "discoveries"

Racism is completely unsubstantiated as a scientific theory.