Anti-Science

The biggest newsmakers in the crisis have involved psychology. Consider three findings: Striking a “power pose” can improve a person’s hormone balance and increase tolerance for risk. Invoking a negative stereotype, such as by telling black test-takers that an exam measures intelligence, can measurably degrade performance. Playing a sorting game that involves quickly pairing faces (black or white) with bad and good words (“happy” or “death”) can reveal “implicit bias” and predict discrimination.

All three of these results received massive media attention, but independent researchers haven’t been able to reproduce any of them properly. It seems as if there’s no end of “scientific truths” that just aren’t so. For a 2015 article in Science, independent researchers tried to replicate 100 prominent psychology studies and succeeded with only 39% of them.

This is easily seen in the ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ hoax where actual results are replaced with easily manipulated computer games (or ‘models’ as they are called). The results of these computer games, which can’t even accurately reproduce yesterday’s known weather, purport to predict the climate 30, 50, 100 years out. These results are then said to show catastrophe in the making unless we raise taxes to prevent it.

And if you don’t ‘believe’ that a) man is causing climate change and/or b) that raising taxes will miraculously reverse the trend, you are a ‘climate-denier’ and don’t ‘believe’ in science, as if science were a religion instead of a method of understanding the physical world.

I blame leftists who’ve dumbed down the education system so badly that people can’t think critically anymore. If a ‘scientist’ says so, it must be true. Disregard the fact that all of predictions made by these ‘scientists’ have failed to come to pass. The ice caps are still there, the glaciers haven’t melted, and the seas haven’t risen.

Source: Anti-Science

Published by

cruithni

Right-wing, Conservative, Constitutionalist, Christian, Heterosexual. How else can I offend you today?