- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
Like you, one of my on paper credentials is a social science that loves pretending it's true and honest science. All the trappings are there, people love saying "null hypothesis", everyone talks about what regressions and models they chose as if they know what any of this means (to powerlevel, I actually used to struggle with this because I went past algebra and through calculus (I'm speaking from a criminological sociology context, since that's closer to what I study, but in my experience, there's really no way to prove a negative in these types of situations. In disciplines like statistics, you can replace a null hypothesis with an alternative hypothesis because math is objective and we can calculate the confidence we can have that a certain event will occur deterministically, so different people using the same equation will all come to the same conclusion if they did everything right. In sociology, it doesn't really work like that. You can't prove that a group of peoples' actions are NOT being caused by something, you can only fail to prove that their actions ARE being caused by something. When Tony says a (fundamentally flawed and biased) study proves kids are not taking part in a social contagion, he means to say that the study did not find enough evidence to prove that they are. But given that 40% of school kids today identify as some flavor of gay when in previous generations it was only about 5% at most, we can obviously draw our own conclusions.
) in high school, the explanations you're given for this stuff from people in the field don't really make sense mathematically, sometimes I question if the legitimate professors in this field got through algebra, I often dread reading a paper that explains at length why they picked a model) and to be optimistic, a lot of troon science wouldn't make it through the field. I'm not saying that the troon shield wouldn't work, it definitely would, but all kinds of politically correct studies happen and they actually get pretty well torn apart and the person is relegated out of the field. There was a study a while back about gays that had all the answers about how homophobes were evil people who should be thrown in a pit forever and the Science proved anyone accepting of gays would enter Heaven, except all of it was wrong, and there remains suspicion that the guy probably just made up the data in the first place before botching the models completely then editing his results. I don't think the guy even found a pity job elsewhere, which is usual because he was otherwise well credentialed and his previous work with other people involved was fine (I don't think he had been a lead author before though), a low tier school will take a chance on someone like that reforming or at least being a good professor even if he never does any real research again. Troon science would risk this even with the troon shield.Tony and the rest of troon Twitter doesn't even care about this. (To be fair, apparently medical science doesn't either considering Jack Turban keeps doing it.) To Tony it's Science and therefore it's proven. Tony thinks it's smart to simply repeat the Science despite wanting to be a doctor->PhD->drug dealer->trans activist while never being skeptical at any level no matter how basic about anything he reads on Twitter that supports his worldview. Is Tony too dumb to be skeptical, too smart by knowing he's too dumb to even question anything, or simply too afraid to be skeptical? It never even enters Tony's mind that Science is a LIAR Sometimes especially when it says something Tony wants it to say or Tony can think it says. "Why would I be skeptical most of all when someone tells me exactly what I want to hear always while promoting the idea that I should only doubt those who say otherwise or who point out that the person saying what I want to hear is an obvious liar?"












