i get what you're saying now, it can be hard through text

You read the **Standard**, you see "objectivity" as the stated goal over and over, but this is what their **Standard** brought them.

*You need consensus by us to edit our edit, bucko!*

It's obviously corrupt and definitely loses all value as a resource as a result. It's why you don't let idealogues be in charge of Science™.

I think that loops back to credibility and understandin the sources you look at

(you just gave me flashback of Jordan Peterson by saying ideologues xD)

Jordan Peterson is a very big idealogue, so it's a cute irony.

yeah he kinda screams about nothing

Jordan never makes and normative claims

"I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!"

Everyone does try to put words in everyone’s mouths.

yeah but its hard when he never says any normative claims

I'm just saying that you can no longer read what APA says, or what a paper in a *good* journal says, or a paper that follows the consensus of the field, and have the initial reaction of automatically believing it to be truthful just because you've been taught to trust the Science™ institution and feel good and objective to defend them while they are the most corrupt they have ever been.

he uses descriptive claims with no normative claims

It feels good to be objective, but if you're only defending poisonous snakes from capture by animal control, then you shouldn't be surprised if you get marked to be as criminal as them.

Was just making a statement.

oh yeah I think we can all agree that Jordan isnt a good figure to listen to

I can’t agree if I don’t whole heartedly agree. However not looking for a discussion on the matter.

The problem with the scientific community as I see it is that there is a failure to have studies be reproduced rn

@Deleted User

But I think that for the most part the scientific community and consensus are the only good way to get ideas on subjects that defer to science

No, because there is no reason to trust a lie if 30 people say it instead of 3.

but its different when those 30 people are qualified to make those statements

More people hopping in on the fun doesn't make the lie true suddenly.

Define *qualified*

Joe spent his parent's money to spend time in a classroom taught by an idealogue, got a degree from it, and is now qualified to be truthful when he merely parrots what his idealogue professor told him.

That's not qualification.

if not from people whoo a trained and certified, then where can we draw conclusions about issues or questions in society

That's all it takes to be a *qualified Psychologist* now. Sit in a room, listen to a guy speak, he has to like you enough to pass you, and suddenly that means you're qualified to translate what the field of psychology has set as the consensus.

From anyone who is saying the truth, regardless of how rich they are or where they went to school.

ok well how do you determine who is telling the truth

If you find a wordpress blog entry on a topic has the truth, but the wikipedia article on the topic doesn't, why should you trust the qualified wikipedia editors and academics they source when the truth didn't lead to them?

You determine who is telling the truth by carefully analyzing their claims and finding whether the logic allows for it to make sense and then whether any data supports their claim.

The only way you can win is to take it one claim at a time.

where can the data come from if not the scientific community

anyone, anywhere.

You can get weather data from old men in Alaska who kept a journal of the snow height everyday.

that creates so many issues

There really isn't a shortage of the data, the bottleneck comes from the filtering of the data to academics, then from academics to the public.

thats a good thing

forcing the data to go through a process to see if it was fairly obtained reliable is good