No

I cannot describe how insanely pathetic that is.

To put your full faith into an institution.

You discredit a whole community because of a few persons?

*but make fun of those bible thumpers*

I believe in science as a valid institution, I don't however put my full faith into it nor do I ever have an appeal to authority fetish.

Wait do you believe in like general scientific knowledge?

/theory

Yes.

However I do not and will not believe in popularity and credentials as a replacement for data.

Im talking about scientific consensus

You must understand how tiring it is to read creative writing trying its best to sound true and hearing some sheep blabber on about how *it's from the most prestigious journal in the field*, *it's from the most popular academic in the field*, or *it's from the approved organization.*

Consensus is a false path.

The consensus of anthropologists believe in the blank slate of human nature.

ok?

They are innsufferable morons who have made the consensus based off of the last generation of prestigious intellectuals and academics in their field having the ideological bend to fudge data, lie, and the power to make everyone else believe those lies.

You're going to stay demoralized and easy to control if you can read this article and not see **it**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

and by **it** I mean the ideologically-based, not factually-based assertions.

wait are you saying biological determination isnt real or is

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_determinism&action=history

?

Like it is 100% a real documented thing

to my knowledge at least

I think quote “Biological Determination” is a way of not having to take responsibility.

How are you not seeing the point I'm making.

make it clear to me then

I'm not trying to say BD is or isn't a thing, I'm saying that the superior Wikipedia of True Knowledge and Only Sourced Fact is how you start seeing the lies you've been fed.

When a sentence, or in the one case a full paragraph is uncited, then you see only the same book being cited, you might be in an ideologically-based article, not a fact-based one.

ok thank you

There are people who make a full-time job out of editing Wikipedia pages to hold up to the **Wikipedia Standard**

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.