Smoke and mirrors for the simulation dude. Remove yourself from the college thought construct and actually go talk to a real person in real life.
yeah i'll go talk to mr and mrs white down the road that sell me strawberries and they will harp on about how obama is satan very informative and checkable
No its more like, I'm not going take any evidence at face value cause p much every time I click on some "scientific" bullstuff the methodology is forgeted from the jump
Like you don't need to be a scientist to know some research is bunk based solely on the figures (1 in 5 women get raped in college, wage gap bullstuff, etc etc)
Another example, unrelated to here: some handicap on reddit tried to link me to this research saying owing a gun made you more likely to be shot. Upon immediate inspection I noticed several things: these shootings took place in Philadelphia, there was a total of 300ish shootings, and yet they tried to apply this model to the rest of the states. handicaps just google "i am right dot com" and take the first thing they can to confirm their bias. It's why I don't bother linking anything anymore myself. What would be the point? You can just as easily find data that contradicts what I sent. Because it's all probably bullstuff on some level, because the scientific community is forgeted to hell and back with politics, just like everything else!
this reeks of someone whos never written a paper in their life, of course data contradicts itself, this is why methodology and transparency is important. YOU CAN READ WHAT THE PERSON DID
I rely on something called:
scientific concensusscientific consensus is achieved by doing a meta-brown townysis of a bunch of papers related to what you are investigating (sometimes hundreds of thousands of data points). This uses stats to verify and find out what the data signifies, normally it points to some trend or correlation. So you brown townyze all of the data available and you
can come to a conclusion of what actually is happening based on a margin of error. The entire point of what i'm saying is that meta-brown townyses are
waaaay more credible than just random data from x articles because it's an amalgamation of literally hundreds of papers worth.
The way you are presenting it is like if you can't trust the scientific method or anything related to science because your omega brain just google searched something and got a different result. Which is blatantly untrue and is a loving stupid way to look at the world
