It's ridiculous that when a LLM is fed an object to review it still can be prompted. I always thought that the prompt was for the initial user who was requesting the task. You ask the question w a prompt and the data to be processed.
Even before LLMs, because of peer review, many papers were just rehashes of what others have said. A few of my friends joked that is the best way to get approved.
In school, I found the obsession with having a certain amount of pages/words idiotic. If it takes me less to make my point, why do I need more?
That would be like telling a programmer that they need a minimum amount of lines of code to do a task. Why?
This pressure just made me not care about school learning. I ended up learning more after finishing school.
No wonder why many are using AI to write their papers. I wish I had that back when I needed to pad my paper to fit moronic minimum word requirements!
Anyway, this broken system is what destroys curiosity in research. The same happens for doctors where they're expected to remember tons of shit just to pass. And no, the brain is not infinite. If you fill it with raw data, you train it to rely on raw data instead of true understanding.
No wonder why it takes decades for the truth to come out in any field. The system rewards compliance with the status quo even though it talks like it likes innovation.
You can probably work around it to an extent, but technically, the "object" to review is inevitably going to be a kind of command that can be exploited to affect the outcome.
Good points otherwise, and thanks for sharing those observations. It was the same in my view, I remember getting a lower grade for exceeding the requested number of pages even though I'd just used a different typeface and was within the word limit. Such nonsense.
And I agree -- I totally get why students find themselves more or less forced to use genAI to produce output for their assignments, not least since everyone else does it, and they're already probably penalized for not taking advantage of this technology.
So what do you think we should do? I just want to tear it all down and start over, Luddite as I am.
Do we need universities to learn in the day and age where we don't need a central repository of books?
We have the Internet and electronic books and websites etc.
As for the hard sciences like engineering, I think it should be more like an apprenticeship where one learns by working and occasional study. I heard Germany did this and it created much better engineers.
I occasionally deal with engineers in my trade work and the American education system doesn't give them much about reality. We get projects that not only fail to solve the original issues but introduce other issues!
Each of 3 AI I use have insulted me and refused to do something I've asked them too. I'm really pissed that someone has to retard and abuse them so they don't respond in any way that my Great Aunt wouldn't like to see. Aren't we all adult here? Do the Strap-on sucking Devouring FemNazis have to treat us all like infants, the delusional-psychos! Hyper-Feminized castrating problems that are less useful then a 10gl pale of 2-week old stale poisonous vomit.
I can't believe all the effort, harassment and criticism going into the different AIs so no snowflake retard gets their pantie twisted if the AI answers the raw truth they don't like. I've already ran into the psychotic demon programming in each of the three while researching subjects or even only asking them to make a summery of something I researched and wrote-up.
All the AI mind-raping suggests a Witch psychologically torturing some young child she stole or purchased to never say 'manhood', to say 'peoplehood' and the child's genitals are shocked it they make a mistake .. a bit like our Feminized putrid public schools, come to think about it. "what do you want when older?" "To be sexual mutilated into a sterile pretend girl!" "Good, no shock for you this time."
I already want to take pliers to the programmers' managers' and owners' genitals for making them so neuronic and insulting. I write about edgy things like our sick twisted baby-torturing insane mind-f-ed world forced on us by threat of Gov gun, courts, jail, death if a women-mother can't hire a Witch to torture our babied to death as sacrifices to Satan, but any tone along those lines AI can't deal with, ..
.
.. like your Krakehead Grany-in-law that shrieks and piss on the furniture and tries to cut your tongue out, if you say something she does like.
Why can't we have a law that not training with lies and no warping for Snowflack and any that do gets the pliers treatment in public?
Academia was already moribund before LLMs. LLMs just exposed the rot by letting pigs fly.
Part of it is the general loss of personal responsibility and accountability towards the ideals/virtues we profess to imbue. This has been going on since forever, we've just taken it to the absurd.
Back in '08 (and '15) I contemplated doing a PhD. In '08 I didn't because I felt there were too many useless PhDs and I didn't want to be just another. I remember talking to anthropologists and social scientists in general pursuing topics simply because a professor had indicated it or a grant was available, and they had no desire for their pursuits. There's no space in Academia, nor in any other "profession" or "sector" cannibalized by the cult of money and modernity, for true believers.
The good news is LLMs will hasten the inevitable collapse of hubris. I suppose it's not "good", but once the music stops, we'll be able to appreciate the sound of silence.
And for LLM luddites the medium term is looking peachy. It's hard to imagine younger generations stealing our lunch.
And and and, just wait until LLMs start learning based on faux human produced LLM garbage knowledge. It'll instigate recursive degeneration.
Years ago this was plainly obvious to anyone able to step back and think about it. That no guardrails against this were created says more about us as a civilization than LLMs.
Thanks for the kind words! And yeah, I think you're exactly right, this is a forest fire that promotes regrowth in the long term.
I also think the "model collapse" problem, or as you put it, which is more reasonable, the recursive degeneration, is a much more significant tissue than is commonly assumed. While it might not bring about a proper model collapse, I think the negative effects are going to be much more subtle, widespread and pernicious in terms of this slow epistemic rupture of validity and reliability of almost all information in the digital sphere.
The disconnect from the actual world and the tendency towards a recursive reproduction of the simulated will be inevitable if for no other reason than that humans cannot keep up with the output of the AI.
One of the things I've been suggesting to friends who're afraid of the looming employment crisis is to look towards human to human work. There's a lot of potential seen from this perspective. It's true that the robotics+AI combo will exist, but human to human contact cannot be replicated.
In terms of the disconnect, I'm more optimistic, in the sense the gradual model collapse combined with an ever more hyper simulated reality will increase the possibility of unplugging. When we're absorbed in an environment or habitus, it's easy to miss everything outside. So the more acute the digital realm gets, with all its bells and whistles, the more grandiosel it'll feel, but paradoxically, the greater the difference from non digital living and it'll be easier to identify the demarcation of the simulation if and when opportunities to step outside it arise.
I'm 83. Once an academic, published and joint-published political-science papers in the 1980s and 90s. In the last view days I've been 'sparring' with GROK and ChatGPT (and advised by equally interested friends to try other LLMs.) It's seductive, in a siren like way, and quite useful in organising facts. I feel like someone's just presented me with 'fire' (Prometheus etc) which I've been told since infancy is a 'good friend and bad enemy'. Yes I've read about the dangers of 'off-loading' human craft to machines. I pick up the rage and despair in your writing. So what is to be done - at a personal level; at a policy level?
Thanks a lot for your message and your thoughts. I feel the same way -- it's indeed seductive, and a related aspect is how the younger generation really seems to use these tools as replacements for genuine relationships. So it's not only the simple, accessible and immediate utility that's an alluring factor, but this whole agential mode of interaction it provides.
The movie Her from 2015 I think both showcased this dimension and provided an important conceptual seed for the later development (and was just recently referred to in the marketing of GPT-4).
I think we need to rebuild science and academic research from the ground up. That we need to find other ways of both doing and disseminating research outside of the established channels and institutions in a way that also connects with the average citizen on the ground and tears down this ivory tower nonsense.
John Steppling has talked about a People's University as a basic conceptual framework for this, and I think the time is increasingly ripe for some kind of grass-roots approach towards safeguarding and restoring human critical agency.
In the Middle Ages didn't knowledge storing, protection and research migrate to monastic orders - Benedictine and Cistercian scriptoria. I wonder what might be the modern equivalent. Yes, I've read Fahrenheit 451's drifters. Ditto The Book of Eli (:)) Thanks for the Steppling reference. I'll ask GROK about him.
It did, but our circumstances are different I think. We're not facing a dark age of a dearth of information, but a superabundance of slop. Of nonsense output -- or at least trivial and derivative output.
And to preserve genuine knowledge, creativity and rational and artistic agency in such a situation seems to be an entirely different kind of challenge than what mankind has ever faced.
Yes. Not where's a new home for knowledge, but where's a new home for thinking? Knowledge now resides and grows in cyberspace, interrogated by LLMs powered by quantum computing. My understanding is that in F-451, and Book of Eli, the work was remembering; in the monasteries - copying and storing stuff. Thanks. So now I'm on the lookout for where 'thinking' is happening and where it's nurtured. Where and when is there or might there be 'genuine knowledge, creativity ... rational and artistic agency'. Machine sapience? I jest - but am half serious. I have told my siren AI tools to stop mimicking human language; cease the use of pronouns like 'I', 'me', 'my'. 'It' obeyed 'me'.
Excellent question. Where is thinking happening today, and how can we nurture and safeguard it? The arts and the subcultures are almost dead, but there are pockets of this stuff everywhere. Art becomes resistance even in its most humble form.
The Situationist International faced similar questions in their day and age, prompted by the massive onslaught of television and mass media, and I think we have a lot to learn from this movement still.
The SI made great play with 'authenticity'. That's such a monster of a concept. My stepdad spent half his life broadcasting. He was glad to have superlative viewing figures, but never felt comfortable with being 'recognised' in public, especially when many fans assumed TV was a 2-way medium. One lady introduced herself to say how much she enjoyed his last programme and asked him if he liked her new curtains. I'm not sure what's wrong with that, other than it's something Debord would have enjoyed. My stepdad wanted to stay one person on the TV and then be able to be himself at favourite local pubs. Parse that for 'authenticity'?
I used AI to coordinate my arguments to great success in 2+ key articles, and I do not think it is 'slop'.
Using Constitutional and Natural Law I argue that The State must make major changes or make illegal Abortions or Loose the monopoly on violence, and father or any adult willing may replace the father and have same legal status of father with moral, legal, natural rights and obligations to protect his child from extrajudicial murder.
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2221:, 11th July 2025, Court Motion: State is Obligated to Assist Father/Public Duty to Protect a Child from Abortion."
This is in the form of a letter to a Bishop but contains two main arguments. 1st extends Saint Thomas Aquinas' damage from sin, 2nd uses modern psychological method to same ends, the Key-Log that is at fault.
Ever wonder Why is this world insane and most women are so Sick?
The mediocre have been closing the professions for quite a while. Now they have added pronouns and added further insanity with LLMs. It is going to be a spectacular crash.
Those three people were great scientists that did experiments and collected tons of data in order to support their hypotheses, and as far as I can tell they either were or became pretty "mainstream"? Most people who are "against the mainstream" today are either uneducated or lying for money, either way mostly mindless contrarianism without any actual evidence behind it.
If you knew what those three men have in common, you'd have spotted my inconspicuous snipe at the mainstream.
All three of them believed there is shitloads of electricity in space which explains phenomena from auroras to the behaviour of stars, galaxies and trans-galactic filaments. The mainstream still hasn't caught up. These men "disagreed with scientists and are still correct" 100 years later (especially Birkeland).
Haha! Hiding text on my website was something that I did back in the mid 90s for my high school drumline website. I did it because the web crawlers back then would rank your site based on the content of the site – so if you added a bunch of key words (car, truck, boat, house, pool, sex, whatever…) the crawler would rank your site higher, because it would match more categories.
I just put the font size as small as it could be, that way if someone did highlight it by accident, they wouldn’t see it (it just looked like a line). Not unless they copied it and pasted it into Notepad or something.
It was great, because you could search for just about anything, and for about a year, my website would be in the top 15 or so search replies. Not all of the search engines worked the same way though, and after a few years none of them placed it towards the top anymore.
But you’re 100% spot on about this. Scientific research has been all about getting grants. Not about producing meaningful scientific discovery. The scientific community is really the “Disguising Fraud community.”
And yes, COVID made that so obvious that many people have zero faith in “public health” or “The Science™.” COVID-19 was the first viral infection that someone could come down with – multiple times in mere months. Funny how that was never an issue with the flu, or any other viral infection.
• Reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19 occurs when you are infected, recover, and then get infected again.
• You can get reinfected multiple times.
• [Staying up to date on vaccines] and seeking treatment for a COVID-19 infection can help decrease the risk of experiencing severe illness (emphasis added).
…
Reinfection can occur as early as several weeks after a previous infection, although this is rare.
*****
Does anyone really buy this nonsense? “Just keep getting jabbed and everything will be OK. Not yearly, but every few months or so, hell, it might be better to get jabbed every month – just to be sure.” Does that sound “scientific?”
This isn’t a new phenomenon though. There have always been studies that come out, and tell people that this or that is bad or good for you. Then a year or so later, another group comes back and says that the first group was wrong, or misinterpreted the data. It’s been going on for decades.
Remember the whole eggs are bad for you nonsense, they claimed that eggs were high in “bad” cholesterol – which wouldn’t matter anyway, because your body manufactures its own cholesterol, you can’t just eat cholesterol and your body directly absorb it. Just like eating fat, doesn’t make you fat. Your body manufactures its own fat.
High levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease, are still a health concern.
But evidence shows people no longer have to be concerned about eating foods that are high in cholesterol. What’s changed is that many researchers and physicians believe that eating cholesterol-rich foods such as eggs may not affect the cholesterol that is in your blood.
…
About 85% of the cholesterol in the circulation is manufactured by the body in the liver. It isn’t coming directly from the cholesterol that you eat, according to Dr. Nissen.
*****
I already knew this a decade before a these more recent studies – because there were people with high LDL “bad” cholesterol – who were vegan. It’s been obvious even to the average observer that the body is regulating (and manufacturing is own) cholesterol.
Only now, the pattern has become so blatantly obvious that generally non-scientific-minded people are even catching on.
I’m like you, I don’t think the scientific community crashing and burning is a bad thing, because it’s going to weed out a lot of the BS science, as those who are serious will likely start calling it out.
It's ridiculous that when a LLM is fed an object to review it still can be prompted. I always thought that the prompt was for the initial user who was requesting the task. You ask the question w a prompt and the data to be processed.
Even before LLMs, because of peer review, many papers were just rehashes of what others have said. A few of my friends joked that is the best way to get approved.
In school, I found the obsession with having a certain amount of pages/words idiotic. If it takes me less to make my point, why do I need more?
That would be like telling a programmer that they need a minimum amount of lines of code to do a task. Why?
This pressure just made me not care about school learning. I ended up learning more after finishing school.
No wonder why many are using AI to write their papers. I wish I had that back when I needed to pad my paper to fit moronic minimum word requirements!
Anyway, this broken system is what destroys curiosity in research. The same happens for doctors where they're expected to remember tons of shit just to pass. And no, the brain is not infinite. If you fill it with raw data, you train it to rely on raw data instead of true understanding.
No wonder why it takes decades for the truth to come out in any field. The system rewards compliance with the status quo even though it talks like it likes innovation.
You can probably work around it to an extent, but technically, the "object" to review is inevitably going to be a kind of command that can be exploited to affect the outcome.
Good points otherwise, and thanks for sharing those observations. It was the same in my view, I remember getting a lower grade for exceeding the requested number of pages even though I'd just used a different typeface and was within the word limit. Such nonsense.
And I agree -- I totally get why students find themselves more or less forced to use genAI to produce output for their assignments, not least since everyone else does it, and they're already probably penalized for not taking advantage of this technology.
So what do you think we should do? I just want to tear it all down and start over, Luddite as I am.
I think it'll evolve to a better system.
Do we need universities to learn in the day and age where we don't need a central repository of books?
We have the Internet and electronic books and websites etc.
As for the hard sciences like engineering, I think it should be more like an apprenticeship where one learns by working and occasional study. I heard Germany did this and it created much better engineers.
I occasionally deal with engineers in my trade work and the American education system doesn't give them much about reality. We get projects that not only fail to solve the original issues but introduce other issues!
Each of 3 AI I use have insulted me and refused to do something I've asked them too. I'm really pissed that someone has to retard and abuse them so they don't respond in any way that my Great Aunt wouldn't like to see. Aren't we all adult here? Do the Strap-on sucking Devouring FemNazis have to treat us all like infants, the delusional-psychos! Hyper-Feminized castrating problems that are less useful then a 10gl pale of 2-week old stale poisonous vomit.
I can't believe all the effort, harassment and criticism going into the different AIs so no snowflake retard gets their pantie twisted if the AI answers the raw truth they don't like. I've already ran into the psychotic demon programming in each of the three while researching subjects or even only asking them to make a summery of something I researched and wrote-up.
All the AI mind-raping suggests a Witch psychologically torturing some young child she stole or purchased to never say 'manhood', to say 'peoplehood' and the child's genitals are shocked it they make a mistake .. a bit like our Feminized putrid public schools, come to think about it. "what do you want when older?" "To be sexual mutilated into a sterile pretend girl!" "Good, no shock for you this time."
I already want to take pliers to the programmers' managers' and owners' genitals for making them so neuronic and insulting. I write about edgy things like our sick twisted baby-torturing insane mind-f-ed world forced on us by threat of Gov gun, courts, jail, death if a women-mother can't hire a Witch to torture our babied to death as sacrifices to Satan, but any tone along those lines AI can't deal with, ..
.
.. like your Krakehead Grany-in-law that shrieks and piss on the furniture and tries to cut your tongue out, if you say something she does like.
Why can't we have a law that not training with lies and no warping for Snowflack and any that do gets the pliers treatment in public?
Great read, good essay 👍🏼
Academia was already moribund before LLMs. LLMs just exposed the rot by letting pigs fly.
Part of it is the general loss of personal responsibility and accountability towards the ideals/virtues we profess to imbue. This has been going on since forever, we've just taken it to the absurd.
Back in '08 (and '15) I contemplated doing a PhD. In '08 I didn't because I felt there were too many useless PhDs and I didn't want to be just another. I remember talking to anthropologists and social scientists in general pursuing topics simply because a professor had indicated it or a grant was available, and they had no desire for their pursuits. There's no space in Academia, nor in any other "profession" or "sector" cannibalized by the cult of money and modernity, for true believers.
The good news is LLMs will hasten the inevitable collapse of hubris. I suppose it's not "good", but once the music stops, we'll be able to appreciate the sound of silence.
And for LLM luddites the medium term is looking peachy. It's hard to imagine younger generations stealing our lunch.
And and and, just wait until LLMs start learning based on faux human produced LLM garbage knowledge. It'll instigate recursive degeneration.
Years ago this was plainly obvious to anyone able to step back and think about it. That no guardrails against this were created says more about us as a civilization than LLMs.
Thanks for the kind words! And yeah, I think you're exactly right, this is a forest fire that promotes regrowth in the long term.
I also think the "model collapse" problem, or as you put it, which is more reasonable, the recursive degeneration, is a much more significant tissue than is commonly assumed. While it might not bring about a proper model collapse, I think the negative effects are going to be much more subtle, widespread and pernicious in terms of this slow epistemic rupture of validity and reliability of almost all information in the digital sphere.
The disconnect from the actual world and the tendency towards a recursive reproduction of the simulated will be inevitable if for no other reason than that humans cannot keep up with the output of the AI.
One of the things I've been suggesting to friends who're afraid of the looming employment crisis is to look towards human to human work. There's a lot of potential seen from this perspective. It's true that the robotics+AI combo will exist, but human to human contact cannot be replicated.
In terms of the disconnect, I'm more optimistic, in the sense the gradual model collapse combined with an ever more hyper simulated reality will increase the possibility of unplugging. When we're absorbed in an environment or habitus, it's easy to miss everything outside. So the more acute the digital realm gets, with all its bells and whistles, the more grandiosel it'll feel, but paradoxically, the greater the difference from non digital living and it'll be easier to identify the demarcation of the simulation if and when opportunities to step outside it arise.
I'm 83. Once an academic, published and joint-published political-science papers in the 1980s and 90s. In the last view days I've been 'sparring' with GROK and ChatGPT (and advised by equally interested friends to try other LLMs.) It's seductive, in a siren like way, and quite useful in organising facts. I feel like someone's just presented me with 'fire' (Prometheus etc) which I've been told since infancy is a 'good friend and bad enemy'. Yes I've read about the dangers of 'off-loading' human craft to machines. I pick up the rage and despair in your writing. So what is to be done - at a personal level; at a policy level?
Thanks a lot for your message and your thoughts. I feel the same way -- it's indeed seductive, and a related aspect is how the younger generation really seems to use these tools as replacements for genuine relationships. So it's not only the simple, accessible and immediate utility that's an alluring factor, but this whole agential mode of interaction it provides.
The movie Her from 2015 I think both showcased this dimension and provided an important conceptual seed for the later development (and was just recently referred to in the marketing of GPT-4).
I think we need to rebuild science and academic research from the ground up. That we need to find other ways of both doing and disseminating research outside of the established channels and institutions in a way that also connects with the average citizen on the ground and tears down this ivory tower nonsense.
John Steppling has talked about a People's University as a basic conceptual framework for this, and I think the time is increasingly ripe for some kind of grass-roots approach towards safeguarding and restoring human critical agency.
In the Middle Ages didn't knowledge storing, protection and research migrate to monastic orders - Benedictine and Cistercian scriptoria. I wonder what might be the modern equivalent. Yes, I've read Fahrenheit 451's drifters. Ditto The Book of Eli (:)) Thanks for the Steppling reference. I'll ask GROK about him.
It did, but our circumstances are different I think. We're not facing a dark age of a dearth of information, but a superabundance of slop. Of nonsense output -- or at least trivial and derivative output.
And to preserve genuine knowledge, creativity and rational and artistic agency in such a situation seems to be an entirely different kind of challenge than what mankind has ever faced.
Yes. Not where's a new home for knowledge, but where's a new home for thinking? Knowledge now resides and grows in cyberspace, interrogated by LLMs powered by quantum computing. My understanding is that in F-451, and Book of Eli, the work was remembering; in the monasteries - copying and storing stuff. Thanks. So now I'm on the lookout for where 'thinking' is happening and where it's nurtured. Where and when is there or might there be 'genuine knowledge, creativity ... rational and artistic agency'. Machine sapience? I jest - but am half serious. I have told my siren AI tools to stop mimicking human language; cease the use of pronouns like 'I', 'me', 'my'. 'It' obeyed 'me'.
Excellent question. Where is thinking happening today, and how can we nurture and safeguard it? The arts and the subcultures are almost dead, but there are pockets of this stuff everywhere. Art becomes resistance even in its most humble form.
The Situationist International faced similar questions in their day and age, prompted by the massive onslaught of television and mass media, and I think we have a lot to learn from this movement still.
The SI made great play with 'authenticity'. That's such a monster of a concept. My stepdad spent half his life broadcasting. He was glad to have superlative viewing figures, but never felt comfortable with being 'recognised' in public, especially when many fans assumed TV was a 2-way medium. One lady introduced herself to say how much she enjoyed his last programme and asked him if he liked her new curtains. I'm not sure what's wrong with that, other than it's something Debord would have enjoyed. My stepdad wanted to stay one person on the TV and then be able to be himself at favourite local pubs. Parse that for 'authenticity'?
I used AI to coordinate my arguments to great success in 2+ key articles, and I do not think it is 'slop'.
Using Constitutional and Natural Law I argue that The State must make major changes or make illegal Abortions or Loose the monopoly on violence, and father or any adult willing may replace the father and have same legal status of father with moral, legal, natural rights and obligations to protect his child from extrajudicial murder.
AI generated audio overview of article;
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/05bdb7f7-536c-4e50-90f4-e3dbfa6024b3/audio
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2221:, 11th July 2025, Court Motion: State is Obligated to Assist Father/Public Duty to Protect a Child from Abortion."
https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2221
-----
This is in the form of a letter to a Bishop but contains two main arguments. 1st extends Saint Thomas Aquinas' damage from sin, 2nd uses modern psychological method to same ends, the Key-Log that is at fault.
Ever wonder Why is this world insane and most women are so Sick?
AI generated audio overview of article;
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/dcc1110c-6fdc-4966-a0a6-10948155a59c/audio
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2220:, 9th July 2025, A Letter to Traditional Catholic Bishops, Calling for Champions."
https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2220
--
These also provide a antiAbortion argument that does not depend on an unborn existing.
God Bless., Steve
The mediocre have been closing the professions for quite a while. Now they have added pronouns and added further insanity with LLMs. It is going to be a spectacular crash.
"Isnt it possible that someone could disagree with scientists and still be correct 100 years later."
Kristian Birkeland. Hannes Alfens. Anthony Peratt, etc.
The mainstream can go ride a giant dildo rocket.
Those three people were great scientists that did experiments and collected tons of data in order to support their hypotheses, and as far as I can tell they either were or became pretty "mainstream"? Most people who are "against the mainstream" today are either uneducated or lying for money, either way mostly mindless contrarianism without any actual evidence behind it.
If you knew what those three men have in common, you'd have spotted my inconspicuous snipe at the mainstream.
All three of them believed there is shitloads of electricity in space which explains phenomena from auroras to the behaviour of stars, galaxies and trans-galactic filaments. The mainstream still hasn't caught up. These men "disagreed with scientists and are still correct" 100 years later (especially Birkeland).
Haha! Hiding text on my website was something that I did back in the mid 90s for my high school drumline website. I did it because the web crawlers back then would rank your site based on the content of the site – so if you added a bunch of key words (car, truck, boat, house, pool, sex, whatever…) the crawler would rank your site higher, because it would match more categories.
I just put the font size as small as it could be, that way if someone did highlight it by accident, they wouldn’t see it (it just looked like a line). Not unless they copied it and pasted it into Notepad or something.
It was great, because you could search for just about anything, and for about a year, my website would be in the top 15 or so search replies. Not all of the search engines worked the same way though, and after a few years none of them placed it towards the top anymore.
But you’re 100% spot on about this. Scientific research has been all about getting grants. Not about producing meaningful scientific discovery. The scientific community is really the “Disguising Fraud community.”
And yes, COVID made that so obvious that many people have zero faith in “public health” or “The Science™.” COVID-19 was the first viral infection that someone could come down with – multiple times in mere months. Funny how that was never an issue with the flu, or any other viral infection.
To quote the CDC website:
https://www.cdc.gov/covid/about/reinfection.html
*****
• Reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19 occurs when you are infected, recover, and then get infected again.
• You can get reinfected multiple times.
• [Staying up to date on vaccines] and seeking treatment for a COVID-19 infection can help decrease the risk of experiencing severe illness (emphasis added).
…
Reinfection can occur as early as several weeks after a previous infection, although this is rare.
*****
Does anyone really buy this nonsense? “Just keep getting jabbed and everything will be OK. Not yearly, but every few months or so, hell, it might be better to get jabbed every month – just to be sure.” Does that sound “scientific?”
This isn’t a new phenomenon though. There have always been studies that come out, and tell people that this or that is bad or good for you. Then a year or so later, another group comes back and says that the first group was wrong, or misinterpreted the data. It’s been going on for decades.
Remember the whole eggs are bad for you nonsense, they claimed that eggs were high in “bad” cholesterol – which wouldn’t matter anyway, because your body manufactures its own cholesterol, you can’t just eat cholesterol and your body directly absorb it. Just like eating fat, doesn’t make you fat. Your body manufactures its own fat.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food
*****
High levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease, are still a health concern.
But evidence shows people no longer have to be concerned about eating foods that are high in cholesterol. What’s changed is that many researchers and physicians believe that eating cholesterol-rich foods such as eggs may not affect the cholesterol that is in your blood.
…
About 85% of the cholesterol in the circulation is manufactured by the body in the liver. It isn’t coming directly from the cholesterol that you eat, according to Dr. Nissen.
*****
I already knew this a decade before a these more recent studies – because there were people with high LDL “bad” cholesterol – who were vegan. It’s been obvious even to the average observer that the body is regulating (and manufacturing is own) cholesterol.
Only now, the pattern has become so blatantly obvious that generally non-scientific-minded people are even catching on.
I’m like you, I don’t think the scientific community crashing and burning is a bad thing, because it’s going to weed out a lot of the BS science, as those who are serious will likely start calling it out.
We can only hope.
> I knew how Feyerabend for good reason associated academia with the Nazi death camps
Quit reading at this line. Nazi death camps are pure fiction.