Yeah, I’m going to have to remember that one.
But I am right
• Hargreeves, P. (2024). The Destide Doctrine: A Study in Eternal Correctness. Institute of Selective Evidence Publishing.
• Aunt Marjorie of Destide (Ret.) — Family Group Chat Announcement: “Yeah he’s right, he said it loudly so it must be true.” Forwarded 17 times.
• Uncle Kev’s Shed Think-Tank (UKSTT) — Workshop Bulletin #442: “After two pints we unanimously agreed Destide has never been wrong.”
• Destide, B. (2023). Sibling Review of Arguments Lost (Zero Found). Journal of Brotherly Bias.
• The Council of Mates Down the Pub (CMDP) — Verbal Report, 3:12pm: “Listen, if Destide says it, we back it. End of.”
• Cousin Lenny’s Independent Verification Service — Quarterly Accuracy Audit: “We checked. He was right. Again. Weirdly.”
• The Association of People Who Owe Destide Money (APWODM) — Statement of Support, 2022: “He’s correct. Please stop asking.”
• Gran’s Annual Christmas Letter (2024 Edition): “Our Destide always knew better than the teachers.”
• Professor Blenkinsop (Adjunct, Coffee Shop University) — Scribbled Napkin Review: “I literally have no idea what the debate was, but yes, he is right.”
• The National Board of Selective Citations (NBSC) — Proclamation #208: “Accuracy confirmed, pending no further questions.”
• Destide & Sons Ltd. (Fictitious) — Internal Memo: “Reminder: Always cite Destide as the primary authority.”
• Mum’s Facebook Post (public by accident): “Proud of my boy Destide for being right on the internet again ❤️”
“The fuck is you talkin about, I looked a buncha stuff up on my phone that’s research!”
-majority of conservatives
I mean, that’s most research not conducted by professional researchers.
“In a series of all caps facebook posts”
The people I’ve met who do their own “research” do so because they believe the scientific community as a whole is fake. They’d take great pride in not being published.
So publishing validates science? Check out the number of faked Science, *CELL *and Nature papers with hundreds of references. Basically, the whole amyoid hypothesis is built on fake data.
Lancet published Wakefield’s bullshit and refused to retract it for 12 years.
A lot of garbage is published.
Yes, I am are aware that while publishing helps validate science, it is not infallible, nor is it presented as such outside of people who haven’t even tried to understand the process. There’s a pretty big gap between “all published ‘science’ is fake” and “all published ‘science’ is real.” that I, and most other rational people, fall under.
As I understand it, publishing lets others validate the science. You’re not just declaring what you’ve discovered, you’re showing your work - your sources, your data, your references, your processes.
After you’ve done all that, even if it’s crap, someone else expressing an interest in going through all that can be quite a compliment. Or, if you didn’t bother dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s, it can make you a mite defensive…
But yes, a lot of trash can be published. And since it is published, it can be shown to be trash, if someone goes to the trouble.
The Journal of Facebook
Then they try to cope by posting a paper they haven’t read that doesn’t say what they claim it does
Well. I’d rather not name the site, because I fear you wouldn’t understand.
It’s all negative data
