schongadite

A dick sucking troglodyte

(I tried saying troglodyte but it came out as schongadite)

You're a fucking schongadite

Benjamin schongadite Is a very good person

by Schongadite February 16, 2025

Scientific discrimination

Scientific discrimination, also referred to as evidence-based discrimination, scientific intolerance, scientific bigotry, evidence-based bigotry, scientific prejudice, evidence-based violence, and/or evidence-based violence, currently refers to a practice in online scientific communities, groups, and niches that consists of the selective use of science and evidence to justify discrimination, intolerance, prejudice, and violence against dissidents, people and groups with whom they disagree, or simply people who think differently or whose practices are deemed "unscientific," "relativistic," "postmodernist," "pseudoscientific," "parascientific," and the like. It is a fairly common practice in science communication groups and communities, and in places like popular social media platforms and YouTube video comments.

Previously, scientific discrimination was used to refer to scientific racism and discrimination against groups (women, minorities) within science itself, but today it is accepted as consensus that scientific discrimination also refers to the selective use of science and scientific evidence to justify discrimination, intolerance, prejudice, and related violence against dissident groups or groups with which those concerned disagree, such as religious people, spiritual people, people with spiritual experiences, theists, neurodivergent people, autistic people, political dissidents in Western countries, political dissidents in liberal democracies, and the like, as well as systemic violence against dissident practices such as psychoanalysis, Jungian psychology, transpersonal psychology, humanistic psychology, holistic therapy, Marxism, socialism, communism, linguistic relativism, neuropsychorelativism, epistemological relativism, scientific relativism, critical theory, decolonial theory, queer theory, Voidpunk theory, Voidborne/Voidling theory, leftist theories, dynamic systems, complex systems, chaotic systems, and the like. In addition to using terms such as "relativist," "postmodernist," "denialist," "obscurantist," "delusional," "schizophrenic," "psychotic," "nonsense," "psychononsense," "charlatan," "pseudoscience," "pseudo-shaming," and the like to silence criticism and dissenting thought, even when they have sources and evidence to support them.

by AbzuInExile January 24, 2026

Scientific-Epistemological Realism

The belief that the entities, laws, and structures described by successful scientific theories (like electrons, natural selection, or gravitational waves) are real, mind-independent features of the world, and that science progressively uncovers this objective truth. Theories may change, but they converge on an accurate description of reality "as it is."

Example: A scientific-epistemological realism believes that DNA existed and carried genetic information long before humans discovered it. The shift from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian relativity wasn't a change of arbitrary stories, but a closer approximation to the actual fabric of spacetime. When physicists talk about the Higgs boson, they're not just describing a useful calculation tool; they believe it's a real particle their instruments actually detected.

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Scientific-Epistemological Relativism

The view that scientific knowledge is not a discovery of a pre-existing reality, but a construction deeply influenced by social, cultural, and historical contexts. Scientific "facts" and even what counts as good evidence are relative to the prevailing paradigm, worldview, or community of scientists. Truth is made, not found.

Example: Thomas Kuhn's concept of "paradigm shifts" is a classic expression of Scientific-Epistemological Relativism. Before and after the Copernican Revolution, scientists lived in different intellectual worlds with different facts. A scientific-epistemological relativist argues that the "objective" evidence was interpreted through incompatible frameworks. Similarly, modern debates (like over certain sociological theories) often involve clashes between groups with fundamentally different epistemological standards for what constitutes valid evidence.

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Scientific-Epistemological Determinism

The idea that the development of scientific knowledge is not a free, rational pursuit of truth, but is determined by external, non-scientific forces. These can be economic (funding interests), ideological (political or religious dogma), technological (what tools are available), or social (power structures within institutions). Science is steered by its environment.

Example: The history of tobacco research, where corporate funding deterministically shaped the questions asked and the conclusions highlighted for decades, is a blunt case. More subtly, a scientific-epistemological determinism might argue that the current focus on AI and quantum computing is less about the "pure" logic of scientific progress and more determined by geopolitical competition and massive capital investment. Which diseases get researched is heavily determined by pharmaceutical profit potential, not just by global health burden.

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Science Spectrum Theory

The framework that rejects the binary "science vs. pseudoscience" divide, arguing instead that all knowledge-seeking practices exist on a multidimensional continuum of epistemic rigor. The spectrum is defined by axes like: testability, openness to falsification, methodological transparency, peer consensus, predictive success, and self-correction. "Hard" physics sits at one end, characterized by math, precise prediction, and controlled experiments. "Softer" fields like sociology or evolutionary biology, which deal with complex, non-repeatable systems, occupy a different region, emphasizing explanatory coherence and consilience of evidence. Even protosciences and failed theories occupy a place on the spectrum based on their methods, not just their conclusions. Pseudoscience is not a different category, but the far end of the spectrum where practices become dogmatic, evidence is cherry-picked, and contrary data is explained away rather than incorporated.

Example: Consider three points on the spectrum. Physics is far along the "predictive precision" axis. Evolutionary Biology is strong on the "explanatory power/consilience" axis but weaker on "immediate testability in a lab." Homeopathy scores very low on "consistency with established knowledge" and "methodological rigor in trials," but might have mid-range scores on "social consensus" within its community. Science Spectrum Theory says the task isn't to draw a line, but to plot a practice's coordinates. A field can become more "scientific" by moving along these axes—like economics incorporating better data analysis—rather than by magically crossing a mythical demarcation border.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Science Slurs

Pejorative terms used within and against scientific discourse to shut down inquiry, attack researchers' motives, or caricature positions without engagement. They are rhetorical weapons that replace argument with dismissal. On one side, terms like "pseudoscientist," "crank," or "denier" can be applied too broadly to shut down heterodox but legitimate questioning. On the other, terms like "lab-coat priest," "scientism," or "so-called expert" are used to delegitimize scientific consensus itself by framing it as a dogmatic religion.

Example: In a debate on GMOs, a scientist is called a "Monsanto shill," instantly dismissing their data as corrupt. Conversely, a philosopher questioning the limits of reductionism is labeled a "woo-peddler" or "anti-science." Terms like "climate alarmist" or "evolutionist" are crafted to frame scientific consensus as ideological. These slurs pollute the epistemic commons, turning discussions into tribal warfare where identity, not evidence, determines belief. Science Slurs.

by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026