The other day I was letting GoogleTube run through its Auto-play algore-rhythm and the following three played:
https://youtu.be/8RzOXDU8wYohttps://youtu.be/SO6j3Ckn7rsI don't recall exactly what woke me up in the middle of the first one (some History channel thing about Mars), and the second one about the Atacamas dessert in Peru one; the notable bit is where the dude finds the 10,000 year old Chinchilla nest (or whatever they were) but after watching the last one I had a
moment.
First, I had no idea that the "Younger Dryas Impact Theory" was some sort of cray-cray pseudo-scientific theory.
Second, how does that 10,000 year old Chinchilla nest in the Atacama either support or refute the theory.
And Third, what data-point from the Mars documentary am I missing (if any?) that has to do with the next two?
I find it increasingly difficult to "Trust the Science" when I see so much Shitty Science being done.
For example:
These Academics Submitted 20 Fake Papers To Journals. This Is What Happened..."Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview," the authors – Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian...
These guys were attempting to illustrate the absurdity of some "Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals" accepting & publishing what amount to a
Nut.S.A.K post.
I digress, my main point here is "
The Younger Dryas Impact Theory" and the old saying "
Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Which I believe is just another
logical fallacy.
