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 ❤️”
Yeah, I’m going to have to remember that one.
“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.
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.
“In a series of all caps facebook posts”
The Journal of Facebook
Well. I’d rather not name the site, because I fear you wouldn’t understand.
It’s all negative data
