Post has 26 notes
Until you write a peer-reviewed scholarly paper based on showing how it’s “unregulated heteronorming pseudo-science” I have little incentive to believe your opinion outweighs that of people who have their objective studies published in the papers you read that are indeed often regulated by cross-studies and extensive fact checks from respectable institutions the world over.
I can’t believe I know everything but that doesn’t mean I won’t approach everything with skepticism.
extensive fact checks. lol.
objective studies. lol.
Scientific method is usually at the basis of published scientific studies, which are usually at the root of most pieces on it. Much of which stems from observation and testing. :/
I mean, you could also argue the IPCC global warming reports are bullshit since global warming is political spin and that the scientists behind those climate studies are biased because they desire continued government funds. Furthermore, since those same scientists rely on other scientists in their field (climatology) to review their findings, you could also say that the fact checks are toothless and conducted under conflict of interests. People do say that. Therefore is Global Warming by that merit a hoax?
Also loving the “nerd bait” tag. Hahaha