this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
1088 points (96.4% liked)
Greentext
4166 readers
1294 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not saying the OP was banned fairly, but to do the devil's advocate, there's people with PHD in biology or medicine who still don't believe in Evolution. You can always find idiots with PHDs, even in their chosen fields.
I'll go ahead and say OP was probably banned fairly, judging solely by the fact that he willingly posts threads on 4chan
Anon probably used slurs and got banned for that
As someone with over a hundred banned reddit accounts, you generally don't get banned for disagreeing. So maybe not slurs, but maybe just general rude language. Or my personal favorite, bothering the mods.
Unless he's Richard Dawkins, people do get banned if they argue about biological sex.
Where have they moved to?
Something like 1/5 of pharmacists believe homeopathy works. How the fuck can you go through that training and still believe in a hyperdilution that's magic if you shake it the right way and never ever touch it with your fingers because that takes the magic away?
(For those who are unfamiliar I'm not even being facetious, this is what homeopaths actually believe)
20% of pharmacists believing in homeopathy? That seems ridiculously high. Do you have a source for that?
To be fair, I've heard that as well. My source was a trustworthy guy in lemmy.
I read it in Pharmacy Practice. I cannot find the article. Linked in this article is a photo of one the pages I had read and a link that I cannot access. The number was 19% and it was specifically Canadian pharmacists. Not sure what that looks like elsewhere.
Pharmacists and General practitioners believing in homeopathy. Physical Therapists believing in chiropractice. There’s way too many examples. But at least physical therapists don’t tend to have PHDs :D
Well they do now. Physical therapy changed to a doctoral degree several years ago. You have to get a doctor of physical therapy (DPT) degree plus pass the licensing tests to practice these days.
It's still not an MD, but yes.
Huh, I don't know if that's true for all countries tbh.
I will never not be mad that chiropracticians have largely avoided the hunt for woo-woo magic crystal retards. Don't get me wrong, some people have managed to find treatment for chronic pain in things like acupuncture and chiropractic care that they couldn't get elsewhere, but most of the time this is presented as equal to physiotherapy despite lacking any scientific support, and the inability for "alternative medicine" to cure or permanently treat people.
Placebo effect is powerful. They probably have lots of people saying X really helped with their cold/pain/cough/whatever.
Pharmacists don't get PhDs, they get degrees for practice, like MDs. A PharmD doesn't require being able to understand or conduct original research like a PhD does. Basically, a PharmD requires a really good memory, not necessarily critical thinking.
There's some amount of people who believe homeopathy is the same thing as essential oils and herbs, and have no idea about the hyperdilution stuff somehow. Granted, that's not much better, but there's at least a realm of slight possibility that you might get useful effects from those, as opposed to literal water with extra steps and flavoring added to make it taste vaguely medicinal.
We're also talking about people who should absolutely know better regardless so maybe that offers far too much credibility to them.
I have no idea about homeopathy, but you used the word “facetious” so you must be very smart and I believe everything you say.
Like, I didn't believe in magic before I learned a lot of technology.
Now I do.
Totally, everyone who continued to a PhD in my area was batshit insane. Entirely fuckin deranged but diligent enough to write thousands of words of cogent garbage that no one could be bothered contesting.
Isn't there some stat that PhD students have 3x the mental health issues than undergrads? Which nowadays is like 100% lol
Given that academia is an absolutely grueling and downright soul-crushing career, I am not surprised only those with mental issues are wild enough to sustain it.
You misunderstood the statistic. Mental health issues are caused/exacerbated by academia not the other way around. Many of my cohort and friends were bullied, harassed, abused, taken advantage of by supervisors and senior academic staff who often have unreasonable demands and expect blinding unquestioning allegiance.
People who run research groups are not selected for based on their people skills but rather academic performance/pedigree, which is the biggest issue IMO.
Academia is a tough gig. Peer review and thesis chairs perform the review of candidates work, trust me they are almost always contested to varying degrees.
You know what gets me? The fact that the public seems to think that academia is well paid, I've had a few people make comments along that line. Cue me, manically laughing when they confusedly ask why anyone is in academia if it's high stress and relatively poorly paid.
Truth. It's well paid higher up the ladder but those jobs are few and far between. Depends on the country as well - the US and UK wages suuuck.
I can't complain. I personally love it and have only worked in supportive teams.
Unless you're in university administration, academia is not well paid. University administrators who are well paid are usually EdDs (essentially, university-focused MBAs) who didn't take the normal academic route of research first.
Those are extremely few and far between, and they aren't evolutionary biologists. Behe, the most famous of them, doesn't have a PhD in biology, but a PhD in biochemistry. Those are vastly different fields, and understanding the evidence for evolution wouldn't have been relevant to Behe's PhD. MDs more commonly don't believe in evolution because MDs are essentially average folks who can memorize stuff really well. MDs don't receive training in research or how to conduct it, so they're pretty poor at understanding primary research most of the time.
Someone with a PhD from a reputable university (essentially, one that funds their PhD programs rather than making students pay, and one that doesn't incentivize publications directly with bonuses) will be an expert in their subject area. Behe would be able to tell you about the biochemistry of sickle cell anemia. Someone with a PhD speaking on an area outside of their expertise is perhaps more likely than the average person to be correct because they could have read and understood most primary sources even outside of their area, but I wouldn't say it's all that much more likely. Basically, PhDs speaking on the topic of their expertise are experts, but they're not experts in everything.
Personally, my PhD made me like the trope of someone who could tell you everything you want to know about some esoteric subject but wouldn't know how to make a meal.
Getting a PhD produces highly specialized knowledge, not general knowledge.
The PHD means you passed your classes. It doesn't mean anything you say is right.
No, there is no coursework past a master's thesis. For the last typically ~3-4 years of graduate training, everything that you're doing is original research. If your research isn't good enough or done correctly, you will never get a PhD. You also have to defend your dissertation. Getting a PhD from a reputable university does mean that what you say, specifically related to your research area, is correct.
ಠ_ಠ