[perihelions]

One aspect of this that fascinated me is Nazi Germany's "physics denialism" (?) — the reactionary response to the modern physics revolutions of the early 20th century. (I.e. the twin revolutions of quantum physics and of relativity). It was a much weirder response than simply an attack on physicists who happened to be Jewish humans. Fields of physics were conspiratorially labelled as having a "Jewish" character, and dismissed as psuedoscience, as pathological science: "Jüdische Physik". There was a fanaticism that's hard to grapple with philosophically, a thing that's far outside rationality, a magical thinking. How much more "magical" can you get than disregarding natural physical laws, and substituting your own? That's the definition of magic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik ("Deutsche Physik" or "Aryan Physics")

[Tainnor]

It was the same thing in mathematics. For example, when Edmund Landau defined pi as "twice the value of the unique zero of cos in the interval [0, 2]" (a very common definition) instead of geometrically, this was attacked as being "un-German" (even though you can obviously go from the geometric to the analytic definition and vice versa).

https://institucional.us.es/blogimus/en/2017/03/pi-and-the-n...

[radu_floricica]

The disease is independent of context. It's about taking a political club and using it to hit anybody you don't like. And we're far from being immune to it even now.

The correct reaction is to identify people using this particular pattern and penalize them regardless of political or cultural affiliation. Especially if they're in your own tribe - you're the one in the best position to censure them.

[rightbyte]

> The correct reaction is to identify people using this particular pattern and penalize them regardless of political or cultural affiliation.

Ohh no. The correct reaction is to do nothing if censorship is on the table. It is trivial to push BS by blaming fighting BS.

I believe the correct action is to pretend they are sane and calmly explain why I think they are wrong in combination with ignoring them.

[perihelions]

Here's a remarkable quote: "The Cauchy-Goursat theorem arouses intolerable displeasure in us Germans".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Bieberbach

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/hit... ("How German Mathematicians Dealt With the Rise of Nazism" (1967 / 2016))

[soperj]

Haven't multiple states done the same thing? (trying to redefine pi)

[Tainnor]

Not the same thing. Twice the unique zero of cos in [0, 2] is provably equal to the circumference of a circle of diameter 1. It's not equal to 3.2 or whatever the Indiana Pi Bill was trying to legislate.

[vundercind]

Multiple? No.

Indiana, in 1897, tried, but the bill failed (after notable early success!).

https://www.straightdope.com/21341975/did-a-state-legislatur...

(Other sources seem to agree)

[foobarian]

The depictions of "wrong physics" in the 3 Body Problem show kinda remind me of that. Any kind of thinking that had even a whiff of going against the party line would cause problems for the author. What a weird time.

I wonder if it's similar to how we look down on e.g. string theory, except I don't know if that's an apples to apples comparison given that we haven't seen any string theory apples yet :-)

[xyzelement]

FWIW in the current time we definitely encounter "wrong physics" in places where science and politics intersect.

EG - a scientist can easily get smacked down for being "a climate change denialist" or an "antivaxer" or a similar unpalatable label way before the merits of their effort are evaluated.

[wongarsu]

Also a "climate alarmist". There is a band of climate science you can freely publish without reputational damage, but don't go over or under it.

But that's probably nothing compared to the narrow band of tolerable science when it comes to questions of race or ethnicity. Anything that could be construed as people of some descent being "inferior" in any aspect is pretty risky to publish.

[brabel]

I've just watched a documentary on Netflix, "Three Identical Strangers" (SPOILER ALERT), about a 1960's to 1980's study about identical twins/triplets separated at birth and who grew up in intentionally distinct conditions (of the triplets, one grew up in a blue collar family, one in middle class, and one in a upper class family, all with an older sibling in the family as a sort of "control").

Apparently, the study ran for decades, but the results were never published... it's unclear why but it seems plausible to me that, aside from the ethical concerns, the study came to uncomfortable conclusions about the polemic "nature VS nurture" debate. Initially, they show how all siblings in the study, despite the intentionally very different environments, all came to like and do the exact same things... but later in the documentary, it also shows there were differences enough that the similarities were only superficial (in what I can't see as anything other than trying to appease the "nurture" crowd - as there seems to be no justification for that, as much as I tried to find it in what was shown).

The documentary also mentions the study may even actually have been about the influence of different parenting styles on the children, or even about mental illness, given many of the participants in the study had biological parents who may have been mentally ill (who the hell would give up their children if they didn't have some serious mental issues?!), which again seems to point at trying to divert from the study findings in my opinion.

The documentary is a little sensationalistic as it tries to outrage the viewers instead of trying to understand the actual circumstances of the study (siblings were always separated at birth at the time in most adoption agencies, apparently, that was not the fault of the study), which is a pity but understandable as that makes for better entertainment which is what Netflix really needs for its viewers to be happy, but still it's well worth a watch.

These articles talk a little bit about the controversies:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208369-three-identical...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/11/nature-or-nu...

[Anotheroneagain]

>uncomfortable conclusions about the polemic "nature VS nurture" debate

These always seem to miss the effect of nutrition (and other) in the womb, which is massive. You need nonidentical twins as controls.

[EnigmaFlare]

There's a dirty fashion in climate science to include political activism or call to action in their papers. Especially if they've found something that shows good news about climate change. They qualify it with "... but we must all make an effort to reduce fossil fuel use".

I used to teach science and would tell students not to give life advice to the reader, because that's what we were supposed to teach them. But then all these climate change papers started doing just that. It's equivalent of ancient mathematicians saying "glory to the king" in their work and reveals that the authors are bound by a conflict of interest and can't be expected to do honest work.

I recently read one about childhood safety, and they said that following the government's safety rules was important, while also defining their own idea of what kinds of safety are valuable or harmful. If the government already knows better than you, why are you even researching this? It's obviously just some effort to pressure people into not making their own dangerous decisions. But again, that's not science, that's activism and non-objective.

[dmbche]

You got some of those edgy papers near? I keep hearing things like this, but at every turn the science being published is hot trash.

[EnigmaFlare]

You're probably not searching with a genuine effort to find the good ones.

There's the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. The authors found a politically incorrect result and tried to cover it up by inventing a new hypothesis (which they hadn't tested) after they'd collected their data.

I also read a fairly comprehensive secondary research paper trying to support the no-biological-differences theory and when it came to Ashkenazi Jews, they admitted the only plausible explanation was genetic superiority.

This is an area where the science all points in one direction but popular opinion is in the other direction. People don't look at the research. Probably because they don't want to understand, they just want to spread their political ideology. Nobody, as far as I know, has ever shown that no races are inferior.

[defrost]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...

where the bulk of scientists agreed in various ways that the confounding problems made it exceedingly implausible that differences were either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based?

> This is an area where the science all points in one direction but popular opinion is in the other direction.

Or maybe an area where the science is inconclusive but personal opinion shades the reading and subsequent presentation?

[dmbche]

What's the conclusion everyone is missing?

I'm sure you know how unscientific IQ tests are, I'm surprised that's what you're bringing up here as being "good science" being shut down politically. Just trying to correlatw the two tests they used is absolutely subjective, I would take a step back and reexamine the parts of those studies that convinced you of whatever beliefs you have - it seems like a shoddy foundation.

[cedilla]

Verbally smacked down? Yes. But it's absurd to even compare this to the purges in China, Germany and Russia, were people were literally killed to death.

Also, while everyone has the right to argue anything, no one has the right to have the merits of their effort evaluated. When you go on and tell everyone here that ROT13 is as secure as RSA-2048, everyone will rightly laugh at you without considering your reasoning.

[bergen]

Not arguing with your point but “killed to death” sounds like an awesome metal band name

[Semaphor]

"Killed to Death" is an album by Murdered [0]

And there are 7 bands that had a song like that [1]

[0]: https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Murdered/Killed_to_Dea...

[1]: https://www.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=Killed+to...

[xhkkffbf]

And then there was that classic movie, "Murder By Death."

[bitwize]

"Kohga, the stupendous chief of the Yiga Clan, is gonna kill you all... to death!"

[Civitello]

heck there are probably humans who can sight read ROT13

[actionfromafar]

Funny I was thinking of how so many otherwise intelligent and educated people believe climate change is just a liberal hoax.

[blululu]

Ask any of your friends how much sea level will rise by 2050 and you will get some pretty wild answers.

It's a technical subject that does not immediately affect most of us on a day to day basis. It is not surprising that people would have poorly informed opinions on a topic they don’t really care about very much.

For what it’s worth, the average college educated liberal has a comparably abysmal understanding of climate change but their ideological judgement happens to be closer to reality on this one.

[eastbound]

I’m an ex-climate militant, so the fun part is that I have a very large corpus of knowledge on this topic. It’s an incredible experience to have read papers deeper than people who try to defend climate, and to know the weakness of each paper. Militants and even professionals really generally don’t know what they’re talking about, which is across the board in climate change. They are right, but often by mistake or pure luck, and I abhor that.

The sad part is any scientific topic that becomes politicized, becomes abyssal in terms of science. It is true of climate change, feminism before that, all the way back to 1500 and planets.

[PeterStuer]

I guess it got swept up in the reasonable skepticism that resulted from the exposed overt politisation of science that was already on the rise but went hokystick in 2020?

OTOH climate science as a field did already suffer from siege mentality before, whether justified or not, that did suppress rather than engage disallinged views.

(Fwiw my own not too informed view on the subject is we are heading for real disaster, we will and have postponed any real action until too late, but it will be the geo-engeneering grifters that will put the final nail in the coffin)

[kergonath]

> a scientist can easily get smacked down for being "a climate change denialist" or an "antivaxer" or a similar unpalatable label way before the merits of their effort are evaluated.

Interestingly, I have more examples of the opposite: scientists being branded “climate alarmists” (even as their models consistently under-estimate global warming) or totalitarian control freaks (or some enlightened nonsense about being mindless followers of prominent Jewish people, very subtle that one) for saying that vaccines save lives.

Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with people getting actually killed or deported for their work, even though some loud mouths have a persecution complex.

[bryanrasmussen]

>scientists being branded “climate alarmists” (even as their models consistently under-estimate global warming)

the attacks come from different directions - climate alarmists attack comes from without the scientific community (political, corporate)

climate denialist or antivaxer attacks generally come from within the scientific community, generally from experts in the field from which results are being denied.

The people who then want to support climate denialism can then say the scientists are non-scientific because they are taking sides, providing another useful tool of attack.

[devjab]

There are no scientific merits for being an antivaxer though. You can certainly have egotistical reasons but the herd immunity created through general vaccination isn’t just a theory anymore.

I’d be more curious as to how anti-vaccine agendas ever became a thing. With a lot of these things like climate change, there are clear economic forces which will pour “tobacco is healthy” amounts of money into pushing whatever makes them money. But then you have something like antivaxing which quite literally benefits nobody, because even the people who don’t want to put themselves at risk by getting vaccinated still sort of do so by collectively bringing back terrible diseases through their destruction of the herd immunity… but who could possibly gain anything from spreading this nonsense? “Yay, polio and the measles are back!!!”. Then you have the more harmless stuff like flat-earthers which also don’t really have any obvious driving force. But at least it’s harmless and sort of funny.

Anyway, I don’t think you really have a point with what you’re saying here. You can’t put anti-vaccinate “science” up for a discussion with real science because it’s utter nonsense. Similarly you can’t be a climate change denier, you’re free to argue about what causes the heat up, but you can’t deny that it’s been happening at a rapid pace since the Industrial Revolution, at least not with any pretence of doing science.

[Vecr]

It depends what you mean by "antivaxer", what is the subclinical myocarditis rate for ACAM1000 again? (Not ACAM2000, I'm very specifically talking about ACAM1000)

[Thorrez]

>There are no scientific merits for being an antivaxer though.

Read pages 4,5,6 of this vaccine insert[1]. It seemingly says a large percent of infants have adverse reactions to vaccines (up to 85% for some vaccines and symptoms). An anti-vaxxer can say "I won't give my kid a shot that has a chance of causing an adverse reaction."

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/74035/download

[matheusmoreira]

> I’d be more curious as to how anti-vaccine agendas ever became a thing.

It's simple. They don't trust authorities on the subject. They don't trust authorities in general. They feel lied to and manipulated. In many ways, that's the fault of the authorities. They are prone to simplifying things in order to get their consent.

During the pandemic I witnessed government officials proclaiming that there were no risks associated with the vaccines. That's just false.

Everything is a risk/benefit calculation. There is no 0% and no 100%. Things are vastly more complex than they seem to be. Yet these authorities insist on simplifying things for the layman in order to manufacture consent for their public policies.

These people aren't stupid. They will find out. When they do, they will never listen to you again. They will actively resist you.

[jcranmer]

> I’d be more curious as to how anti-vaccine agendas ever became a thing. With a lot of these things like climate change, there are clear economic forces which will pour “tobacco is healthy” amounts of money into pushing whatever makes them money. But then you have something like antivaxing which quite literally benefits nobody, because even the people who don’t want to put themselves at risk by getting vaccinated still sort of do so by collectively bringing back terrible diseases through their destruction of the herd immunity… but who could possibly gain anything from spreading this nonsense? “Yay, polio and the measles are back!!!”. Then you have the more harmless stuff like flat-earthers which also don’t really have any obvious driving force. But at least it’s harmless and sort of funny.

The motivation for anti-vaccine--and flat-earthers, for what it's worth--is basically the same thing as Q-Anon. It's all primarily based on feeding on peoples' feeling of a conspiracy against them. It's not being pro-measles, it's thinking that the vaccine is a cover for the government trying to collect your DNA or euthanize your children or something, and there are all too many grifters who are willing to ride the wave of such thinking and flog their own products on top of that. Don't use the government's cure for COVID, buy my COVID cure for only $50! And I'm not the government or an evil megacorporation, so you know I'm trustworthy.

> But at least it’s harmless and sort of funny.

It's... not really harmless. There's a path from the flat earth stuff to the January 6 riot.

[m3047]

Imagine someone asks you: "If I flip a fair coin 99 times and it comes up heads each time, what are the odds it comes up tails on the 100th toss?"

Do you say 50%, or do you dismiss their prior? At what point do you dismiss their prior or them, entirely? You don't have to dispute the mathematics, you just have to get bored with the impracticality of the question: it will never happen. Maybe they should flip that allegedly fair coin until it comes up heads (or tails) 99 times in a row and get back to us.

It's reasonable to ask what confounding factors are at play. It's reasonable to have a null hypoothesis.

[seabass-labrax]

> I’d be more curious as to how anti-vaccine agendas ever became a thing.

I think the cause might have been the polar opposite of a conspiracy: isolated, but similar, examples of opportunistic fraud. Soon after COVID-19 vaccines were developed, I saw lots of advertisements for pseudo-scientific remedies for COVID-19 - these were clearly intended to make some profit out of the public's justified concerns about mRNA technology.

However, once mRNA vaccines proved themselves to be not especially different in efficacy or danger from traditional vaccines, it makes sense that the vendors of pseudo-scientific remedies would seek to maintain the anxiety about vaccines somehow. Hundreds of self-serving quacks trying to keep their customers (and compensate for the shrinking size of their market!) would naturally result in self-sustaining movements of anti-vaxers. The persistent conflation of COVID-19 conspiracy theorists with civil liberties campaigners in some parts of the media would have benefited the quacks further, by making anti-vaxing seem more of a legitimate social movement than it actually was.

[EnigmaFlare]

Ironically, this is how popular beliefs are supported, but I don't think anti-vax is one of them. The news tells people what they want to hear to keep them engaged to make money from advertising to them. That's why news organizations are split into partisan groups, they have to do that to serve their own markets. Anyone being neutral would alienate most of their audience by making them uncomfortable.

Remember when the correct belief about the origin of Covid was naturally occurring in an animal then spreading to people in a market? Turned out to be a big conspiracy and false. But the news kept telling people that because people had already formed political attachment to that belief.

[defrost]

> Turned out to be a big conspiracy and false.

Did it now?

Lableak truther loses $100,000 in his own debate https://www.protagonist-science.com/p/lableak-truther-loses-...

Even with money on the line and an arsenal of medical expertise and documents that's not a case that can be conclusively made.

[Anotheroneagain]

FWIW in the current time we definitely encounter "wrong physics" in places where science and politics intersect.

We find them where they intersect with actual reality, because it's all just nonsense. Electrons and photons are not real. You won't ever get your quantum computer (at least not in that way), because the physics isn't real.

[cseleborg]

String theory has, however, been successfully applied to oranges. Here in Germany, these are now routinely sold in nets, made of some sort of string. QED

[perihelions]

That makes sense. After all, orange is a color: wrapping oranges with strings is a way of deriving the phenomenon of color confinement.

[boxed]

Struggle sessions were full of this stuff yea. Many people were killed during the Cultural Revolution for accepting reality.

[mmaniac]

Quantum physics and relativity were a radical departure from classical mechanics and remain very counter-intuitive for laypeople so it's not hard to see how contemporary persons with ulterior motives and little interest in scientific inquiry would fixate on those.

[enasterosophes]

The Nazis weren't unique in dismissing categories of research on ideological grounds. The USSR label of "bourgeois pseudoscience" [1] was applied to various fields like evolutionary biology.

We aren't immune to it now. In the software world, remember that Ballmer called Linux a cancer, and in general there is a meme amongst capitalist software developers that the GPL is a cancerous or infectious license. In academia, there is always a question of where the funding is coming from, or how some research output can be monetized, and so there is an inherent bias against research which doesn't offer hope of capitalist and military-industrial dividends.

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bourgeois_pseudoscience

[guappa]

> remember that Ballmer called Linux a cancer, and in general there is a meme amongst capitalist software developers that the GPL is a cancerous or infectious license

And google and apple are spending millions of dollars to reimplement GNU software because they want to escape the GPLv3 license.

[huytersd]

There’s a difference in having a subjective opinion on an OS and flat out denying physical phenomenon like the photoelectric effect. What kind of nonsensical analogy is this.

[enasterosophes]

When did the soviets deny physical phenomena like the photoelectric effect? I believe they had issues with the kind of non-falsifiable metaphysical arguments put forward to try to explain or understand quantum mechanics.

The analogy is that regardless of sociopolitical setting, people in power use their non-evidence-based opinions to suppress developments which they consider to be against their ideology.

Do you claim Ballmer had no ideology?

[rtuulik]

> When did the soviets deny physical phenomena like the photoelectric effect? I believe they had issues with the kind of non-falsifiable metaphysical arguments put forward to try to explain or understand quantum mechanics.

There were many, but the most famous example is probably Lysenkoism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

[Vecr]

I don't know, what's rationality's current reputation?

[mgoetzke]

Similar to some tendencies today with Right Wing from German AfD or American MAGA to dismiss complete fields of science. Whether it is climate change or vaccinations. They do not have a discussion, they dismiss it outright.

[huytersd]

You’re not wrong. This comment doesn’t deserve the downvotes.

[kromem]

You mean things like thinking that the vaccine harms of something nearly the entire world has received which was being said would kill people in two years time is more dangerous than the thing that actually killed millions of people during the last few years?

It would be pretty weird if there were major political parties denying the science like that, or even picking who they would vote for as a leader based on the person agreeing with their magical thinking flying in the face of empirical evidence on that subject.

[HelloNurse]

"Major political parties" know that votes from idiots are as valuable as votes from people they are unable to fool: no-vax conspiracy theorists are one of many despicable constituencies that they want to be nice to, at the cost of alienating a smaller number of better people.

[carlosjobim]

In the end it seems both "sides" were wrong on this. The vaccines didn't protect people from getting covid, but they also didn't kill them.

[CogitoCogito]

> The vaccines didn't protect people from getting covid

What do you mean by this? The vaccines absolutely decreased the likelihood of getting and the severity of Covid.

[carlosjobim]

I meant exactly what I wrote, almost everybody who took the vaccines contracted covid.

[CogitoCogito]

And without the vaccines they would likely have had worse symptoms as well as potentially had symptomatic covid even more times than they did.

In other words the fact that vaccinated people contracted covid does _not_ mean the vaccines didn’t protect them from the disease.

[drekk]

Protecting people from COVID involves more than preventing them from contracting the illness. It reduced mortality and hospitalizations. Compare the mortality rate in a country like Brazil to the US and tell me again how the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID.

I seriously don't get this antivax nonsense. People get the flu after a flu vaccine sometimes too. The point is to not have a naive immune system if all other defenses fail.

[carlosjobim]

> I seriously don't get this antivax nonsense.

Maybe you have been conditioned to react with extreme suspicion when somebody even dares to mention the word "vaccine", so you don't even read what people write and start imagining what they "must be meaning"? We live in an age of paranoia and hostility, even after the pandemic.

I'm incredibly happy that the people saying that the vaccines were dangerous were wrong. It's a shame they didn't protect people better, but in the end the pandemic ended just as expected, ie a super-contagious and much less lethal strain infected everybody. This is how the black plague probably ended, reading accounts from the time. Even if they didn't know anything about viruses then.

[huytersd]

That’s dumb. If you can take something that will reduce a potentially deadly disease to some mild symptoms for a few days it’s effectively a cure.

[carlosjobim]

How do you expect to have any fruitful exchange with your behaviour? People will prefer to avoid talking to you.

[atoav]

The Nazis have had a strong mystic and esotheric undercurrent which also had to do with the Thule Society. When Hitler came to power German of all walks of life thought they could wield him to reach their own goals. Being correct in the sense of logic isn't what the Nazis were about. Or as my grandfather said paraphrased from Austrian German (who was in the Hitler Youth, like all kids his age — he was 12 when the war ended): "I didn't like the Nazis because in their ranks only simpletons and brutes would get into positions of leadership." So I am not surprised all kind of things have been called "jewish", as this was an easy way to quickly get rid of people you either disliked, envied or who simply did better work than you.

In a sense Trumpism echos that sentiment, where merit or truth doesn't count, but yelling the right thing loud enough does.

[wolverine876]

> There was a fanaticism that's hard to grapple with philosophically, a thing that's far outside rationality, a magical thinking. How much more "magical" can you get than disregarding natural physical laws, and substituting your own? That's the definition of magic.

People now deny climate change, often because it's 'liberal' - think of the incredible consequences of climate change, far greater than the disregarded physics, and yet it's ignored. It's the same with vaccines - people are causing their kids to become sick and sometimes die. It applies to many more things these days - anything 'liberal' is automatically rejected, regardless of cost.

[archagon]

Or “woke.”

[wolverine876]

What in a 'woke' ideology has denied basic, consequential science?

[archagon]

What I mean is that I regularly see science being denied on the right because it’s labeled “woke.” Mostly social science at the moment, but I see the term attached to medical science as well, vis a vis the pandemic for example. It’s utterly nonsensical, but the point is to imbue the subject with negative feelings by association.

So, yeah, history repeats itself yet again.

[nec4b]

Woke people believe math is racist. They get people banned or fired from universities. I mean there have been N-treads about the latest woke idiocy on campuses across the states here on HN, why are some people always pretending it doesn't exist?

[wolverine876]

> Woke people believe math is racist.

Could you give us an example? I know about racism issues associated with math education, but I've never heard that 'mathematics is racist'.

> They get people banned or fired from universities.

What does that have to do with denying or rejecting science? Also, sometimes people get fired for legitimate reasons; the fact that they were fired is not a sign of problems.

> I mean there have been N-treads about the latest woke idiocy on campuses across the states here on HN, why are some people always pretending it doesn't exist?

I'm sure you know that there are powerful tides of misinformation and disinformation on the Internet - about climate change and vaccines, for example. Lots of repetition doesn't make something true. In fact, science is founded on the opposite: One person's verifiable facts are believed before the entire world's repetition.

[nec4b]

>> Could you give us an example? I know about racism issues associated with math education, but I've never heard that 'mathematics is racist'.

Why are you referring to yourself in plural? Regarding your question, you can literal copy paste what you quoted into your favorite search engine and you will get a ton of hits. But I'm sure you are well aware of it already, since you are a frequent commenter on cultural war issues here on HN.

>> What does that have to do with denying or rejecting science?

Since when firing faculty staff for ideological nonsense has nothing to do with rejecting science?

>> Also, sometimes people get fired for legitimate reasons; the fact that they were fired is not a sign of problems.

This type of argument where you write some truism to downplay victims is not cool.

>>I'm sure you know that there are powerful tides of misinformation and disinformation on the Internet - about climate change and vaccines, for example. Lots of repetition doesn't make something true. In fact, science is founded on the opposite: One person's verifiable facts are believed before the entire world's repetition.

Of course, but you can say that about anything. So what is the point of your argument? Why did you even bother to comment on something you by your own admission don't know exists and couldn't even be bothered to look it up on the internet.