There is a tendency for real doctors with backing from Academia or whoever’s in charge of deciding how you science to just plain getting it wrong and not realizing it for a long time.

Homeopathy is a good example of this, as it appeared to get great results when it was created during the Bubonic Plague and had such staying power to the point that in the 1800’s it was considered a legitimate and mainstream field of medical practice.

Now today we know Homeopathy is nonsense… Remembers New Age Healing is still a thing Okay, those of us with sense know homeopathy is garbage. With the only reason it was getting such wonderful results was because the state of medicine for a long period of time in human history was so god awful that not getting any treatment at all was actually the smarter idea. Since Homeopathy is basically just “No medicine at all”, that’s exactly what was happening with its success.

Incidentally this is also why the Christian Science movement (Which was neither Christian nor Science) had so many people behind it, people were genuinely living longer from it because it required people to stop smoking at a time when no one knew smoking killed you.

Anyhow. With that in mind, I want to know if there’s a case where the exact opposite happened.

Where Scientists got together on a subject, said “Wow, only an idiot would believe this. This clearly does not work, can not work, and is totally impossible.”

Only for someone to turn around, throw down research proving that there was no pseudo in this proposed pseudoscience with their finest “Ya know I had to do it 'em” face.

The closest I can think of is how people believed that Germ Theory, the idea that tiny invisible creatures were making us all sick, were the ramblings of a mad man. But that was more a refusal to look at evidence, not having evidence that said “No” that was replaced by better evidence that said “Disregard that, the answer is actually Yes”

Can anyone who sciences for a living instead of merely reading science articles as a hobby and understanding basically only a quarter of them at best tell me if something like that has happened?

Thank you, have a nice day.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
72 points

The Dead Internet conspiracy theory was written with total crackpot paranoid thinking about ruling elites, likely antisemitic undertones, and general tinfoil hat reasoning about AI. Plus generative language models were nowhere near advanced or skilled enough at the time the conspiracy was purported to be happening.

But it was accidentally prophetic in at least two ways by 2024:

  1. Corporations have completely strangled online social spaces to the point that most people only visit about 1 to 3 of them, and
  2. Online discourse in those social spaces has been absolutely captured and manipulated by multiple governments trying to manipulate other countries and stir them into pointless ragebait frenzies.

It wasn’t due to the illuminati, the Jews, or anything weird and bigoted conspiracies of old have traditionally blamed. It was thanks to billionaires, corporate and government espionage, AI grifters, and unregulated scammer networks (digital currency counts too) jumping onto the same technology at the same time and ruining everything on the Internet in similar ways.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

This is the first I’m hearing of antisemitism being at all related. Where did this come from?

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Secret ruling elites is a dog whistle - it’s Nazi cabalistic rhetoric. See also Protocols of the Elders of Zion: a Nazi propaganda piece.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Okay but what does that have to do with dead internet theory? Last I saw, it just suggests that internet comments are largely bot-generated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a Russian propaganda piece. Russians were arguably the all time champs of anti-semitism and pograms (the word is even Russian in origin) before the Nazis industrialized them. Of course the Nazis used it, but it didn’t originate with them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

OP is inadvertantly providing another example: the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It was coined by the US government as a way to discredit ideas - to make people look like crackpots. Lots of negative propaganda was created around that phrase.

Fast forward to today and “conspiracy theory”, though admittedly still tainted in various ways, has made a resurgence. Things that would have gotten you laughed out of the room are now proven fact(like Iran-Contra, for a simple and fairly uncontroversial example).

permalink
report
parent
reply

That’s part of why that move to coin that phrase was so powerful. There are real conspiracies/intelligence agency operations (like regime changes in several countries during the 20th century), and then there are completely idiotic ideas and takes (like flat earth) and ones that were never meant to be taken serious (like birds aren’t real).

That makes it really tedious to weed out the bullshit and distinguish it from the stuff that has substance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

I wouldn’t worry too much about it, *NEARLY * every conspiracy theory ties back to Anti-Semitism and I’m not even joking.

Faked Moon Landing? Flat Earth? Holocaust Denial?

“Jews did it bro” - Asshole who insists he’s “Just asking questions”

Edit: Clarified hyperbole

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

I’m going to have to disagree with you because obviously, not every single conspiracy theory, across all time and cultures and context is anti semitic.

But that’s what the literal words you used state.

We can even test this theory by inventing our own conspiracy theories.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Dude. Just take a stroll along X (Twitter) or YouTube comments.

Sooooooo many bots linked to profiles with Ai generated images talking to each other. It’s wild.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

the dead internet can easily be solved so not sure it’s that prophetic. various easy ways to verify humans exist while keeping anonymity if you wish. these same mechanisms can be used for voting.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Ask Science

!askscience@lemmy.world

Create post

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules

Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.

Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.

Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.

Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.

Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.

Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.

Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.

Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.

Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.

Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


Community stats

  • 579

    Monthly active users

  • 124

    Posts

  • 970

    Comments