The 13 biggest SCIENCE LIES you've been told all of your life.

[LightAngel]

I agree with most of this video except the end.

I don't think the earth is flat! 



Anyway, discuss this video - share your thoughts and ideas.

[UltraBudgie]

Map of flat Earth in the UN logo, divided into 33 "sectors". The globeheads can't help but give themselves away.

Anyway, I don't think anything in this video is controversial?

[andy06shake]

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...s-Logo.jpg]

Map of flat Earth in the UN logo, divided into 33 "sectors". The globeheads can't help but give themselves away.

Anyway, I don't think anything in this video is controversial?

The UN logo uses an "azimuthal equidistant projection" which is a standard globe projection, but you are aware of that.

I take issue with number 5 simply because early detection usually means the cancer is smaller, or hasn't spread.

Hence, it can be treated more effectively.

And Turmeric certainly doesn't cure cancer.

It might help reduce inflammation or ease side effects of other treatments.

But it should never replace chemotherapy, radiation(taking a sledgehammer to a peanut), or surgery.

[UltraBudgie]

I can tell you really want to derail into a debate about projection, but I'm not going to allow it.

And Turmeric certainly doesn't cure cancer.

Yeah, I was skeptical about the turmeric mention, too, especially given the Mandela effect of the spelling. Tumeric or turmeric? There's something suspicious there. But of course, such things aren't proof of anything. I don't think it's bad for you, at least?

They've got a point with the weed killers, for sure, I think.

But statins? I have my suspicions, but I haven't done any research on that. Anyone got more info?

[andy06shake]

I can tell you really want to derail into a debate about projection, but I'm not going to allow it.


Yeah, I was skeptical about the turmeric mention, too, especially given the Mandela effect of the spelling. Tumeric or turmeric? There's something suspicious there. But of course, such things aren't proof of anything. I don't think it's bad for you, at least?

They've got a point with the weed killers, for sure, I think.

But statins? I have my suspicions, but I haven't done any research on that. Anyone got more info?

Oh, i think it's a safe bet, quite a few of the things in there are bad for us, or the environment.

In my opinion, Statins make old people go senile and can bring on dementia.

Same with long-term use of the likes of Valium and other benzodiazepines.

Which is another drug they still tend to prescribe to the elderly like candy for the likes of anxiety, insomnia, or muscle issues. 

As far as im aware, turmeric is indeed good for us in moderation as it's full of antioxidants.

But it isn’t a miracle cure, i wish it was.

As to the debate about map projections, no point in debating the flat earth nonsense.

It just degenerates into madness, because that's what it is.

[UltraBudgie]

In my opinion, Statins make old people go senile and can bring on dementia.

I had an "ah-ha!" moment when I found out that the brain contains high amounts of cholesterol, and it's essential for proper brain functioning. Suddenly the push to lower cholesterol levels made a lot more sense. I'm not saying there aren't bad things to cholesterol, too, but the less measurable stuff like conative function seems to be prioritized below more quantifiable things like arterial blockage. Here is a random article to make it look like I did some research:

https://naturalheartdoctor.com/cholester...onnection/

Also, just a suggestion: I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Flat Earth as "nonsense". I'm not saying it's true though, either. Have you heard the saying "reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it"? I think that's at the heart of the scientific method. Belief is a tool, and flexibility in belief is required both to push science beyond the cloister of conventionality, and truly appreciate reality and our selves. Just try it, deliberately, under the control of rationality. Don't merely stand on what you know and analyze. Really test your belief. Actually try, with persistence. Don't get lost in it! I try to set aside one day a week to stop believing in the globe, for example, just to see if it goes away when I do. I've found out some very interesting things about the assumptions we make, as well as how our mind and perception work, not to mention reality! Other than to open minds to their potential, I agree with you and I don't think debating it on the internet is very useful. Maybe as practice in rhetoric? But there's more useful ways to do that.

[andy06shake]

I had an "ah-ha!" moment when I found out that the brain contains high amounts of cholesterol, and it's essential for proper brain functioning. Suddenly the push to lower cholesterol levels made a lot more sense. I'm not saying there aren't bad things to cholesterol, too, but the less measurable stuff like conative function seems to be prioritized below more quantifiable things like arterial blockage. Here is a random article to make it look like I did some research:

https://naturalheartdoctor.com/cholester...onnection/

Also, just a suggestion: I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Flat Earth as "nonsense". I'm not saying it's true though, either. Have you heard the saying "reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it"? I think that's at the heart of the scientific method. Belief is a tool, and flexibility in belief is required both to push science beyond the cloister of conventionality, and truly appreciate reality and our selves. Just try it, deliberately, under the control of rationality. Don't merely stand on what you know and analyze. Really test your belief. Actually try, with persistence. Don't get lost in it! I try to set aside one day a week to stop believing in the globe, for example, just to see if it goes away when I do. I've found out some very interesting things about the assumptions we make, as well as how our mind and perception work, not to mention reality! Other than to open minds to their potential, I agree with you and I don't think debating it on the internet is very useful. Maybe as practice in rhetoric? But there's more useful ways to do that.

The problem is age, where a lot of the drugs prescribed are concerned.

The brain becomes more vulnerable to anything that slows nerve signaling or affects the blood flow as we get older.

Hence, the a possibility of the onset of the likes of dementia in the elderly when prescribed certain medications. 

Now, where Flat Earth is concerned, well, the idea fails every empirical check.

Air travel routes, satellite imagery, physics of gravity, and time zones all depend on Earth's curvature and rotation, not belief.

Reality doesn’t shift with perspective Ultra.

GPS, orbital mechanics, and even how ships disappear hull-first over the horizon prove a sphere.

The globe simply isn't dogma.

Deliberate disbelief might sharpen thinking, or serve some other fantastical purpose.

But it won't flatten a planet confirmed round by measurable, repeatable evidence. 

[UltraBudgie]

Reality doesn’t shift with perspective Ultra.

Fair enough. I tried.

[andy06shake]

Fair enough. I tried.

And im glad that you did.

But perspective shapes meaning, not actual facts.

It’s like looking at a sculpture from different angles.

The statue doesn't change, but your view does.

[UltraBudgie]

I like that, it's very Holographic Universe. Most people never bother checking to see if it's still the same sculpture from different angles.

"Oh magic eight ball, is Andy correct?"



"Ask again later"