science

Yeah. If there's an explicit list, then it's easy to extrapolate, too, if some source comes in that's not on the list. I'm sure there will be little disagreements about particular sources, but it's easier if there's a clear guideline to follow.

Explicitly mention in the rules, that if someone finds an item on some not-allowed-source interesting,

then they should go look-for a proper-science article giving the same core-meaning

& that would be acceptable.

There's a principle that the most-famous-convict-in-the-world held-to, that Science is supposed to also hold-to..

"it doesn't matter who says it: if it's True, then it's True, end-of-story."

I've seen "authorities" assert that there is "no scientific evidence" or "no valid evidence" for some supplement, then simply gone on PubMed & found 800-ish peer-reviewed articles on exactly that supplement, so the "authorities" are just pushing ideology/prejudice, since evidence has been contradicting them for years, before they made their "authoritative" declaration..

I'm kinda fed-up with Scientism masquerading & gaslighting as Empiricism, you know?

( & this doesn't even touch the nobody will do the experiment, therefore there's no "evidence" because nobody "can afford" to assert the evidence bullshit..

A South Korean experiment, iirc, years ago, did a single-plutonium-atom-in-each-of-some-mice experiment, letting the mice reproduce, & then cracking whether there was any statistically-significant-cancer-rate-difference in the plutonium-adulterated lineages, vs the others..

& discovered that there is..

But, of course, if THAT were replicated, then .. ALL nuclear-safety-regulations would be trashed, because the multiple-generations-tests are NOT done, because we CAN'T afford to know that!!, right??

Same with the "we don't know what could be causing The Cold Blob(tm) off of Greenland, but we won't include Greenland ice-melt in our climate-models, so therefore there's NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that that's what it is!!" gaslighting..

NOW they've done that inclusion, & discovered that AMOC began shutting-off around 1950, & this-decade will see about 1,000,000+ fewer cubic km of flow, than the 1940-1950 decade ( Nature Geoscience for that article, it was linked from Earth.com, a few days ago )..

Won't-do-the-experiment is itself pseudoscience!!

Feel free to delete my comment from this discussion, since it contradicts consensus/Scientism's establishment..

Here's the AMOC-is-shutting-down, will be down 33% at 2C, article:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01568-1

Here's The Cold Blob whose source hasn't been scientifically established, to use their phrase:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_blob

( seriously: what ELSE could be its source??

Greenland's nearly-6k-cubic-km in the last few years icemelt HAS to go somewhere, right?

Isn't considered-reasoning part of The Scientific Method, anymore?

)

_ /\ _

Suggestion: Have an auto / bot created top level comment pinned on each post, and all joke comments should be left as children of that TLC. That way those who aren't interested in bad humour can minimise / block it, and the clowns can clown away.

I hope there is a heavy hand on moderation. It's extremely tiring when I see an astronomy article about Uranus with 15 comments, and they're all very juvenile jokes.

Go look-up "paper mill" science..

https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.659

This article's existence suggests that Retraction Watch should be checked, as a prerequisite to one's posting anything!

_ /\ _

But spamming and self promotion are two separate things. Of course spamming should be banned, regardless of source