35
Has there ever been a viable alternative to the phsycialist model of the universe?
(sh.itjust.works)
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
35 points (88.9% liked)
Ask Science
13845 readers
65 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Put quite simply, ranting at me all the time whilst believing that you've done nothing wrong it absolutely typical of you, and I don't understand why you think calling me names shows that it's not. The irony of it seems to have completely passed you by.
You have a funny way of showing it.
I can't quite believe that you put those two sentences in the same paragraph without the merest hint of self reflection.
Never claimed that it wasn't. I spend lots of time ranting at crybullies who accuse me of shit and then claim I'm attacking them when I don't immediately roll over and accept it.
What can't you believe about it? Being argumentative is not the same as being at fault.
What I do mind is coming in here and accusing me of shit and then not being able to back it up, at all.
It's really funny to me the way you libs operate, how "backing up a claim you made" is the absolute last thing you are ever willing to do. And how do you justify it? It's always the same. "Oh, I don't want to get into with you." Of course, then you'll happily continue the conversation! Just so long as it never involves having to substantiate your claims! It's such a consistent pattern of behavior, literally every one of you thinks and acts that way!
Remember, the whole reason you weren't willing to back up your claim in the first place was that "you didn't want to get into it with me." Well, what do you call this, exactly? You wouldn't have commented in the first place if you weren't looking to "get into it."
What this behavior stems from is arrogance, a belief that you are inherently superior and therefore people should just believe whatever you say. It's absurd. The sheer number of times I have asked people to back up their claims on here, only for them to get all weasely like you, while trying to continue the discussion, is far more than I could count.
You're literally just here to trade snipes. You won't back anything up because then we might actually end up with a meaningful and intelligent discussion. Can't have that, can we? No, because that would imply a basic level of respect of treating others as equals. And you get all pissy when I actually defend myself and say that I will only accept criticism if it's substantiated, because I'm not treating you as my superior.
Get bent. Evidence or GTFO.
Then why are you arguing with me at all? Why not just say "oh yeah, that's me to the core"?
This whole thing started because I saw the two of you doing what you both often do and you were "crybullying" (your term, not mine) the other person for toxicity, when I "called you out" (your term, not mine) on it, you switched to "crybullying" me (your term not mine). This was as predictable as it was ironic, and I find it amusing that somewhere in there you really think that of you just argue a little but more angrily or a little bit longer you'll prove me wrong to have criticised your style of argument!
Evidence or GTFO.
Where did I act as a crybully? Do you know what that word even means? Where did I accuse the other person of shit, and then when they asked me to substantiate it, I took it as an attack? Where did I do the same to you?
I did not "crybully" them over toxicity, I criticized them for it, and I did not crybully you either, I've only criticized you. Correctly and accurately, in both cases.
Let me guess, "you don't want to get into it," and I'm just further proving my guilt by not immediately accepting your criticism. Ironic, I don't even know how many levels of crybullying you're on at this point.
Evidence or GTFO.
Lol. When you criticise other people's behaviour, you call it "calling them out" or "calling you out", but when people criticise your behaviour, you call it "crybullying". It's extreme double standards.
I'm describing a very specific behavior with the term "crybully," it is not just a general term for criticism. There is no double standard.
Evidence or GTFO.
Yes, the very specific behaviour of criticising you as opposed to criticising other people. It's an irregular verb: I make valid criticism, you crybully, he/she spews hate and gets emotional.
You need me to provide screenshots of your swearing and name calling pms to me, or can we take them on trust? Lol.
You think you're quite the clever scientist because you tell other people to provide evidence, but the evidence is right here in this conversation and across your post history! Lol.
I have already defined what crybullying is and explained how your behavior meets it and mine doesn't. You only think it's a double standard because you don't understand what the word means.
I can confidently predict that you 100% believe that this is true of everyone who argues with you online and absolutely never true of you!
You truly believe that it's everyone else that's being unreasonable and toxic, making wild, random accusations with no basis whatsoever in factual reality, whereas you're a virtuous truth teller whose opinions are based on firm scientific evidence all day every day! It's so one-sided that I find it amusing.
I'm not sure you did, or at least if you did, you didn't phrase it as a definition. Reading back over our conversion, I think "crybullying" is your made-up word for people criticising you and then not obeying your made-up rules for how they should answer your talking points. It paints you as a victim when someone calls you out and completely glosses over your original behaviour. You paint yourself as boldly calling out poor behaviour in others, whilst calling similar behaviours in them crying and bullying. Trump does that kind of projection too, but like me, he never heard of your made up term for it.
You can give it out, but you can't take it. And I was right in the first place that like that other user you're argumentative and bad at backing down.
You admitted that you're argumentative and yet here you are, utterly failing to back down on that point. Do you fancy admitting that you're bad at backing down too?!