> there's plenty of mainstream, accepted science that's plain, flat out, provably wrong. Yet, it is against good taste (read: job security, people's feelings, etc.) to point this out.

I highly doubt that.

There are a lot of people that think they've proving the mainstream wrong. But more often than not, it's cranks using bad non-repeated tests. These bad tests are propped up, ironically, because of people's feelings and job security more than a built up body of evidence.

They also almost always have to ignore the mainstream body of evidence and just say it's wrong and bad because of a conspiracy.

For example, plenty of creationists believe they have irrefutable evidence that evolution is provably wrong. It's usually a few cherry picked or poorly interpreted results or sometimes just flat out lying. And often they simply flat out lie about the existing body of evidence that support evolution.

Another example is the antivaxx movement. Wakefield and RFK both built careers that made them a lot of money talking about how the mainstream was wrong. Even when the industry adopted some of the recommendations (abandoning Thimerosal), they simply ignored the fact that further data didn't support their claims.

cognition is just a special case of medicine which is a special case of biology which is a special case of chemistry which is a special case of physics.

And the closer you get to physics, the less likely any sort of major paradigm shift will be discovered (though the article focuses pretty heavily on physics which is why I do as well).

But even in those fields, there are core parts that aren't likely to ever see any sort of paradigm shift. For example, in biology, I doubt we'll see a shift from evolution as it'll be impossible for a new model to also explain what evolution does.

I agree that at the edges you'll possibly see more paradigm shifts and discovery, but those are all going to be working from things that will not see paradigm shifts. For example, biology can't escape things like single celled organisms made up from atoms and chemical compounds.

But ultimately, what I disagree with in the article is the notion that discovery won't ultimately be a process of hypernormalization. In medicine, we are unlikely to see a new paradigm that isn't germ theory. When it comes to the research, it'll mostly be focused on finding new compounds and delivery mechanisms for treatment rather than finding a new paradigm for how to treat a disease.

The softer sciences are the only place where you might find new paradigms, but that's simply because the data itself is so squishy and poor anyways that it's easy to shift around. There it's less a question of the science and more of the utility of the model (regardless of whether or not it aligns with reality).

> I don't think paradigm shifts have to be 'better'

But they do. Paradigm shifts happen because the new paradigm explains the unexplained and importantly also covers the old model. If prior data is unexplained with a paradigm shift, the shift will never be adopted.

> Perhaps we're truly at the End of Science

Who said that? Just because the core of our current models seem pretty rock steady doesn't mean there's not more science. It simply means that we can mostly just expect refining rather than radical discovery.

There will be sub-paradigm shifts, but there's likely not going to be major "relativity" moments from here on out.

The article presumes that the models we have today describing everything could still be subject to a major paradigm shift.

Maybe they could be, but it seems pretty unlikely. The edges of a lot of scientific understanding are now past practical applicability. The edges are essentially models of things impossible to test. In fact, relativity was only recently fully backed up with experimental data.

Sure, but what about a 30 minute delay? 1 hour? 2 hour?

24 is just so long.

But also, my expectation is that a scammer is going to just automate the flow here anyways. Cool, you hit the "24 hour" wait period, I'll call you back tomorrow, the next day, or the next day and continue the scam process.

It might stop some less sophisticated spammers for a little bit, but I expect that it'll just be a few tweaks to make it work again.

It's something that the US could uniquely do without going into hyperinflation due to it's status as a reserve currency.

That all, of course, changes if other countries decide they've had enough of our shit and switch over to different reserve currencies like BRICS. And, of course, printing currency to get out of debt is something that would make countries consider dumping the dollar as a reserve currency.

The article is just factually incorrect.

It says, for example, that it's impossible to manufacture batteries in California and cites Tesla moving to Texas as the example. But Telsa still makes batteries in California in Fremont. They last did expansions on their battery manufacturing plants in 2023.

It cites all the dangerous chemicals used in manufacturing, but those aren't banned in California. CA has safety requirements for handling toxic materials. And we should be safely handling those materials, it's crazy to suggest we don't because of progress or whatever.

Yes, because when I enroll a child in a daycare I start by wandering around the facilities with a camera man and then I demand to see the children. But sure is suspicious that this place has no kids in it when I visit it outside it's posted operation hours.

Nick did a day worth of shooting, didn't follow up, and didn't check basic things like hours of operation.

5 years ago. And it looks like the state was actually taking pretty aggressive moves against the fraud including ongoing investigations and legislation to shut down the fraud. [1]

There was active prosecution ongoing literally right up until Shirly's video. That's taking the matter seriously.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020s_Minnesota_fraud_scandals