puberty blockers & chemical castration – #shorts

Many people against the use of puberty blockers (scientifically named gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists) for trans adolescents, will often bring up the fact that some pedophiles use the same drug as what is called chemical castration.

But, this is a red herring that really wants to connect any trans or queer people to pedophilia, which is an age-old trope used to discriminate & criminalize queer & trans people.

Medicines often have multiple applications for a wide-range of unrelated problems.

Puberty blockers = gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists

Red herring fallacy – irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information, distracting attention from that relevant information

Chemical castration – the use of chemicals or drugs to stop sex hormone production

Other applications for GnRH agonists:

  • In vitro fertilization
  • Treatment of certain kinds of prostate and breast cancer.
  • Children with precocious puberty.
  • Management of menorrhagia, endometriosis, adenomyosis, and uterine fibroids for people born female.
  • And severe cases of hyperandrogenism.

VIEW #SHORT

PHILOSOPHY


Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Instagram
Patreon

Is Trans Therapy Immoral? | Reaction to Matt Walsh

Picture of Matt Walsh with the quoted words "Trans Therapy is Immoral!" over a multi-colored background

In this episode of strange philosophy of science, I react to conservative commentator and Christian theocrat Matt Walsh’s belief that trans therapy is immoral. Walsh believes that the belief and desire to transition to a different biological sex is a mental illness and allowing trans people to medically transition is fundamentally immoral. I critique his beliefs about trans theory, medicine, biology, and the morality of trans therapy.

TRANSCRIPT

PHILOSOPHY

THE LIES OF LIE-DETECTOR TESTING | JCS INSPIRED

In today’s strange science video, we’re going to look at the lies of the ‘science’ of polygraphy, a.k.a. lie-detector testing. And how from a scientific standpoint it’s absolute bullshit, yet in practice strangely works in some situations. This is part of a series of videos where we examine different hypothesis & theories to determine if they are science or pseudoscience.

VIEW FULL ARTICLE

PHILOSOPHY

Citations:

Popper, Karl Raimund. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. 1963. Buy here!

Popper, Karl Raimund. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1934. Buy Here!

Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Patreon

Does Science Need Philosophy?

Does Science need philosophy thumbnail

In this episode of Strange Science, we provide a introduction to the philosophy of science in order to ask a simple question: does science still need philosophy? We’ll examine scientific claims about observation, justification, heuristics, and scientific independence from social & political factors. While some really brilliant scientists, like Stephen Hawking & Neil deGrasse Tyson, think philosophy is useless to science, this video will show just a tiny portion of the philosophical presuppositions scientists rely on everyday while they’re sciencing.

VIEW TRANSCRIPT

PHILOSOPHY

Citations:

French, Steven. Science: Key Concepts in Philosophy. Buy here!

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Patreon

Is Your Science Legit?

Legit question.

Here are the 6 Criteria you need to know in order to determine whether a theory is scientific or not.

  1. We have to accept that searching for confirmations of our theory is actually really easy… too easy.
  2. Confirmations should only be considered scientific if it is the result of a risky prediction, or a hypothesis that was meant to refute the theory, but instead confirmed it.
  3. Every good scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
  4. A theory which cannot be refuted or is irrefutable is not scientific.
  5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify or refute it, not confirm it.
  6. No ad hoc explanations of a theory to escape falsifying evidence. We can’t reinterpret our theory in such a way that it escapes refutation.

This list was created by philosopher Karl Popper.

Karl Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994)

Citations:
Popper, Karl Raimund. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge by Karl R. Popper. Routledge, 2002.

Help out the channel by purchasing this book through this Amazon link.

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Patreon

Science vs Pseudoscience | Problems in Philosophy of Science

How do we determine whether a theory is scientific or not? What gives science the credibility and authority that it commands? In philosophy of science, this is called the demarcation problem: how do we demarcate between science & pseudoscience. Some philosophers believed if you could find confirmations of your theory, then it must be true. But, philosopher Karl Popper proposed a different method. Instead of trying to find more confirmations of our theories, we should be doing everything we can to FALSIFY OUR THEORIES, BIIIITCH!!!

Help out the channel by purchasing these books through the Amazon links below.

Sources:
Popper, Karl Raimund. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge, 2002. Buy here.

Einstein, Albert. Relativity, the Special and the General Theory: A Popular Exposition by Albert Einstein. Translated by Robert W. Lawson, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1961. Buy here.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature, Barnes & Noble, New York, NY, 2005. Buy here.

Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Patreon

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

RSS