I was deeply sceptical of LK-99 and simply chose not to comment on it in public on the internet because: (1) confirmation or contradiction will come soon enough, and (2) being sceptical, however measured, usually attracts accusations of being a negative, cynical naysayer, and I don't need that in my life.
Choosing to not comment is a vote for the status quo. We need your voice of reason and caution.
Toxic positivity is poisoning our culture. We need antidote.
There’s a way to be skeptical without being “negative” but I definitely get it. People will sometimes latch on to things to the point that their identity is threatened by the possibility that they are wrong. I try to ignore this and just have fun speculating. Science as a spectator sport is a fun idea if we can avoid the drunken hooliganism.
I find it amusing how many people like you didn't notice the large amount of people bringing up all the points that this video made on the first day, as justification for why they doubted the hell out of this claim.
I think he meant this particular video, which was only published one day ago.
I'm well aware, and it's purposefully ignoring that the video is not bringing up anything new, nor were the authors beliefs new. It's implying that they would not have come to the same conclusions when it's just not true.
I’m implying that the off-handed prejudicial confidence from certain so-called skeptics is also “bad science” if we’re also willing to lambast the public for engaging with science without the requisite rigor.