Title text: The mainstream dogma sparked a wave of dogmatic revisionism, and this revisionist mainstream dogmatism has now given way to a more rematic mainvisionist dogstream.
| This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a DOGSTREAM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.|
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.
This comic provides a satirical take on the intricate layers of scientific critique and consensus. Cueball stands as a representative of the scientific community, addressing the audience with a statement that encapsulates the recursive nature of scientific debate. The comic touches on the propensity within the scientific fields to oscillate between embracing new evidence and adhering to established consensus. It reflects on the inclination to reject new findings not because they lack merit, but because they conflict with the prevailing theories that have weathered previous scrutiny and dissent.
The statement begins by acknowledging a shift in attitude, where "conventional wisdom," the accepted understanding within the community, has come under fire. This skepticism towards the status quo is not uncommon in scientific practice, where evidence is continuously scrutinized. However, the comic suggests that the reaction against accepted norms can sometimes lead to the dismissal of new data, not on the basis of its validity, but due to its misalignment with the current consensus. This reveals a tension between the progress of knowledge and the comfort of established belief systems.
Furthermore, the backlash against conventional wisdom is not a straightforward rejection but is layered with its own biases, implying that the dissenters may also fall prey to ignoring contradicting evidence. The comic thus highlights a multi-faceted argument within the scientific community, where there are multiple 'levels' of disagreement and rebuttal, each building upon the last.
Cueball's statement dissects the nuanced ballet of scientific thought through a sequence of phrases, each peeling back a layer of the academic onion. It starts with a backlash against the prevailing consensus. However, new evidence is being termed "inconvenient", hinting that it supports the prevailing consensus, even as many researchers are moving away from it. Thus, the researchers opposed to the prevailing consensus are being criticized for seeming to ignore this new evidence. Cueball acknowledges this criticism. But because the quote culminates in a "however", Cueball is presumably about to rebut that meta-consensus, such as by making an argument in defense of the researchers people are claiming are ignoring the new evidence.
The title text serves as an extension of this theme, offering a linguistic maze that mirrors the complexity and sometimes absurdity of academic discourse. It whimsically encapsulates how a challenge to mainstream thought can solidify into its own dogma, necessitating further revisionist waves, in an endless cycle of intellectual evolution and revolution. This self-referential loop wittily underscores Thomas Kuhn's notion of the 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' suggesting that what is considered revolutionary at one time may become the very dogma that future revolutions seek to overturn. The title text delights in linguistic acrobatics, stringing together a series of portmanteau and near-repetitive phrases that dance on the tongue with the finesse of a verbal gymnast. "Mainstream dogma" suggests widely accepted beliefs, but it swiftly mutates into "dogmatic revisionism," a playful jab at the stubborn insistence on reforming the norm. This revisionism doesn't just adjust the current; it becomes "mainstream dogmatism" in its own right, a new orthodoxy birthed from the rebellion. And then, with a flourish, it yields to an even more whimsically coined "rematic mainvisionist dogstream," a hilarious spoonerism that could leave even the most loquacious academic's head spinning. This nonsensical cascade mocks the sometimes pretentious and convoluted language that can plague scholarly communication, turning serious dialogue into a merry-go-round of terms that are as circular in progression as they are in logic.
|Title text term||(Possible) meaning||Nature of the term|
|Mainstream dogma||The popular and currently unchallenged set of beliefs that comfortably flow with the academic current.||Real|
|Dogmatic revisionism||The stubborn insistence on changing established views, with a religious zeal for rewriting the scholarly scripture.||Unlikely combination of real words|
|Revisionist mainstream||Once the avant-garde, now the new normal; the rebel ideas that have become the establishment.||Unlikely combination of real words|
|Dogmatism||An unshakable adherence to the new creed, now fervently preached as the one true academic gospel.||Real|
|Rematic||Perhaps related to "remake" or "remix," implying a recycled, refurbished set of ideas in vogue once more.||Not a real word|
|Mainvisionist||A visionary yet mainstream adherent, with sights set on steering the scholarly ship into familiar waters.||Not a real word|
|Dogstream||The current of thought that flows doggedly along, resistant to change and comfortably narrow.||Not a real word|
|Mainvisionist dogstream||The dominant narrative that's been revised so often, it's hard to distinguish from its own parody.||Not real words|
- [Cueball, hand raised with a finger held up, stands behind a lectern on a high podium speaking into a microphone on the lectern. Behind him is a banner, with four lines of illegible writing above a (blank) picture at the bottom.]
- Cueball: It's become conventional wisdom that the backlash against the prevailing consensus led researchers to ignore inconvenient new evidence. However...
- [Caption below the panel:]
- In a field that's been around for a while, it can be hard to figure out how many levels of rebuttal deep you are.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!