Why ‘Scientists’ Are Leaving X For The Warmth & Comfort Of Bluesky
This is a long-winded introduction, so forgive me. Ressentiment and hurt feelings over loss of prestige has hit many academic scientists hard. The ebbing away of respect and deference was not something they prepared for
They were taught, all through life, that these things would be theirs in abundance, got free by flashing their degree. Only now there is often laughter instead of applause.
They should have seen it coming. Decades of predicting every single thing, with no exceptions, would worsen because of ‘climate change’, the idea that treating delusions by making all agree with the delusions, and by chemically and surgically altering the delusional, the hysterical overblown false cries of “Follow the Science!’
In the covid panic, and the endless stream of nonsense of every stripe passed off in the name of science, all of which were funded by you, has whittled down to next to nothing the goodwill scientists earned over the years by inventing such modern miracles asd quantum mechanics, the Large Hadron Collider and multiverses.
That’s my little joke. But it’s clear many scientists are running away from criticism, which is hurtful. Few enjoy being questioned, and almost none take well the abuse hurled on social media.
Scientists want a return of the reflexive polite submissiveness (“Back off, man, I’m a scientist”), and many are coming to realize they aren’t going to get it. Not online, anyway.
Which is a long-winded introduction to the peer-reviewed paper—whose existence proves our thesis—“Scientists no Longer Find Twitter Professionally Useful, and have Switched to Bluesky” by DS Shiffman and J Wester in Integrative and Comparative Biology, a journal whose name would have you guess is about integrative and comparative biology, and not tittle tattle gathered, in the manner of cheap journalism, using surveys answered by those who can’t find an excuse not to answer.
But the name lies. For that is exactly what this paper is.
The Synopsis, with my emphasis:
Social media has become widely used by the scientific community for a variety of professional uses, including networking and public outreach. For the past decade, Twitter has been a primary home of scientists on social media.
In recent years, new leadership at Twitter has made substantive changes that have resulted in increases in the prevalence of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, and harassment on the platform, causing many scientists to seek alternatives.
Editor’s note: this comment about ‘pseudoscience, conspiracy theory’ is rich considering many of those ‘scientists’ who popuated Twitter before Elon Musk took it over were the ones promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, lies and propaganda.
Bluesky has been suggested as a good alternative to Twitter, but the phenomenon of academics switching social media platforms has not previously been studied. Here we report on the results of a survey distributed to scientists on Twitter and Bluesky (n = 813).
Results overwhelmingly confirm that changes to Twitter have made the social media platform no longer professionally useful or pleasant, and that many scientists have abandoned it in favor of Bluesky.
Results show that for every reported professional benefit that scientists once gained from Twitter, scientists can now gain that benefit more effectively on Bluesky than on Twitter.
The reason this topic has not been “studied” is because, as is obvious, it is not worth studying. Asking why a handful of scientists (willing to answer) which social media platform they prefer barely counts as news.
What is interesting, though, is that many academic scientists have joined the Cult of the Victim.
All know that there is no higher being than Victim. You are nobody in our culture unless you are an Official Victim, celebrity or multibillionaire. The last two heights are hard to attain, but anybody can be a Victim and be accorded respect and prestige.
Scientists used to get this through their work, but now can’t—and for the same reason. Because of their work.
This is proved by the authors’ admission that moving to a platform, which by general acclaim is far left, they “gain” the “benefit” of praise and accolades missing from Twitter. They are right there have been changes at that platform, now called “X” (which I agree with the authors is an asinine name).
During the covid panic, for instance, when ‘The Science‘ reigned supreme, I took to auto-deleting tweets after a week, because I was put in Twitter jail so often for criticizing ‘The Science’.
Editor’s note: remember when Anthony Fauci said criticising him was criticising ‘science’, which led to some genius creating this meme, in the style of Emperor Palpatine:
This is the world the authors would see restored. Where their word remains unquestioned by the masses.
We know this, too, from one of the author’s own website (Shiffman; in which we learn their paper was presented at the “2025 Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists”; are fish and snakes a metaphor here?).
Shiffman says Twitter now “encourages pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, an extremist political fringe, and harassment of experts (especially experts who are not white Christian men).”
And there it is. White Christian men, tacitly sexually normal, are by definition Official Oppressors, and can never be Victims.
Shiffman can, and rejoices in it. He tells us his engagement “decreased by 99 percent eventually”, which is well into Victim territory. But what about other Bluesky refugees?
I will note that a few colleagues have reported that their engagement has remained the same or even increased slightly, but at least some of these colleagues do not use a data-based analytics strategy-it’s clear that even if these declines aren’t universal, they are widespread and common.
If they had used a data-based analytics strategy they would have discovered their increase was not an increase, maybe?
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: ABC News
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Although I agree with the overall analysis of the situation in science journalism and scientific research, particularly the concerns about conflicts of interest and the growing lack of public trust. I believe an important point is being overlooked. The issue also involves the so-called scientists themselves.
For example, the article refers to:
“by DS Shiffman and J Wester in Integrative and Comparative Biology, a journal whose name would have you guess is about integrative and comparative biology…”
Here, the term biology is used as if it were a scientific discipline, on a par with physics or chemistry. In my view, this misunderstanding is at the core of the problem. Biology is often treated as a science comparable to the physical sciences. Yet, much of it is descriptive and narrative, frequently relying on models rather than on direct experimental work with clearly defined physical entities.
A relevant example is the concept of viruses, which originates from biology, specifically virology. In this area, claims are often built on descriptions and interpretations rather than on the fundamental requirement of the physical sciences: the existence of a physically isolatable, purified, and fully characterizable entity.
Therefore, the issue cannot be attributed solely to social media or public misunderstanding. The problem also lies in what I would call “labeled science,” in which fields such as biology and medicine are presented as equivalent to the physical sciences without meeting the same methodological standards.
This issue deserves careful consideration and open discussion if the integrity and credibility of science are to be restored.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Saeed,
In physics there is a famous experiment that showed that an experiment knows if it is being observed and can change the results when observed. This experiment proves that experiments are not a conclusive way of determining reality. Experimental results are interpreted by the experimenter’s existing beliefs resulting in them usually not discovering reality but supporting accepted theory.
Herb
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Herb:
I am not aware of such experiments. However, I can understand that experiments of this kind are sometimes conducted in biology—virology being a commonly cited example—and are occasionally framed in language that resembles that of physics to appear more rigorously scientific. Discussions about viral mutation or the development of seasonal vaccines are sometimes presented in this manner.
In such cases, the experimental framework may already assume the outcome sought—for example, identifying or characterizing a “new virus” that aligns with a particular vaccine narrative. When this occurs, the conclusions may seem to demonstrate a new reality, even though the underlying assumptions guided the interpretation from the outset.
For this reason, it is advisable to approach such claims carefully and critically, and to distinguish clearly between genuinely open scientific inquiry and research that may be shaped by prior expectations or disciplinary conventions.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Saeed,
The experiment was the dual thin slot experiment done to see if particles had wave characteristic like photons. In it electrons were directed at a shield with two closely spaced thin slits to see if an interference pattern would appear on the screen behind. It did but when they added a detector to see which slit the electron passed through the interference pattern disappeared. This disappearance made them conclude the experiment was conscious. They completely ignored that a moving electron produces a changing electric field which in turn produces a changing magnetic field creating an electromagnetic wave with a speed determined by the fields that was different than the speed of the electron.
Herb
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi. Herb:
Thanks for the clarification. It appears you are referring to the dual nature of matter and energy expressed in the relation E = mc², which is a legitimate scientific concept. In such cases, scientists (physicists) recognize inconsistencies in their thinking or in their experiments and refine their explanations based on further observations and controlled experiments. This is how science is meant to work—by isolating inputs and outputs, carefully observing physical characteristics, and testing explanations under different conditions. In contrast, much of what is presented today as “science,” particularly in areas loosely labeled as medical or biological science, appears to rely more on narratives and assumptions presented as facts. This growing tendency to substitute interpretation for rigorous experimental demonstration is a serious issue that deserves greater scrutiny.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
HI Saeed, Herb, Readers,
Eisenstein posed a somewhat reasonable thought problem. I believe he had NO IDEA what the result would be, or if there would even be a reasoned result. In a modern physics course I took as a as a physical chemistry graduate student; I was shown a detailed explanation how mathematics produces E=mc2.
Of course Einstein had no idea if this relationship was valid but further research supported the possibility that it was and I am sure the Japanese are convinced that it is TRUE as no one has predicted a different idea to explain what the Japanese learned about doing EVIL.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Mathematical proofs often ignore reality. A velocity squared times a mass gives kinetic energy but Einstein’s formula says mass times energy equals energy. Electromagnetic radiation is how objects transmit energy. Energy decreases as a function of distance. If an electromagnetic wave has a constant velocity then the energy, velocity squared, can never be constant.
The atomic bomb has nothing to do with E=mc squared. It is a result of observing that when uranium 235 decays, giving off energy, it releases 3 neutrons, which on striking another atom of uranium 235 will cause that atom to decay releasing more energy and 3 more neutrons creating a chain reaction. It has nothing to do with converting mass to energy..
Reply