/lit/ - Literature

>>13251895

>>13251895
>80 years
the people who recognize the problems but who don't think shit is actually about to hit the fan are worse than the deniers. we have 10-20 years left.

>>13251910
Oh thank God, I want to experience an apocalypse in my lifetime.

>>13251895
The main issue is the conflation of the experimentally supported results of(some of) physics and chemistry and their resultant technological marvels with a massive assortment of utter bullshit parading itself as 'Science' of one kind or another.

The scientific process is about reproducing results, nothing more or less. It does not matter if your study is peer reviewed or not. What matters is if you can keep getting the same result, and other people replicate it and find the same thing, if people can suggest alterations and ways of making it more rigourous- and then actually do it. Mere criticism and theory is not science.

>>13251928
we'll get to. the suicide rate going up bewilders me, don't they know the shows almost over?

A leftist critique of instutions would be in practice, universities indeed are useless gatekeeping indoctrination factory.

>>13251932
also this is obviously just about the sciences. The problems in the humanities are just as bad and have to do with the loss of the classical curriculum focused on Latin and Greek, and the admission of a student body that is largely functionally illiterate.

>>13251932
>What matters is if you can keep getting the same result, and other people replicate it and find the same thing

That's what peer review is lol

>>13251950
No it is not. Peer review is not replication, it is a group of people from your field reading your study and deciding whether it should be published.

>>13251910
I think most climate change supporters just love the woe is me rhetoric and the feeling of moral superiority they get over others but good luck convincing China to do anything about it.

>>13251962
The endgame of neochina is a whiteheadian ecocivilization. Getting conquered by China is unironically our best chance.

https://youtu.be/iMv4XsL-1lU

Better keep shutting down those nuke plants then

>>13251962
> people who follow the evidence do so because of "moral superiority"

>>13251962
the usa is more at fault than china. there's more plastic products every year and the complete lack of preparation means we're screwed. emissions were being kept down til 2015, then we stopped caring.

silver lining: plastic can be converted to fuel, we are manufacturing the means of reindustrialization.

The average flat earther is genuinely more informed than the average round earther. If you sit down an average member of each group, at the same education evel, and ask each one to write down substantial proof supporting their respective belief on the shape of the world, the flat earther will right at considerably more length and cover a much larger breadth of theory and material. The proletariat should never have been given individualism.

>>13251988

>>13251993
OK, but is the earth flat? Nope. Just because it's hard to argue for the roundness of the planet that we live on doesn't mean that invidiualism was a mistake.

>>13251986
There is no evidence for anything except a mild warming of the earth concurrent with a rise in CO2 levels. That is the evidence, and it is not even very good because of the enormous difficulties involved in measuring the entire earth for anything. The rest, whether discussing the causal link between those two phenomena, or discussing the outcomes on the global climate, is conjecture.

>>13251993
I would tend to agree with you, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting about the relative merits/demerits of the flat earther?

>>13251895

>>13252006
I agree, the fact that people think that flat earthers are somehow less informed than them is a proletariet misconception. The notion that people can consider them scientific authorities by second hand information gathering is a product of individualism. The idea that you can somehow decide whether or not you think the world is flat is a brainlet misconception. It has nothing to do with the reality of the shape of the earth, but the exchange of ideas.

>>13251956
You're hilarious

idk but here's a based blog post i read about it
http://archdruidmirror.blogspot.com/2017/06/against-cultural-senility.html

>>13251970
Okay chang

>>13252017
That is undeniably true, are you just retarded

>>13251986
>>13251988
All the evidence of collapse assumes that technology will never advance beyond what is now (or at least what is conceivable). Waste to energy has been around for years and there are plenty of ideas are being thrown around for breaking down plastics and reducing emissions. I’m not saying don’t care, I just want things to be replaced by overall superior tech not just environmental sound ones such as replacing petrol cars with Tesla’s vs Nissan Leafs.

I’m not a burger but here in Britain, we’ve had protestors that shut down major roads in the capital and airport (causing loads of pollution) and think it’s reasonable to depend that everyone changes their boilers to electric and stops going on holiday because we make up 2% of the worlds emissions.

If you force the issue people will just take their business offshore, if it’s fiscality the best option they won’t (as solar has now become).

>>13252027
What do you think influences peer decision? How cool the title of the study is?

>>13252033
It is not replication. you know this unless you actually have zero idea what you're talking about. They don't replicate the study to decide if it should be published.

>>13252039
Yeah because peers are very eager to approve results that aren't repeatable.

Hurrrr

>>13252045
Are you being fucking serious? Do you actually think they replicate the study in peer review?

>>13251910
>we have 10-20 years left

>>13252051
Do you think peer review is about taking the scientist for his word?

>>13252007
This exactly. I personally question how much influence we have over the Earth as it would be naturally getting hotter at this point in its cycle whether we were industrialised or not. High levels of CO2 is not even that big of a worry (unless you live in them) so long as we have the vegetation to support it which currently is no where near a problem.

We do need more sustainable practices but not at the cost of people’s well being since poor 2nd/3rd worlders will be the one impacted by harsh regulations.

>>13252055
I think it's not replication, which is what I said, and what you idiotically replied to in argument.

>>13251895
wtf

>>13252029
the human impact on global warming is now negligible, we have triggered a self sustaining effect. eating meat was always 10x worse than driving cars anyway.

>>13252059
If the results were not repeatable that would come up in the review, brainlet.

>>13252053
we have 10-20 years before there's no more ice. this will probably accompany an ecodisaster that wipes out most animal life.

>>13252068
There is no way to know if the results are repeatable without...repeating the study. That is literally the scientific method.

>>13252073
Wow big brained post here

Nuke America and its appreciation of ignorance. Also hang all neoliberals, capitalists, and capitalist cuckolds. It's a start.

Anyone who denies climate change should be labelled an enemy of humanity. Same for anyone that supports/defends capitalism in its many forms.

Unironically.

>>13252081
I can't tell if you're just trying to save face here or if you genuinely don't understand what science is.

>>13252083
Okay chang

>>13251910
God I wish

>>13252083
I'm sorry but what book is that? Who's the author?

>>13252085
Do you? Do you think scientists are just like, "aw man I gotta approve this shit because I have no idea how to reproduce it but I don't want to look like a brainlet?" have sex lmao

With each passing day it becomes more and more apparent to me that Twitter has to fucking go.

>>13252083
>hang people who disagree with me
This guy is basically the problem with academia in a nutshell

Bruh I know we love to beat up strawmen here on 4channel but twitter takes the fucking cake with that shit

>>13252055
Not him but they literally just read various studies and compare/summarise them. These are also scientists who are passionate about climate change and who’s funding/livelihood rely on it being an issue. If you can’t see the bias there then there’s no hope but it’s the same as a hardline Christian turning round and saying God doesn’t exist, he has everything to lose and nothing to gain.

>>13252083

Forgot to add that with the destruction of capitalism and therefore the dissolution of MUST PROFIT it will return universities back to places of learning and not just a higher class trade school where the objective is to gain knowledge and not only employ that knowledge for nothing. Thanks, STEMtards.

>>13252072

>>13252093
Yes I literally outlined it in my first post, it is the replication of results. People's opinions on whether a study is replicable might be right or wrong but they are not science. You are really out of your depth here.

>>13252094
>twitter
More like social media in its entireity.

>>13251910
I'm sure 10-20 years from now people will be saying the same shit

>>13252086

Not Chinese. Ironically the chinks are attempting to be more environmentally conscious.

>>13252088

My Diary Desu by Anon Anonsson.

>>13252096

It's the only way to deal with it. They're too propagandised to actually reeducate.

>>13252103
Yeah and they know what they're talking about

>>13252067
That was only an example. I don’t like factory farming for health reasons but if we aren’t willing to reduce eating then lab grown meat is a very viable solution. I think free-ranged, grass fed is good for the environment though in reasonable quantities.

>>13252117
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
do they?

>>13252112
Yeah, you're Chinese

>>13252120
Yep.

>>13252093
A lot of climate change research comes from the polar ice caps, do you think they just seen off expensive teams of sciencitists every time someone wants to cite their paper?

>>13252122

I am unironically anglo. Doesn't really matter what colour or nationality, though. We are, unironically, in this together. This is a human exacerbated threat and it will take humanity cooperating to deal with it.

>>13252131
no, but there are other ways to show reproducibility

>>13252126
>clings to his authority figures when shown direct evidence of their failures
You would be much happier using a real church as your church instead of the academic establishment.

>>13252134
okay chang, still waiting on you :)

>>13252083
Sending all these capitalists and neoliberalis to the gulag will help depopulate and thus help the environment even further

>>13252112
They’re building solar farms becauses it’s a cheap source of electricity, that’s it. They still pollution heavily and do even worse stuff in The Middle East and Africa.

>>13252137
How? Can you use a

>>13252140
what evidence? your autistic screeching?

You've basically just pulled out a blanket fatwa against science writ large, there isn't anything left other than taking uncle cleetus' stance on things on the basis of muh feelies you stupid idiot.

>>13252137
>>13252150
How? Can you use ice cubes and Bunsen burner instead?

>>13252151
>here isn't anything left other than t
Oh but there is, it's called science, and it's about......drum roll.....repeating the study

>>13252154
no, that's not what I said.

>>13252158
>These scientists are going to not do science when performing their duty on determining... what is science.

grow up.

>>13252141

To do what exactly?

>>13252142

Population isn't the problem. It's over-consumption which is a very "first world" issue.

>>13252143

I did say attempting. Everyone is exploiting other regions.

>>13252151
>against science
The Replication Crisis is for pseudoscientific fields like psychology and economics where the mathematical models are only effective in ideal circumstances and the "data" they use is completely subjective and dependent on human nature.

>>13252166
uhhh environmental awareness?

>>13252165
The scientists doing peer review are very smart and knowledgeable Im sure, so they should be funded to do replication studies. In the interest of science people who disagree with them can also do such studies and a clearer picture with more evidence can be made.

You seem literally incapalbe of understanding the difference between science and a scientist. Science is something a scientist does when he tests hypotheses, ie. he does studies. Science is not just 'what scientists say'.

You have completely embarrassed yourself

>>13252177
>more evidence

lol such as...?

Don't even try, kid, I've already seen Hbomb's vid on the subject.

>>13252151
It’s not even just reproduction that’s an issue, you should look into how funding impacts results. Establishments don’t spend millions to get back nothing, there is a huge incentive to find something and when they do it is usually exaggerated in the media. Also imagine it’s your life’s work, you were certain that this was it so and that you’re going to change the world, obviously confirmation bias is enacted. Talk to anyone who’s worked in the field and they’ll tell you this is the case.

There’s also a philosophical argument about the limitations of science in that it now only focuses on things that quantifable and ignores all else.

>>13252177
Your suggesting that scientific knowledge is an objective constant that has never changed. Even over the last couple of decades previously proven theories have now been discounted and so will many we accept today. Most theories are actually ever wholly proved, the Big Bang for instance has a lot of supporting evidence but not one can truthfully objectively say that’s how the universe started.

>>13252208
...I am suggesting the exact opposite of that. Continual renewal of criticism, and replication and alteration of studies, are what Im suggesting.

>>13252216
just stop

>>13252216
But not criticism from yourself. You are suggesting that you should wholly leave the interruptation of evidence to people who have an interest/bias to seeing it one way. You would probably go further and suggest that these people who are specialist in one individual field should dictate implementation.

>>13252237
Absolutely not, I am suggesting that as many different people as possible reproduce the study, people who agree, disagree, who are neutral, teams made up of oppoents, etc.. Where on earth did you even get that idea?

>>13252083
based

>>13252025
Hard laughter

>>13252246
You still don’t understand how science works. Take climate change for example, no one gets funding to prove it’s not real (if they do it’s 1% max). Every single one of them also deeply care about the environment (otherwise they would have specialised elsewhere). So what happens when studies are only replicated/reviewed by people who have a monetary, emotional and reputational stake in proving it correct? Well, funnily enough they find it to be so. They also make sweeping statements to prove their relevance and get more funding (it helps disabled rats so it’s basically the cure for cancer).

Most scienctists are also retards outside of their specialism and have no idea of how the world works so one much be critical and not leave intelilectual thought up to someone else.

>>13252309
You have responded to the wrong person in the chain of comments m8. Go back up like 3 posts, I have been arguing for the same thing youre saying this whole thread.

In my ideal world the people arguing climate science is flawed would be funded as well. there would be open dialogue instead of behind closed-doors peer review.

>>13251895
>what are some books that diagnose the problems in higher education?
Sociology and the cultural studies are fronts for communist organization, subsidized think-tanks for the far left that exert their influence over all other aspects of human of interaction.

>>13252321
I’m not. I’m suggesting that science, particularly how is practiced today is inherently flawed (I’m not saying it’s not true but shouldn’t be accepted as gospel) and was adding another dimension to other user talking about replication issues. Even if both sides had equal funding there would be no way to get rid of the politcisation and internal biases. Climate change in particular tends to make conclusions in big leaps (evidence the temp at the polar ice caps rose 1 degree turns into everyone is going to die in 20 years).

>>13251970
Have you tried the feeling of moral supiriority before? It’s like a drug with no come-down, the ultimate high. It doesn’t matter that nothing is inherently moral or immoral either.

>>13252344
I agree with that though, why would you respond>>13252208
>>13252237
these two posts to what Ive been saying in this thread? I've just been repeating that science is the process of testing hypotheses, there is no other method to it. Regardless of any other considerations that is the only way to carry out the activity.

I even made a post specifically about climate change >>13252007 though I realize there's no way to know that was me

>>13251895
Alternative energy, especially PV uses polymers made from oil. Plastic isn't reduced at all, in fact it's increased.
Only green alternative is nuclear. Everything else is a meme.

>>13251970
>NeoChina

We G-Gundam now.

>>13252344
To be fair the polar caps are just one of many problems facing us in the next decade

>>13252083
Extremely based assuming you're not a marxoid

>>13252083
>enemy of humanity
Good.
Climate change is a meme predicated on shit tier science. You cannot think for yourself or see how the sample window hitherto instrumentation is pure guess work. Proxies are influenced by local weather conditions, insect activity and various blights. All climate data and projections are extrapolations from a fake n= of whatever they want it to be and a real n= of about 150 years at best globally. You're an imbecile.

>>13251962
See also: vaccines. Pseuds who fucking love science but fucking hate the scientific method.

>>13252541
>shilling this hard
"yes daddy koch, give me your fracking cum ugghhhh"

>>13252601
Brainlets cannot think outside of (x group says this therefore you are x group!). Nice NPC logic.