/sci/ - Science & Math

/pol/ is so unintelligent that satire is indistinguishable from the real thing. OP could easily be making a caricatured mockery of a typical neo-nazi, or he could just be one. And that is comedy.

Science beats guessing

>>11639476
>ur dumb and this is an argument!
No it's not.

>>11639478
Can you explain why believing the sun is made of hydrogen is better than believing jews did 9/11?

>>11639469
Most people don't understand "science" well enough to form any opinion. You have people talking about global warming that have never taken a chemistry or physics class beyond high school. People talking about virology who have never studied that subject and probably couldn't even tell you what a virus is.

>>11639484
Strawman argumentation. Scientific process is not about believing. Only /pol/tards use that kind of flawed (emotional) logic.

>>11639469
Because it is.

>>11639501
Fine, I'll put replace think with believe in the OP next time.

>>11639504
Okay, let's see some proof that the sun is made of hydrogen.

>>11639484
I don't see why a reasonable person couldn't believe both

>>11639469
>Why are there so many people who think science is undeniable?
People are too stupid to ascertain truth on there own, yet their feeling of existential security demands they think they know truth. So they latch onto what they perceive as the authority on truth and call it undeniable, in a sense asserting the undeniability of their own existence. Such as it has been throughout all of history.
>>11639476
It is often a superposition of seriousness and a joke, because reality is a superposition of seriousness and a joke. Kill yourself, retarded leftist.

>>11639605
> on there own
great spot, take it back to the brain trust on /pol/ where it can be properly appreciated

>>11639469
>6-fold symmetry is a sign of Jewish conspiracy

>>11639605
>It is often a superposition of seriousness and a joke
this a story. a story that embarrassed /pol/ users tell themselves in order to explain their embarrassingly unintelligent brothers in arms.

if you think like this, then you're already halfway towards realizing that the /pol/ ideology is not defensible as pure seriousness. you still have hope.

>>11639692
>It isnt

>>11639605
> People are too stupid to ascertain truth on there own
Yes but this is more true for /pol/ than for anyone else. Literally anyone.

>>11639469
is it deniable?

>>11639469
It’s an overreaction to science denial. Obviously both positions are dumb. Science is the best way to obtain knowledge, but it’s important to recognize it’s shortcomings. Scientific studies are often financed and ran by people with an agenda. And scientific facts are constantly twisted for political and financial gain. It doesn’t mean science is wrong, but remaining critical is good. It’s also how science progresses.

>>11639702

>>11639883
>Science is the best way to obtain knowledge
Can you prove this?

>>11639934
Well for starters, every useful thing to in society comes from science. Every evil thing in society comes from people who deny science like religion, SJW/neo-nazi politics, and all other forms of absurd stupidity.

>>11639962
Okay, that's just evidence that gives you your opinion. But it's not proof.
Prove for a fact that science is better than prayer.

>>11639969
Good point. Prayer always wins

>>11640068
Criticizing prayer doesn't prove science is the best way. Without any proof that what you said is a fact you must
>1: Accept that you're delusional
>2: Accept that you believe science is better than prayer due to a spiritual sense
>3: Accept that science is not better than prayer
Or you could just continue contradicting yourself.

>>11639969
>Prove for a fact that science is better than prayer.
this is moving dangerously close to "Science VS Religion" territory

Good science says things are true or false only when logic backed by evidence says so. There is no empirical evidence for prayer so it doesn't fall under the domain of science. That's not to say it's wrong or even right, just that science is incapable of formulating any opinion. It's entirely neutral, or that's how it should be. It's easy to bait people and play with their emotions, but this isn't science. It's just emotional manipulation and internet trolling.

But who knows. Tbh, maybe one day science will discover empirical evidence of god and/or religion. It's not entirely unplausible, just difficult to imagine for most science minded people.

>>11640091
>Criticizing prayer doesn't prove science is the best way.
If science wasn't the best way we would change it to the best way and that would be called science. If you don't understand the difference between dogmatic belief and pragmatism then there is no point in having a discussion.

>>11640128
Prove that science is the most practical way
>>11640111
Evidence gathered through the senses is not absolute proof. Senses are not infallible.

>>11639469
Seething retarded flunkies are free to deny all they like, just not not to burn down libraries or vandalize this board.

>>11639962
Absolute sniveling retard
Science can not and never has ever attempted to answer normative statements. That is not within its domain.

>>11640171
you speak semantic memery my dude
scientists attempt to answer normative statements(questions?) all the time, violating your precious domain limits

>>11640166
Not an argument.

>>11640139
>Evidence gathered through the senses is not absolute proof. Senses are not infallible.

You can never be certain if your senses are interpreting reality correctly. You can only ever be certain that your senses interpreted a thing or that you thought an idea. cogito ergo sum

This is not proof that science is wrong. Just that our reality is based upon the assumption of reality is real. Maybe reality is a collective hallucination to deceive us about the true nature of reality, and our assumptions that it's real is the only thing holding it together. This is not proof that science is wrong. It is only proof that science can functions only while inside this false reality. While it does changes the base nature of science, it doesn't change the science itself. It still functions the same way in either case.

>>11640171
Who implied it did? Science can be used as supporting evidence for normative statements though. For example the scientific conclusion that groups like neo-nazis are always compromised of members with poor mental stability and low intelligence lends credibility to the judgment that it is an evil movement.

>>11640204
You can not use empirical evidence to support normative statements.
It is the case that neonazis are low iq (this is true) but it does not follow that it is evil because of this. If you think this, you are also low iq

>>11640190
They attempt, and fail, because it is not possible. There is no violation of what I said.

>>11640200
Did anyone in the thread say science is wrong? Are you trying to refute someone?
>>11640204
How is that scientific conclusion superior to me saying it's a good movement because I read it in a pattern of leaves

>>11640139
>Prove that science is the most practical way
It is by definition.

>>11640246
>science says science is best, therefore it true!

>>11640233
so science is a spirit that alternates between taking credit and rejecting credit for the actions of human scientists who act in their capacity as scientists to attempt to answer questions qua scientific method

>>11640274
The scientific method can not be used to answer normative statements. It has nothing to do with what scientists attempt to do. You sound very confused and ignorant.

>>11640281
i am indeed confused and ignorant and require help to understand how you can at once maintain that "Science can not and never has ever attempted[...]" while acknowledging the fact that scientists have attempted to do dumbs
i was under the impression that science is that field where scientists work

>>11639469
science is by definition deniable
anyone who does not understand this is gay and should die

>>11640299
Scientists and the scientific method aren't the same thing. Whatever some guy does has nothing to do with the scientific method and its scope.
>I was under the impression that science is that field where scientists work
then you're a serious stupid fucking moron lmfao

>>11640313
forgive my error. the word science has some ambiguity. when i saw you talk about science as the sort of existence that "can not and never has ever attempted". it made me think you anthropomorphize science as a way of implying that you refer to the scientific community, the human people, and their activities. i have seen the word science colloquially used this way in the past, which made me think this was your meaning as well. i did not realize you meant only the scientific method by science.

>>11640331
My fault for the confusion, my wording was poor.
The scientific method (this is what i mean by "science") can not answer normative statements. Saying "stabbing a mammal in the gut causes it to feel pain" can never be extrapolated to get the conclusion "therefore you should not stab mammals in the gut".

>>11640342
but isn't it still extrapolated to get the conclusion "therefore it's justified to believe that stabbing a mammal in the gut causes it to feel pain" or "therefore people who claim that (stabbing a mammal in the gut causes it to feel pain) are right/correct"? justice, righteousness, and correctness, all wholly normative determinations.

>>11640248
>whatever the best is is called science, their it's the best

People's blind faith in poorly executed studies is indeed disturbing, OP. It is a blend of scientific illiteracy coupled with a great enthusiasm for technology.

Yet many actual scientists in the hard-sciences can look at the studies conducted by sociologists, and half of them will claim the methods are practically guesswork blended into the author's confirmation bias. The 'standards' of what we call science are not exactly perfect, nor are many of the methods we employ in pursuit of the truth. And that is not even to speak of the methods we employ in pursuit of the next research grant.

Corruption is manifest, to some degree, in all institutes, including the publishing journals of scientific articles. Yet many of the less cerebral people either don't know, or are simply unwilling to accept that obvious things work the way they work.

>>11640530
How do you determine what is the absolute best?

>>11640661
Look for other things that produce better results. You have failed to provide any, therfore you admit science is the best way.

>>11639605
>Kill yourself, retarded leftist.

>>11639484
>Can you explain why believing the sun is made of hydrogen is better than believing jews did 9/11?

butthurt goyim abound

>>11639469
stupid people are always looking for some to tell them what to think and do and smart people are always looking for a way for get the dumb asses to make their life easier by tricking them.

Science is a useful tool to examine things because the scientific method is a form of quality control and peer review a system of checks and balances as it were. However like any system it is easily corrupted by getting a few people into key positions.

Once you do that you give off the successful illusion that "science" is operating in good faith when it is trash as any other control system/religion but the masses haven't been trained to chimps to actually do their own research to verify what these "scientists" are telling them is true or not and probably aren't smart enough too anyway. You can't just get rid of their authority figures without replacing them because they are too dumb to act on their own but until you do you aren't gonna make them question their scientism religion. It isn't the people or science they believe in, it is the institution, just like any other priesthood,

>>11640752
Science isn't a "way" you crypto-neckbeard. What you're calling "science" is a combination of evidence-based observation and peer review, which is a practice that's been performed through literal millenia under many umbrellas, few of which have ever been "science". The Greeks practiced evidence-based observation and peer review. Strictly speaking, the thing that differentiates modern scientific practice from Hellenistic and medieval "natural philosophy" is the integration of controlled experimentation and statistical analysis to judge whether observed outcomes that are the result of random variation or real phenomena. If you explained to Aristotle that he was wrong because he wasn't considering evidence to draw his conclusions, he would curse you to your face and call you a liar, because he does use evidence to draw his conclusions. If you explained to Aristotle that he was wrong because some aspects of the things he was talking about were random and he needed to prove they were correct using mathematical analysis, he might actually take you seriously.

God I hate this retarded science worship. There is nothing magical about science. The thing you think makes science "science" is literally just basic cognition and observation. It has nothing to do with what really differentiates modern research from historical methods. The fact that you call it "science" alone signals this. No one with experience calls what they do "science". At the most general they might call it "research". Science is a fucking magazine, not a field or a concept. A "Scientist" is a job, not an identity. Biology is a field. "Basic Sciences" might be broadly called a discipline.

>>11639469

Because they can draw a simple line between all the comforts and technological advances they enjoy in life nowadays and SCIENCE! nevermind the fact that a huge number of other factors were at work to make the world the way it is now.

Unfortunately when most anti-science sentiment you run into on the Internet turns out to be retarded hypocritical shitflinging it's easy to fall into the stance that scientists are the good guys, even though this isn't always so.

>>11639962
This level of absolutism is so fucking retarded and trivially false I can't believe you actually think like this. Anon what are nuclear weapons?

>>11639962
you have to be 18 to post here

'undeniable' is a weird word to describe science, of course it can be denied, plenty of people deny science, that doesn't mean it's right or wrong.
The word I think you're actually looking for is "irrefutable", which science isn't, science changes all the time as more research is done and any researcher would chub up at the possibility of overthrowing a popular theory.
after all, no scientist gets famous by confirming what we already know.
That does not mean that people who previously believed theories that have since been disproved are brainless retards, nor does that mean that all criticism against a popular belief is equal.
Looking something up on wikipedia and looking for Jewish names, for example, isn't a good reason to disregard it.

While I'd agree some internet atheists cling to "science" (which is a word so generic it can't be taken seriously outside of pop culture) in the same desperate way some religious morons cling to religion, that does not mean anything about "science".
You can't judge something by it's most zealous and moronic followers, "science" isn't a blind faith just because someone on reddit jacks off to a Neil Degrasse Tysone x Bill Nye fanfiction in the same way religion isn't unjustifiable superstition just because someone goes "nuh uh, god said so".

>>11639469
Some results are undeniable, but some results will be thrown away, just because of how science is constructed and founded.

e.g. if somebody come up with huge energy cycle over unity, it will be thrown away as perpetual motion device, even if it was based on laws of thermodynamics and not violating those.

Some research's deduction, in things like analysis of society or human mind, can shines many perspectives on science and shouldn't be treated as undeniable, because there are things as outliers as in every data. We would be unhuman to all different people if we didn't considered their existence. Not every body got time on getting brainscans, and people that won't get some are obviously different atleast in this one parameter.

Life's more difficult than remembering cake, and various genetic predictors, or outcomes of lived lifes can affect situation in many unpredictable ways. Especially for specific set of people.

>>11639469
One bad thing about science may be that we are presented deductions, not experiments and their results in most of it. However physics and chemistry is nice thing to have. Even biochem makes sense, but here begins some divergence across population...

You. in things, that's essentially psychology with brain, have experiments, that conclude themselves, without getting real scientific knowladge, and deductions made on them can seem universal while not being so.

>>11640817
>Science isn't a "way" you crypto-neckbeard. What you're calling "science" is a combination of evidence-based observation and peer review,
That sounds like a way to me. The rest of your post doesn't even reasons to anything I said. Take your meds, retard.

>>11639476
actually he is using symbolism to express something you are too stupid to understand. Smart people do that ... use symbolism, it is a filter to keep morons such as yourself from understanding what they are talking about

>>11640934
>Looking something up on wikipedia and looking for Jewish names, for example, isn't a good reason to disregard it.

No but it is a reason to triple check everything for accuracy and possible motive

>>11641225
If anything at all, I’ve gotten the impression that Jews are more accurate and have fewer ulterior motives than other groups. The fact that worthless non-people like /pol/ insects would disagree with that only strengthens that belief.

>>11641217
You are an exceptionally delusional and unintelligent person.

>>11641253
Take a nap JIDF you aren't fooling anyone

>>11641253
>>11641260
neck yourself inbred desert rats

>>11641262
>subhuman neo-nazi incel comes onto the science board shilling his incel nonsense and calling people JIDF
are you lost? This isn’t your incel hugbox with its Judaism obsession and its alternative facts. People with 70 IQs don’t belong on a science board.

>>11641266
Meanwhile back in reality, Jews marry outside their religion more than any other religion, and Jewish extremists are by far less-bad than extremists of the other two Abrahamic religions. What use are cherry-picked and probably false bible quotes if they don’t remotely describe real people?

>>11641279
>>11641267
>mfw you thought I would any response you made

>>11639469
Science is correct by definition. If "science is wrong about something", people are wrong about science.

>>11641262
Love how you come here pushing your (evil) political agenda and call other people shills. Really? Do you have a shred of self-awareness?

Engineer here, been in the field for 25 years everyone in the field knows to never trust a Jew it is standard practice

>>11639507
Why? Science isn't a religion, it's just how we learn and test things. You only think it's a religion because you don't know anything and have gotten hostile that people challenged your world view.

>>11641279
>and Jewish extremists are by far less-bad than extremists of the other two Abrahamic religions.
I dunno, they're all kinda shitty. That has more to do with the differences of their situation than anything; European history is full of Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorists bombed the King David Hotel. These days both groups use the power of the state to enforce their violence for the most part.

>>11641225
confirmation bias? what's that?

>>11639501
>muh buzzwords
just because you worship what some "experts" say on tv/social media/etc doesn't mean the rest of are part of your lazy intellectual cult. Humble your mind and start questioning everything.

>>11641393
is this projecting?

>>11641438
hello rabbi

>>11641765
You have been reported to the authorities for calling for the genocide of 7 billion people

>>11641260
>reeeeeeeee

>>11641330
>a jew talking about self awareness