/sci/ - Science & Math

But if you say that, they'd have to verify their own claims. And everyone (except the bootlicking left) knows that none of the claims were verified, even more the claims turned out to be false.

The implied statement is "trust the science, not randos". Some people are dummies and need to be reminded not to trust FB or 4chan posts.

>>15338964
Correct.

Yes. There is no trust in science.

>>15339235
>There is no trust in science.
Not after the last couple years. Science is dead now for at least a few decades.

>>15339118
the point is, numbskull, that you shouldn't 'trust' science because science is never 'settled' on anything and is subject to human error and limited understanding. science can't even explain definitively why a bicycle wheel is stable while spinning or why an airplane wing generates lift.

>>15338964
maybe you missed the joke?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQYTb9DwKjQ

>>15339544
>A's knowledge level is 1/20
>B's knowledge level is 10/20
I think it makes more sense to follow B even if neither reached perfect knowledge because B is at least closer to the truth but I'm sure you've got a good epistemological reason to think A and B are equally trustworthy

>>15339705
yeah

>>15338964
It implies that humans are competent and the scientific process isn't corrupt and misused.
People are deluded.

>>15339544
We live in a sea of misinformation. The best you can do is trust the most established facts.

A mask may not prevent the complete passage of a virus particle, but it's better than nothing.

A new vaccine may not end up giving immunity, but with this desperate situation we should try it.

The new vaccine may end up being harmful, but until this point it hasn't bee n a direct cause of death unlike the virus.

Of course all of these measures could have been omitted if everyone had just stayed home. For how long? For long enough, which if managed correctly, might have been 3 months at most.

>>15338964
you only believe that because you trusted the science rhetoric to being with. "the scientific method" is the big lie of science, nobody in the professional community adheres to it.

>>15339835
MGS2 MOMENT

>>15338964
"american" "scientists" "proving" most random shit were a meme in my country 18years ago

>>15339790
If you're taught to hate your family (parents are all "boomers") and taught to hate Christianity, who are you going to end up trusting?

>>15338964
It's a soientific statement. You should be following your own scientific process. Make predictions and verify outcomes. Pitfalls being inability to try things because of shit predictions, or even worse, conclusions with no basis in reality.

>>15340121
Science is not about hat, it never was. And science was never about trust, or we would never have proceeded beyond Newton, probably not even past Aristoteles. Science is about a process and that includes doubt.

>>15340259

>>15340271
Nye, is that you?

>>15339705
The problem isn’t just purely ‘this person has more knowledge therefore they should be trusted’. “Science” is prone to bias in many ways, especially when financial or political gain is involved. The scientist or researcher who does not produce the results that the people paying him want, will end up without a job. Movies and television push this image of the lone wolf genius scientist who is incorruptible and is always doing great ground breaking work, but the reality is most science is mundane and corporate. Saying Trust Science is equal to saying Trust Politics.

>>15339705
B can use their knowledge to more effectively harm you. Why do you assume B must have good intentions just because they have more knowledge? And how did you even identify who was A and who was B? There's been a lot of "He isn't aligned with the right people so his science is wrong" going on lately when evaluating who is A and who is B.

>>15339790
The FDA is about to approve a seventh dose. Can't believe how many times the football can be pulled away and people still fall for the same trick.

>>15339705
In reality, A's knowledge-level is a/n and B's knowledge-level is b/n, for unknowns a, b, and n. Besides, level of knowledge possessed has little influence on trustworthiness, propensity to cause harm is far more relevant. Team Trust The Science is the one that told me not to wear a respirator in public in February 2020, and Team Trust The Science is on the record publicly admitting they knew that this was bad advice which would put me at greater risk but my life didn't matter because respirators are only for doctors and I am not a doctor. Team Trust The Science has proven that they will lie (i.e., make claims that contradict their own knowledge-claims), to the benefit of their own priestly caste and at the detriment of their believers. That isn't trustworthy.

>>15340535
You have to keep in mind that liberals are, almost by definition, people who have never experienced hardship. Propensity for harm doesn't factor into their calculations because they've never been harmed. Oh, they may have stubbed a toe or even broken an arm, but they've either never been fucked over or they're too dim to perceive when they're getting fucked over, and either way they prefer the status quo to a status which would result in less harm to yours and mine.

>>15340538
Ohhhh really? Yayyz! Do we get a new sticker showing we have the 7th boostie so we can brag on social media and call all the unclean antivaxxers chuds and worse?
Do we get larger pods to live in if we get to 10 boosties?
Or extra rations of environmentally safe bug paste? Mmmmmm!

>>15340271
Science says being fat is preventable and unhealthy.

>>15341869
Wrong pic but fuck it

Yes and everyone who said "trust da science" should be euthanised.

>>15338964
Most people are absolutely hopelessly stupid. They have absolutely no fucking idea how to do even basic cursory experiments to test their own ideas. The idea behind 'trusting the science' is that if you're one such idiot, your best bet is to trust the people that at least try to make decent measurements.
You might say 'KEK LOL LMAO EVEN AS I'M I'M GONNA TRUST BASEDENCE' but if you look really deep down within yourself you know that the average alt-right retard making the infographs and youtube propaganda you consume is just as misleading as any other shit. If there is someone out there making measurements taking steps closer to truth it's scientists, and there's no other way.
>KWAB SCIENCE LIED THAT TIME WHEN...
whatever you type to finish this sentence is pointless because the only reason you know 'science lied' is because another scientist made better measurements disproving the initial ones. Science is literally the only way to test things. Not perfect, not even great necessarily, but still the best.
All the retards you love to follow (go on, call me a hylic) still turn to science when shit turns ugly. Can guarantee you Alex Jones had his children in a hospital.
You retards only sperg about pretending like there is any alternative to science but you know deep down it's just a childish fuss you're making.

You're pic related. You think you're not, but you are. You value your own dumb baboon primate intuition above measurements, and you're baffled that the world doesn't work like you 'feel' it should, and you go into denial. For morons like you the best option really is to trust the science, because your gut feeling is not a good compass. Scientists don't need to trust science because they are the ones making measurements and testing ideas.

>>15341892
they were

>>15338964
I prefer the more precise and accurate "trust science" (no 'the') or "trust the sciences" (plural). Also, don't just 'trust the science', the sciences and their products (the theories we get from them) are only functionally sufficient when used used descriptively, not prescriptively.
Anyone trying to use them prescriptively is performing the equivalent of washing your car by shooting the stains off with an M26 MASS loaded with breaching slugs.

>>15342479
>trust science
Then why does peer review exist?

>>15338964
American society issues fuck off. Fuck gaychan.

>>15342531
If you don't have these problems in your country, it's a wonder you even have access to the internet. It's hard to even imagine how remote the place you live in must be.

>>15342529
As long as scientists and reviewers can be/are being bribed and blackmailed, peer review should not be trusted to guarantee genuine scientific rigor.

>>15339835
>but it's better than nothing.
prove it
>but with this desperate situation we should try it.
prove it
>but until this point it hasn't bee n a direct cause of death unlike the virus.
prove it
>Of course all of these measures could have been omitted if everyone had just stayed home
prove it
>For how long? For long enough, which if managed correctly, might have been 3 months at most.
prove it

price of gold 1971 - $40.80/ounce
price of gold today - $2020/ounce
minimum wage 1971 - $1.60
minimum wage 1971 annualized in relative gold price - $165,000/yr presuming 40hrs/wk for 50 weeks

so how come most ppl earn way less than $165,000 now? progress, all caused by peer review
current minimum wage is $14,500/yr

>>15339835
>The best you can do is trust the most established facts.

>trust
If it is fact, then you don't have to trust, you literally know it is.
>>15339835
>A mask may not prevent the complete passage of a virus particle, but it's better than nothing.

Nice meme.
It is nothing but a meme, there is no science proving this.
Nor that the alleged particle, is the cause of disease in the first place. >>15339835
>The new vaccine may end up being harmful, but until this point it hasn't bee n a direct cause of death unlike the virus.
meme again.

>>15342560
Peer review process, was never scientifically verified to be of benefit.
Which is a kekistrophic paradox.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

"we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."

"There are several ways to abuse the process of peer review. You can steal ideas and present them as your own, or produce an unjustly harsh review to block or at least slow down the publication of the ideas of a competitor. These have all happened. Drummond Rennie tells the story of a paper he sent, when deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for review to Vijay Soman.9 Having produced a critical review of the paper, Soman copied some of the paragraphs and submitted it to another journal, the American Journal of Medicine."

"
Here is an example of two reviewers commenting on the same papers.
-Reviewer A: `I found this paper an extremely muddled paper with a large number of deficits'
-Reviewer B: `It is written in a clear style and would be understood by any reader'.
"

"peer review" and "conspiracy" are synonymous terms, since it's establishment.
Not only is it a tool for enabaling conspiracy, but also it allows shitty researchers, to shut down any research contrary to their opinion, just because of ego problems.
It's a "big boys club".

>>15339835
You don't need to 'trust' facts. Facts by definition assert themselves as true and are self-evident. Facts about a particular thing or concept will stay true long after the thing or concept in question or humanity is dead/ destroyed. They (the facts) don't just disappear into the ether.
Furthermore, attacking postmodernists in general: If you, as a scientist, peel back the layers of our reality but cannot describe what you see because descriptive language 'doesn't exist' or 'isn't sufficient' at that deep/granular a level, you are a sophist, not a scientist.

>>15342818
>If you, as a scientist, peel back the layers of our reality but cannot describe what you see because descriptive language 'doesn't exist' or 'isn't sufficient' at that deep/granular a level, you are a sophist, not a scientist.
It's only sophistry if you stop there. The alternative is to say "the language doesn't exist / isn't sufficient at present; ergo, the language itself must be further developed."

>>15342843
Most postmodernists don't even get to the unexplored level(s) of our reality before they run out of descriptive language.
>Verification not required

>>15342861
Currently-defined descriptive language is exhaustible at any arbitrary "level of our reality."

>>15342886
Explanation: >>15342861 was a joke made at the expense of postmodernists because they rename things and concepts that already have names (and have had them since their creation/discovery) with esoteric jargon that nobody but them uses, hence it appears that they run out of descriptive language before they get to the unexplored levels.

>>15342927
>they rename things and concepts that already have names (and have had them since their creation/discovery) with esoteric jargon that nobody but them uses
i.e., they pursue further development of the language they use.
>a joke made at the expense of postmodernists
No, Anon, that was an own-goal. You're the sophist in this conversation.

>>15340527
>t. retarded flyover hick who thinks he's an expert on science after watching a single Infowars documentary about vaccines

Science is about questioning your underlying assumptions (which are often rooted in outdated or ignorant worldviews derived from reactionary political ideologies, traditional value systems, and racism and xenophobia), not about categorically rejecting and ignoring widely accepted facts or scientific theories, just for the sake of being contrarian. This is what the conspiratard types fail to understand. Yes, science is about asking questions, but that doesn't mean we just indiscriminately "question everything". The point is to build up knowledge, not break it down. Most of the time, what most scientists are saying is the truth. Some of the time, some of them get things wrong, but when that happens it's usually other scientists who correct them, not just random unskilled, uneducated, and uniformed right wing conspiracy theorists lurking on the internet.

>>15343012
>Most of the time, what most scientists are saying is the truth. Some of the time, some of them get things wrong
And when the authorities are saying "The Science says you don't need a mask and you're a terrorist for wearing one in public, go watch a movie and hug a Chinese immigrant you xenophobic bigot, trust the science!" but what The Science actually says is "masks will help which is why we have to save them all for medical personnel, lie to the rubes and encourage them to put themselves at risk," the credibility of people who say "Trust the Science!" suffers as a result.

If you actually cared about science, you would be outraged as well. If you only care about supporting the status quo, you'll instead deflect and try to make the issue about "science vs. anti-science" rather than policy.

>>15343012
>Science is about questioning your underlying assumptions
>*wall of underlying assumptions about why some stranger doesnt align with your politics*
nice boomer facebook meme tho

>>15343545
shit so old, it predates cockmongler, might be older than 4chan & fb too. coprolite

>>15342966
NTA, hut please remember that pretending to be retarded (which is what you're doing right now) on this website will only make other anons think you are actually retarded.

>>15344052
Oh no, Anonymous thinks that Anonymous is retarded. Whatever shall Anonymous do?

>>15340538
I get a flu shot every year you fucking moron. How is this different?

>>15338964

Replace the word "Science" with "Materialism" and then it becomes an accurate picture. I prefer using science, but almost no one in the world practices it anymore. It's entirely materialism.

It's so embedded that even the statement "Trust the Science" treats science as if it's a happy magical object that always has the right answers and not a philosophical concept with flaws that requires immense effort to pursue, is used to search the truth, and by nature is supposed to make you a complete outcast because apparently humans hate people that don't agree with them.

So yes, it's a fucking retarded statement, we have way too many materialists pretending to be scientists, and we have not nearly enough scientists.

>>15344170
your use of profanity and insulting language tips off your agitated emotional state
https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/dont-believe-everything-you-read-about-flu-deaths_b_4661442

>>15344170

I'm willing to bet you don't even know the types of influenza vaccines available and that you don't know that many of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are the first of it's type to be approved for use in all of history and skipped many clinical trials.

No matter, the issue is less to do with the vaccine itself, it's more to do with SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins.

Prognoses will be significantly worse with the vaccine. If it were to work perfectly in theoretical conditions, it would be malpractice. The spike proteins are immunosuppressive, vaccine or not, and it is therefore pertinent to reduce exposure.

>Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/

>General Post-Vaccination Protocols
https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/

It should be possible to significantly reduce exposure by using N-Acetyl cystine and Bromelain. It is a cost-effective preventative for SARS-CoV-2 infections as well as viral or vaccine induced immunosuppression. Review this with a physician to check for any preexisting conditions or interactions with current medication.

>The Combination of Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (BromAc) Synergistically Inactivates SARS-CoV-2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33800932/


This phenomenon appears to correlate with the sudden and troubling increased rates of acute, life-threatening fungal infections as well.

For anyone that is aware how SARS-CoV-2 infects a patient, I think you can guess the problem that results with using antibiotics and steroids.

>>15338964
Most people do not have the time, the expertise, not to mention the intelligence to understand esoteric papers written in highly specialized fields.
You have to trust institutions. There is no other recourse.

>>15344287
>There is no other recourse.
sure there is, you can always distrust institutions and follow your own instincts, thats even more efficient than paying heed to power hungry pompous blowhards with thinly disguised ulterior motives.

>>15344287

>Most people do not have the time, the expertise, not to mention the intelligence to understand esoteric papers written in highly specialized fields.

Normally this would be fine and has been in the past, however regarding the scientific community, you have to ask yourself what happens when they are not working towards your benefit, especially since the institutions themselves have proven to be corrupt.

The institutions have not been truthful or reliable, so as unfortunate as it is, you cannot afford to rely on them anymore. Finding any information at all requires massive effort.

They're so absurdly bad that relying on the institutions as they are currently poses a far greater risk than not.

>>15344229
Good God what is that thing in picrel?

>>15339835
>still in denial
ngmi

>>15338964
yes its impossible to know the earth is round without doing the experiment yourself

>>15338964
No, chud.

>>15344845
LMAO! wonder how many idiots spend their goy money on that.

>>15344170
Imagine getting a yearly dose of aluminium and spermicides injected into your bodily fluids because of the fear, getting sick.
When there is not even a slight evidence that this shit protects from the flu.

>>15344287
>esoteric papers written in highly specialized fields.

You mean method obfuscation.
And a "the big short" like bundeling of studies so that is inpossible to verify validity.

>meta analysis based on over 50 studies
>of which 40 are not studies but also meta analysis or just science maganzine press releases which briefly mention a study related to the topic or non related studies which tangentially touch the subject of the meta anylisis
>and the other 10 are either surveys or based on n<20 study subjects
>never show homogenicity of studies
>conceal heterogenicity of studies

Meta studies are the Mortgage-backed security of science.

>>15344287
same with most religious texts lol

>>15344845
>"science is like magic but real"
That is the most consumerist, popsci, MCU-tier description of science I have ever heard.
And use the plural, cuckold shirt-printer, there are more than one.
The sciences are not 'magic' or 'sorcery' or any other bullshit like that, They are rigorous systems of analysis of reality, in which the universe is asked questions through repeated experimentation and the answers it gives are compiled into findings/experiment reports by (fallible and easy exploitable) humans.
If someone doesn't understand the findings reports, they can theoretically ask the universe themselves by recreating the experiment with the steps listed in the experiment report, and if the received answer is different from the report's (and stays different after repeated new experimentation) then that usually means humans who compiled the reports fucked up (whether accidentally or purposefully). This displays verifiability and falsifiability, the twin roots of scientific rigor.

>>15344251
The fact that they didn't do rigorous testing because they skipped trials they should have participated in for a quick buck pisses me off to no end.

>>15338964
Are you stupid? You obviously can't verify everything on your own.

>>15345373
so just trust everything you hear?

>>15345401
Are you incapable of reading?

>>15345406
so verify everything then?

>>15345422
Worthless, irredeemable trash.

>>15345436
thanks!

>>15345436
>act like a holier than thou faggot
>resort to ad hom when called out

>>15345373
>science-truster
>believes the verification fairy-tale

>>15345436
NTA
Lololol, adhoms and faulty logic.
If you were speaking, you'd be stuttering.

>>15345406
Ok, here's what you do: When you next take a shit, before flushing analyze the fecal matter through a Marxist or Gramscian lens (your choice).
Then write a paper detailing your analysis and link it here so we can laugh at you for wasting your life jumping through hoops to make unfitting political commentary about a piece of shit.

>>15345373
>You obviously can't verify everything on your own.

Not required.
Just fund the replication experiments.
If multiple independent researchers repeat the experiments.
And given that the methods of that experiment is controlled for variables such as Influence of the experiment procedure, that it is considered evidence. Not proof. But at least this is attempting to find a approximation to the truth.

But the current state is:
>postulate a gold standard
>use this """gold standard""" as method for experiment
>never validate the method
>if no method is considered gold standard
>use various statistical models until one fits your hypothesis irregardles if it fits the use case of the phenomenon you research.

If you romanticize science sure. But in reality you always just trusted what was in the textbook. Science was never so cool that it actually accepted challenges to itself.

>>15339835
everyone staying at home might have worked but it would have likely kept coming back from wildlife, and we can't tell nature to stay at home.

>>15338964
I think a better version is "Know the science".
You don't absolutely have to trust it, but you should at least take the time to understand it. Oh right, you're a genius, you already understand it.

>>15339456
Scientists and researchers developed the very device you're using to post your retarded bullshit, using abstract models of poorly-understood physical phenomena, that they (and by extension, you) implicitly trust will work.

Just be honest -- whether you trust science is based on whether the results suit you or not. Not the actual strength of the science

>>15345585
>>15345579
>>15345539
>>15345459
What causes this severe and psychotic reaction by schizophrenics when they are confronted with the successes of science?

>>15346176
Why do defenders of science-as-faith have such a marked preference for ableist insults?

It's just meaningless rhetoric regurgitated by normalfags. Nothing unique. I dont take any of this shit seriously when I know a person saying it couldn't digest a research paper for their fucking lives, but at the same time that can also be attributed to the necessary evil of the format more than anything else.

>>15346176
>What causes this severe and psychotic reaction by schizophrenics when they are confronted with the successes of science?

Curtis Yarvin has an insightful way of viewing how slogans like “trust the science” are so popular nowdays. Essentially, in order for the public to acquiesce to being governed there has to be some legitimacy-attributing structure to justify its existence. For the majority of human civilization that has been religion. Importantly though, power cannot consume whatever institution solidifies it, it has to stay at least ostensibly separate for the illusion to remain. For example, the late Roman Empire and the senate, the Medieval Europe and the Pope, clanleaders and the Druid, etc. However, today’s legitimizing function is science and classical liberal philosophy. He’s much more eloquent and insightful himself: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral

>>15346176
>Protons exist, therefore breathing asbestos is good for you.
Think for a second before posting.

>>15346369
Why can't competence be a
>legitimacy-attributing structure
Meaning transparant decision-making with demonstrable results that are undeniably beneficial for a majority. Imagine many decades of food, gas and housing becoming more affordable. Wouldn't that make people be like ''govern me more daddy''?

>>15346494
>Breathing asbestos turned out to be bad for you, so protons don't exist.
Doesn't sound much better but that's what you ascribe to

>>15346494
Who confirmed that breathing asbestos was bad for you?

>>15346784
Who claimed it was safe?

>>15346784
asbestos is only unhealthy in jurisdictions where amoral tribal attorneys decide what is and isn't unhealthy based on how much money they can extort.

>>15341910
You are making a false analogy. Faggot.

>>15346176
tl;dr: Sciences good, Marxism and Gramscianism bad. Very simple logic.
The sciences are both anti-Marxist and anti-Gramscian, and both Marxism and Gramscianism are anti-science.
Marxism requires postmodernism as a foundation, which in turn is founded on the principle that the most granular layers of our reality cannot be explained with rational definitions, which cannot be verified or falsified.
Gramscianism and its offshoots (Frankfurt School Marxism and Critical Theory) deal primarily with subversion of society, which is a social construct and therefore downstream from reality, and the sciences deal exclusively with describing reality.

>>15347134
Speaking of asbestos: How good of a silicon ore is chrysotile asbestos? It has a decent amount of magnesium in it too, but we can get that from seawater instead so it's not relevant for this question.

>>15346801
It's almost as if scientists aren't all one person?

>>15348294
It's the science Monolith.

>>15338964
Yes.

>>15346612
>undeniably beneficial for a majority
This is what requires the external source of legitimacy. Being "undeniably beneficial" can't be asserted from within the power structure itself. It's not dissimilar to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, or the Halting Problem.

>>15339118
4chan clearly got 100% right on this

>another schizo science denier on sci

Can't you people just post this shit on pol or x? Nobody here is interested in your retarded conspiracy theories.

>>15351056
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLyzVPaO4pY

>>15350816
Then people can murder politicians and rewrite the law. Who can judge that as good or evil? From the perspective of the people that's good. Or are you secretly hinting that we should base society on christianity again?

>>15351056
judging by the replies quite a lot of people care, actually. how angry does that make you?

>>15338964
Science as an institution has completely eroded the public's trust by lying constantly. Studies are poorly designed, selectively ignored or chosen, or misrepresented/misinterpreted to push a certain agenda, usually one that benefits the people funding the study. The idea of science as a transcendent truth-finding methodology is a farce, at least within the framework of our modern society, where capitalist profits reign supreme. Look no further than the constantly shifting narratives on masks and vaccines during COVID, and the attempt to keep the vaccine research hidden from the public for literal decades.

Also note: many studies are behind paywalls or restricted to people with university access. You can't keep information from the populace and then shame them for not having it. That's absurd.

>>15351056
Your pic goes perfectly with your butthurt post

>>15351259
>Also note: many studies are behind paywalls or restricted to people with university access. You can't keep information from the populace and then shame them for not having it. That's absurd.
They'll say: the public doesn't understand data and antivaxers misinterpret them constantly. of course we must keep information from the public.

>>15346159
Right, so I don't need to trust it, because we can verifying that it works.
People who say "trust the science" are asking you to have blind faith in claims that people make without demonstrating that they're true, and they do this becauee what they're claiming isn't actually true.

>>15351295
>>15351259
>many studies are behind paywalls or restricted to people with university access. You can't keep information from the populace and then shame them for not having it. That's absurd.


Also for medical and other "life" """sciences""" is cruel animal torture, which has nothing to do with the subject.
Most of the time, they want to prove that X is bad, and if it does not harm the test animal in the least, they inject the shit in their brains and bellies.
Force feed them with gauges until they get lesions.
And then of course they die. and they go "See, now the experiment fits our hypothesis".

Or if no clinical symptom is visible within 10 days, they straight up kill the animals, and play "read coffee grounds" with macerated tissue samples, they additionally "enhance" with copious amounts of tissue destroying chemicals, and then claim "see we have now abnormal findings, and the experiment fits our hypothesis"

>>15351312
this tbph

>>15351295
>They'll say: the public doesn't understand data and antivaxers misinterpret them constantly. of course we must keep information from the public.
Leftists are evil. Always have been. Science has proven there is only one cure for them.

>>15338964
yeah, I'm pro-covid vaccine in general (I don't think any good will come from arguing this point in the thread) but the scientific community needs to put more work into making information open-access and, more importantly, easily accessible to the public instead of saying shit like "trust the science". >>15351295
This attitude is what I hate the most, allowing people to make interpretations by themselves should be the goal here. much better to allow people to have "misconceptions" than to disallow peoples' having conceptions entirely.

>>15352713
>This attitude is what I hate the most, allowing people to make interpretations by themselves should be the goal here. much better to allow people to have "misconceptions" than to disallow peoples' having conceptions entirely.
You are correct.
But government doesn't want a populace of free-thinkers. They want obedient slaves, same as the military and police want. People who follow the orders of the "elite" in the government.

>>15352713
well there is some information asymmetry at play here too. People don't all understand the implications of this virus.

>>15352725
>People don't all understand the implications of this virus.
That's for sure. It was created and released for several purposes.

>>15352677
>Leftists are evil. Always have been. Science has proven there is only one cure for them.
he's right, you know

Friendly reminder that a morbidly-obese /pol/cel’s Twitter "research" will never be as reliable as a consensus of thousands of experts working for different governments and companies yet all came to the same conclusion using the scientific method.

>>15352909
kek! Great inspiration for more caricatures!

>>15352919
>Muh peer reviewed big pharma studies!
A.I. is already going downhill with their propaganda.

>>15352919
The problem is that when you marxist dumbasses subvert an institution, the amount of time it takes for people to stop trusting that institution is approaching zero more quickly with each passing day, rendering the entire effort worthless.

>>15352909
holy fuck antifa really are the rejects of the rejects of the dregs of society.

>>15352926
not even exaggerating but the bottom half look like legitimate methheads

>>15352933
always have been, friend