/sci/ - Science & Math

yeah science is for pussies!

>>8619078

why should they be more "open" minded, they just plug and chug

Also, can you recommend some scientific journals that are OBJECTIVE and have minimum politics, unlike the shitty "Scientific" American.

>>8619078
You honestly think Donald "Grab her by the pussy" Trump deserves respect?

>>8619097

Fuck you, fuck you Retardicans, fuck Trump, and fuck your family. Science is under attack by the forces of conservativism and Christianity, which should be legal and whose adherents should be discriminated and gutted.

I praise all science groups that will not stay quiet, you panty-wearing crossdressing motherfucking cocksucking Repiglicker

>>8619078
>popsci = scientific community

>>8619104
>which should be legal
ya tried

>>8619103
>>8619104
You also imply that science cannot coexist with religion? GTFO

>>8619097
Any reputable computer science journal/conference

>>8619078
There's science and there's scientism. Scientism is a branch of utopian liberalism, which means it's fundamentally opposed to realistic thinking and honesty, allied with other branches such as feminism and communism, and it uses tactics of infiltration and abuse of position.

The soft sciences like sociology and psychology have been taken over almost completely, while politically-relevant hard sciences with hard-to-verify results like climatology are seriously compromised.

>>8619119
Basically this
The people writing those articles certainly aren't scientists, they are english and journo majors that just spent 4 years being brainwashed by the hyper leftist machine that is liberal arts

>>8619078
The problem is, as usual, you have to divide into two groups to have a chance of getting anyone elected. Most scientists, being of relatively sound mind, realized that the modern """conservative""" republican party is anti-scientific if anything, religious to the point of insanity, and all around more interested in how to squeeze a few more pennies between their ass cheeks than in the pursuit of truth and knowledge. The generic "liberal" claims to be interested in science and learning, but in reality they are only superficially so inclined; they support science only if it confirms their existing viewpoints. That's arguably better than outright denial of what is effectively factual information on evolution and climate change, though.

>>8619078
This is one of the leaders of the march Ms. Strassman is joining.

Is it scientifically accurate?

>>8619135
Here's another of the organizers.

Is Sharia the truest form of science?

>>8619104
>.t neet who doesn't even have a degree in STEM

>>8619078
>n-no people smarter than me don't represent my ideas

>>8619078
Gee has nothing to do with the fact that Drumpf is a climate denying vaxxer and will accept any conspiracy theory convenient for him.

Also /pol/

>>8619147
I actually went to Scientific American to comment directly on the article only to find that Scientific American disabled their comment system four years ago and accompanied the announcement with this cartoon.

>>8619078
>wtf I hate science now!

>>8619078
I don't have any idea what you're trying to pin on the scientific community, but you don't sound stable.

>>8619153
And?

>>8619153
All these liberal sites make it harder & harder to post, or just disable it altogether

>>8619160
And apparently their own publication is just a large, overly legitimized form of shitposting?

>>8619078
I wonder why a scientist would be opposed to the guy that wants to fuck up the climate even more than it already is.

But don't worry, his excuse is that it will generate 15 billion dollars for the working class. That's about the same price he'll waste on his autistic wall while seriously expecting Mexico to pay for it.

>>8619153
scientific debate and thought is getting harder and harder as the pop-science eliet act more and more like the clergy

>>8619165
>I wonder why a scientist would be opposed to the guy that wants to fuck up the climate even more than it already is
In her article she actually specifies that she's against Trump due to "his flagrant disrespect and discrimination against women, religious minorities, the disabled, the LGBT community and people of color"

>>8619162
And?

>>8619167
And?

>>8619171
that doesn't sound very scientific

>>8619097
Holy fucking shit, I didn't want to believe that you guys were this retarded. Scientific American isn't a science journal.

>>8619175
you seem noticeably upset. are you a popsci tard perchance?

>>8619180
>Scientific American isn't a science journal.
yea we said that

>>8619180
It used to be good, though. I remember when it was good.

It was a nice middle-ground between accessibility and detail. They didn't print papers, but they wrote good technical articles about new scientific results, interesting research underway, and emerging technology.

As they got political, their standards slipped.

>>8619134
>"""conservative""" republican party
but the """conservative""" republican party doesn't make taboo research topics like the "liberal" democratic party, though.

in fact, a lot of science research is supported through air force, army, navy, and department of defense which are all republican leaning.

>>8619107
lol wat.

Religion is just something to make weak minded people feel better about death. Totally unrelated

>>8619216
that's not the definition of religion. don't skip your classes you dumb techie

>>8619209
What about research into gun-related deaths/injury?

>>8619209
Liberal "taboo" research topic is mostly about implying that blacks are genetically dumber, yet there is still plenty of research on that and at most you get ostracized if you actually come out and say that blacks are dumb. Then liberals respect ethics but so do conservatives except their ethics are even more strict.

Conservatives on the other hand hate a lot of medical science for fear of god, and are evolution denialists in big part. And denying evolution is pretty much denying modern biology. Cutting the core while liberals cut some branches.

And no military isn't doing any big science, it's tons of engineering applications and no basic sciences at all. Barely any science research is supported by the army and then it doesn't mean a lot since military budget of USA stays always high even during democrats and if anything they will just cut on the numbers. They surely do like the idea of drones and doing shit without wasting manpower.

>>8619138
I've worked with Islamic finance. Interest is replaced with rent but is close to being the same thing.

>>8619172
Mate your gay.

>>8619078

Hi, I'm doing a PhD on human machine interfacing (basically I'm "making anime real" as you say on /pol/).

Currently I'm more interested in doing post docs etc in china once my PhD is done, especially after you clowns voted in a reality star as a president. I'm not gonna risk spending years on research in USA, it's just too volatile and unpredictable.

but don't worry, he'll make a wall!

China might be incredibly shitty in its own right, but at least there's a measure of stability and ability to think more than 2 years forward in time.

>>8619209
>the """conservative""" republican party doesn't make taboo research topics
-anything using embryonic human stem cells
-causes and management of gun violence
-climatology
-natural disaster monitoring

>a lot of science research is supported through air force, army, navy, and department of defense which are all republican leaning
military agencies are officially nonpartisan, and it's a stretch to say they align themselves with the GOP. remember, the Republicans are the ones who keep throwing money at the Pentagon for projects of dubious quality that the military doesn't want and doesn't need.
are military commanders as a group more conservative than the average American? probably, yeah. are they representative at all of attitudes in the GOP? no.

>>8619153
I guess that's why /pol/ came here to shitpost instead

>>8619165
>I wonder why a scientist would be opposed to the guy that wants to fuck up the climate even more than it already is
And you read it where? On Scientific American? Or on HuffPo? See, this is the reason why this thing needs to be stopped. There is no free discussion of this topic nowadays, mostly because everything that is said that is opposing to the scientific consensus is deemed as "unscientific," which is exactly opposite of what science is supposed to be: a variety of opinions, all of which are being considered and evaluated equally.

http://ijr.com/2014/11/202982-2-princetons-galileo-atomic-physicist-defies-climate-change-consensus-blasts-propaganda/

>>8619160
>>8619172
>>8619175
>>8619216
Okay. Now get back to your study.

>>8619282
I'm sure that an atomic physicist knows more about the climate than climatologists

>>8619078
Science is a logic dominated field, moralfags need to be banned form STEM.

You mistake the pop-sci community with the scientific community.
Watching videos on youtube is not the same thing as studying a particular field.
From the few talks I had with my univ teachers, most of them seemed quiet conservative.

>>8619282
>complains about HuffPo
>posts article from IJR

article:
>le 1998 start point
>Happer
Happer literally writes stuff defending CO2 in exchange for secret petroleum money.
>In December 2015 Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Concerned that the report might not be trusted if it was known that it was commissioned by an oil company, Happer discussed ways to obscure the funding. Happer asked that the fee be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, who suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust, in order to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.

>science is supposed to be: a variety of opinions, all of which are being considered and evaluated equally
no, science is supposed to be: a confluence of ideas, in which the ideas SUPPORTED by the evidence are retained and those REJECTED by the evidence are discarded. you're giving me the same old "teach the controversy" claptrap, acting as though all ideas have equal merit. you want a participation trophy for your batshit conjecture? go somewhere else.

>>8619282
"Water vapor is the main cause of global warming". Water vapor also has an extremely short residence time so changes in water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are feedbacks not forcings.

>>8619302
It's kinda ironic that people whine so much about climate science being government funded and pointing out that it's a sign of corruption cause big bad government wants to sell us to the Chinese and kill our business, yet fucking denialists get caught red handed.

>>8619302
Nice. And now let's take a look at a primary source.

>TheBestSchools
>We understand that you were recently the object of a purported “sting” operation organized by Greenpeace. Defamatory claims about you growing out of this incident are rife on the Internet, even including in your Wikipedia article. Would you care to share with us briefly your side of the story?

>William Happer
>Greenpeace is one of the many organizations that have made a very good living from alarmism over the supposed threat of global warming. They are unable to defend the extremely weak science. So, they demonize not only the supposed “pollutant,” atmospheric CO2, but also any scientists who seem to be effectively refuting their propaganda.

>The smear campaign began in 2015 when I received an email from a Greenpeace operative posing as an agent for a Middle Eastern “client,” who wanted me to write something about the benefits of CO2. As we will discuss below, I have long been persuaded that more CO2 will benefit the world, mainly because it makes plants grow more efficiently and increases their resistance to drought, and because the warming from more CO2, predicted by establishment models, has been exaggerated by a factor of three or more.

>For years, I have used every avenue possible to spread the good news about the benefits of CO2, so I was quite willing to write an op-ed or essay on this topic for the client. As far as I was concerned, I was using the client, not vice versa. I would urge any reader interested in this episode to read the complete email exchange between me and the Greenpeace operative. It can readily be found on the internet.

>>8619078
Holy fucking shit. When will you /pol/tards stop leaking into other boards already and fuck off back into your containment boards? We don't give a shit about Trump or any of your fucking ideas, and you have proven that you are worst than the people you despise, Liberals. You come onto other boards and bring your bullshit with you and you will do anything to push your own ideologies if it means taking away from others.

>>8619302
>>8619338
>Here you see that I was willing to write something gratis, as a “labor of love,” as long as I could get my message (not the “client’s” message) to more people. The CO2 Coalition that I mentioned is a new tax-exempt educational organization that some friends and I have formed to help get out the good news about the benefits of CO2. I suppose you might call it a “CO2 Anti-Defamation League.” The Coalition leads a hand-to-mouth existence, with an annual operating budget of under $200,000 per year. Even a few thousand dollars from the “client” would help keep the lights on. The last I checked, Greenpeace has an annual operating budget of about $350,000,000, more than 1,000 times larger than the CO2 Coalition’s.

>I have never taken a dime for any of my activities to educate the public that more CO2 will benefit the world. I even make contributions of several thousands of dollars a year from my modest university pension income. If any readers of this interview would like to help the CO2 Coalition, they can find more information about how to donate at the CO2 Coalition’s website.

>The result of the Greenpeace smear included many hostile, obscene phone calls and emails with threats to me, my family, even my grandchildren. George Orwell wrote about these tactics in his novel, 1984, when he described the daily, obligatory “Two Minutes of Hate” for Emmanuel Goldstein (Leon Trotsky) and his agents, who were the enemies of Big Brother (Stalin) and his thugs.

>Greenpeace and other even more fanatical elements of the global-warming movement fully embrace the ancient lie that their ideological end — elimination of fossil fuel — justifies any means, including falsification of scientific data and character assassination of their opponents.

>http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

>>8619338

>>8619340
Lets not forget that /pol/ ran the Pepe meme into the ground and got it classified as a "hate" symbol. /pol/ gained more traffic than /b/ and because of that, it ruined 4chan and the majority of boards on here.

Leave this place and do not return.

>>8619220
I don't believe I ever claimed that

>>8619338
>>8619341
>Happer says he's innocent and that the people who caught him are just out to get him because they hate America or something
well, if he SAYS he's innocent, who am I to doubt him? surely he wouldn't lie about being caught doing what they accused him of doing, right?

you DO know that he was literally caught advising his "client" on how to obscure the source of the money they were paying, right? if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide...
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

>>8619398
So you do prefer a secondary source to a primary source? Looks like you don't even know the foundation of an argument. I can say that I love cats, but the outlet that will be writing an article covering me can claim that I love dogs even without proofs and its readers will accept that as granted.

>>8619398
And of course, you're linking a completely unbiased article from le "The Guardian"

>>8619406
by your logic, OJ is clearly innocent.
after all, he says he's innocent in this PRIMARY SOURCE
>http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/suspect/note/index.html
and it's only in SECONDARY SOURCES that they say he was found responsible for the murders
>https://web.archive.org/web/20081009230444/http://www.nbc5.com/news/15364921/detail.html

your argument is literally that we should believe an accused man who says it's all a big frame-up, and not pay attention to all the evidence arrayed against him.
now I know why you Trump supporters believe him when he says he never mocked a guy with arthrogryposis or ripped off his workers or groped an unwilling woman. you are so gullible, so credulous, that you are incapable of conceiving that some people might lie to make themselves look less guilty.

>>8619449

>Even though I understood his argument I'm going to endlessly argue about semantics

>>8619104
>science
>under attack by Christians
Really Ahmed?

>>8619452
>you have to believe a guy who swears he's innocent
>no matter what
>otherwise you're making a bad argument
keep trying, maybe you'll convince someone that it was all a big misunderstanding and he never meant to do anything wrong.

>>8619460

I'm not the guy you're responding to, I'm just calling you out for arguing in bad faith

>>8619216
Usually it' the unintelligent that maintain the idea of the personal god it's religion preaches, but the benefit religion brings to society is order; it maintains values that keep progressivism and degeneracy from becoming rampant. You should know by now that the aforementioned degenerate and progressive values are the sort that can be seen in today's deteriorating societies of the west

>>8619533
And they are not only seen in them, but they are contributing to the deterioration of those societies.

>>8619078
>Scientists are supposed to be one of the most open-minded people in the world,
If they truly are supposed to then they've always been complete failures.

>>8619449
>now I know why you Trump supporters believe him when he says he never mocked a guy with arthrogryposis
No, you do not. It only proves one more time that you are incapable of understanding all the sides of a particular situation, and modeling a valid argument.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aYFC_7ZIn4

>>8619460
What you say is called "circulus in probando," and this is the exact thing I am talking about. If neither of the sides can put up a valid proof that he is innocent/guilty, then no side is able to state either of those arguments. And that is exactly why presumption of innocence was created. Everybody can accuse anyone in anything all the time. That does not mean that they really did that.

>>8619775
>If neither of the sides can put up a valid proof that he is innocent/guilty
It's worth noting that nothing he was accused of is illegal, merely immoral. Note also that he doesn't dispute his documented actions and statements, but rather claims that he had noble intentions. His entire defense is his claims about his motivation which conveniently cannot be conclusively proven or disproven. All he has the tactic of "here's what I was thinking at the time, you have to believe me".

>>8619762
>modeling a valid argument
you keep banging away about how you don't like my argument. all you've produced thus far is the ludicrous claim that we must accept all claims made by someone about himself in an interview, to the extent of discounting all information that doesn't come directly from the man himself (hardly a disinterested party). I'm not sure where you learned to argue, but they did you a disservice by instilling this sort of formulaic thoughtlessness in you.

it may be of interest to you that Trump claimed he couldn't be mocking Kovaleski's appearance because he'd never met him...and then it turned out he was lying about that too, as demonstrated by multiple independent accounts. if Trump lied about whether or not he'd met the guy, why are you unhesitatingly believing him about whether or not he was mocking him?
this is the sort of mindset that makes useful idiots of people; a willingness to believe WITHOUT QUESTION anything that agrees with one's preconceived opinions.

>>8619078
>You honestly think Donald "Grab her by the pussy" Trump deserves respect?
No no you misunderstood. Agreeing with Leftists is open-minded, disagreeing literally makes you a fascist.

>>8619866
>this is the sort of mindset that makes useful idiots of people; a willingness to believe WITHOUT QUESTION anything that agrees with one's preconceived opinions.
But you missed the point of the video.
He never mocked him. Period.
He may lied about never meeting him (again, I am not sure about it even with your "independent" sources) but that is completely irrelevant.

>>8619135
>it's a "my retarded identity politics is more important than whatever the fuck you guys are rioting over" episode

It's OWS all over again

>>8619897
>He never mocked him. Period.
if you keep saying so, maybe it'll be true.
Trump does a spot-on impression of the guy's disability (with the phrase "you gotta SEE this guy") while mocking his statements. But he swears he wasn't making fun of his disability! You HAVE to believe him, right?
And why is it relevant that he lied about having met the guy? Because showing that he lied about one part of the story casts doubt on all his other statements. This is pretty simple to understand; have you never heard of cross-examination?

p.s. independent doesn't mean "neutral" in this context, it just means that the different accounts are literally from different people.

>>8619104
libcucks are still this assmad?

>>8619937
dumb frogposter

>>8619078

I know, I know, baby. Being Anti-Intellectual and a Hate Mongerer is something you should be proud of!

Don't let those mean scientists and liberals tell you otherwise!

They are so close minded!

>>8619302
>Happer literally writes stuff defending CO2 in exchange for secret petroleum money.
So?

I don't know who I dislike more: /pol/, Trump, and all the retarded ideas associated with them, or SJW's, the corporate media, and identity politics.

You're all fucking retarded and I'm moving to Iceland.

>>8619961
you can hate both, why bother quantifying it with your impotent rage?

>>8619078
We like to pretend that the sciences haven't fallen victim to the same kinds of social justice peer pressure culture you see in the liberal arts and other disciplines... but it's there.

Scientists aren't predominantly liberals (based on my experience, I'd say most fall in the center)... but the liberal voices in academia are frequently the only ones that can be this vocal and unabashed without fear of repercussion.

>>8619078
Open minds are for hippies.
We are the heretics.

>>8619104
>you panty-wearing crossdressing motherfucking cocksucking Repiglicker

It's funny, because you can pretty much sum up liberals with this one statement.

>tfw people think I'm weird because I don't talk about politics with other people
>don't even have any extreme views (at least to like 80-90% of people)

politics should have nothing to do with science

i don't get why half the things that are "political issues" are even that

>>8620039
Because you can get in to politics without knowing anything.

>Here we have a strong male personality who doesn't back down from anything, believes in what he stands for and his interests seem to lie with in the Americans first mentality and has no political experience. Has been bankrupt x amount of times, has been accused of having ties with the Russians and is a multi-billionaire.

>And here we have a more lenient Female candidate, who is the wife of an ex-president, a lot of political experience and power. In contrast to the male candidate she represents the acceptance and tolerance of anyone on American soil. Is endorsed by majority of politicians and her past indicates of manipulation and lies.

Well, Tommy, which one will you pick?

>>8620070
When you hear retard liberals claim demonstrably & obviously false things like Trump being bankrupt several times

You just ignore everything they say

>>8619953
>Somefag literally writes stuff attacking the petroleum industry in exchange for secret environmentalist money.
imagine how outraged you'd be if that were the case.
corruption is corruption. don't try to brush it off.

>>8620075
> pot calling the kettle black
I keep trying to get behind Trump.
Some of his policies seem alright.
Then he talks, and he's gotta be one of the biggest blowharding retards in the nation.
And that's saying something.

It takes a special kind of stupid to say the things he does.

>>actually supporting an anti-vaxxer
>>hanging out on a science forum
think you're lost >>>/pol/

>>8620075
This is why I don't care about politics. Too many people spreading misinformation, and then the new people spread that misinformation further, while thinking it's true.

Trump himself stated on national TV that he's been bankrupt multiple times.

The libs are guilty of this, the Republicans are guilty of this, it's literally a game of who can push more believable bullshit around. Which is why STEM is the only safe haven for me. Nothing but cold hard facts, no opinions.

>>8619078
>How comes that they all became a bunch of pussies with "muh opinion matters, your does not"?

You sound like a fucking child. Apologies to children.

>Did Trump presidency just revealed stagnation and a literal sickness on the last stage?

Your messiah has many revelations, they never end.

>Scientists are supposed to be one of the most open-minded people in the world, but the fact that the behave themselves like pussies makes me hate science so much.

You don't know scientists. They don't give a fuck about you. Some things aren't real. Some things aren't true.

"Open-minded" is for people who don't know how to evaluate claims about reality. You believe in literally anything anyone says because you don't know how to think.

>>8620039
It does have one thing to do with science.
It has to embrace it.

>>8620093
He had a couple companies, all from Atlantic City go into chapter 11
Thats IT

>>8619132
It's also composed of right wing retards. Basically all politically convenient pseudoscience (e.g. race, economics, psychology, etc...) falls under the realm of social science.

This thread proves the USA needs a Pol Pot.

>>8619153
That's because if you have something substantial to say then you would submit another article in response.

>>8619167
Scientific debate means doing real research and publishing your results. There is a big difference between claiming a researcher missed something and demonstrating that they missed something.

Disabling comments makes science more efficient and wastes less resources. If you really have something important to say to the researcher then you may typically contact them directly (often they include contact information directly on their papers). That said they may not make time to respond unless you're another researcher (or student) interested in the material.

>>8619340
This.

>>8620142
That is not how academic discourse works in the slightest anon. I understand you guys have sensitive feelings. Perhaps academia is just not for you?

>>8619340
No, you did not get the point of me posting here.
I came here to ask respectful scientists and representatives of scientific community about why a journal named ""Scientific" American," which should obviously represent the scientific part of America, is politicized and is publishing articles that are openly left-leaning in spite of a lack of proofs. That's it.
I mentioned Trump only because it started to happen only as he ascended. It exaggerated as he won the Presidency. I merely reimagining the events.

>>8620164
Also, absolutely this.

>>8620142
>Disabling comments makes science more efficient and wastes less resources.
Imagine if you were at conference presentation, and at the start of the presentation the speaker said "alright, now for the sake of efficiency I'm not going to take any questions or comments, if you disagree with anything I say in my presentation you can go do your own presentation"

Why is the alt-right crowd the most butthurt one everytime someone says something against their feelings?

>>8620183
you sound upset dude. stop projecting lmao

>>8620193
Maybe she likes not being raped or shot

>>8620176

>mfw I actually tried this

it was a pyramid scheme though so I understand and it's ok

>>8620167
>a journal named ""Scientific" American," which should obviously represent the scientific part of America, is politicized and is publishing articles that are openly left-leaning
maybe the scientific community actually leans to the left, compared to the lay public?
just a thought.

>http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

>>8620183
because when someone says something mean to THEM, it's cultural Marxism and white genocide

>>8620195
das racis

>>8620330
Maybe a magazine trying to appeal to the general public is a bad representation of the scientific community.

>>8620350
maybe a survey of AAAS members was linked to in that last post you replied to, and it confirmed that the scientific community actually is fairly liberal?
just a thought.

>>8620363
Scientists are dumb then
Just a thought

>>8620370
>these highly educated people doing extremely technical work, who happen to have different political opinions from me, must be stupid
yes, it's just a thought. and even calling it a thought is a little charitable.

>>8619097
I stopped subscribing a few years ago when I realized it was mostly a bunch of smug faggots talking about how good their opinions are. some of the articles are good, though.

Why is /sci/ covered in butthurt /pol/tards right now? There's usually a couple hanging around the fringes pissing on things. but right now there's several threads full of these morons whining about "libruls and shills".

>>8620373
Sorry bro just shitposting

>>8620370
>people who don't agree with me are dumb

>>8620473
It's weird, I never used to come on /sci/ until recently. At first it was slow moving, real deal smarty-pants threads and then it started changing to what you see now. I kind of suspect it has something to do with my presence.

>>8620164
>Academic discourse happens in the comments section of shitty pop-sci "news" sites.
Kys yourself, retard.

>>8620176
Conference attendees are other researchers who are far more likely to publish follow up research and give you citations in the process. Answering questions at a conference is no different than answering email questions sent in by other researchers and students interested in your work. It is however entirely different from wasting your time explaining your research to Joe toilet cleaner who will never amount to anything but a Facebook loudmouth.

>>8620580
And yet, Joe's taxes are what keep your research funded and, more than likely not, pay your salary. Why shouldn't you have to at least explain why your research is important?

There's constantly stories in the news about wasteful military projects or guys getting a million dollars to study snail sex - you can't see why the people paying for that might get a little peeved when those same people then talk about how they're all a bunch of toilet cleaners who will never amount to anything?

>>8619078
Article by (((Strassman)))
There's your answer

>>8620183
>Why is the alt-right crowd the most butthurt one everytime someone says something against their feelings?

It's like a chill big dog getting constantly yapped at by little bitch hand bag dogs.

Usually the big dog tries to tune the little punk dog out, but occasionally the big dog barks back and the little dog pisses itself and doesn't understand why it deserved a taste of its own medicine.

>>8619153
>disabled their comment system

Are you kidding me??? This is the conservatives go to signature method.

There is no conservative website that I no of that has comments enabled.

Actually, there are a couple, but they ban anyone instantly for even politely mentioning anything left leaning.

You really are calling the kettle black.

>>8620588
I'm not saying the public doesn't deserve a dumbed down, digestible, and accurate explanation. I'm just saying that expecting your already overworked researcher to do this is not a valuable use of those tax dollars.

That said, when researchers apply for grant money (in dumdum terms: "tax dollars") they do provide a simplified overview of their research in order to justify said grant money. Moreover obtaining grants isn't easy and researchers may spend a considerable amount of time looking for grants and applying depending on the popularity and applicability of the research they're doing (not to mention the bureaucracy involved and grad students who need help with their applications).

Informing the public about the research is currently a vastly broken system where "science journalists" with a tenuous grasp of science attempt to write articles explaining the research after sending the researcher a short list of interview questions. The result is a often nowhere close to correct, sensationalized, controversial, and in some cases so embarrassingly wrong that it actually says the opposite of what the real paper concludes. Said articles are then re-reported and spread all over social media by people who just want ad revenue.

The "scientific discourse" you believe in has nothing to do with the scientific community. Imagine if researchers were actually forced to deal with the fallout from that shit. The only sane solution is to ignore the masses, direct people to your published papers/recorded talks, focus on research, and hope the situation improves. The moment you foolishly try to "inform" the public you will only turn yourself into a public spectacle and make your situation worse (just look at all the /pol/esmokers who immediately assume the scientific community is part of a conspiracy to unscrupulously drain public funds).

>This entire fucking thread.
>124 Replies.

Once again, /pol/ manages to be the worst board on 4chan. You idiots ran the pepe meme which was supposed to be an inside joke into the ground to push your own agendas, and to top it off, you idiots take credit for Trump winning the presidency and changed the way this website looks for everyone.

Instead of 4chan being the "anonymous imageboard", you have turned it into the "alt-right hate speech anti-zionist website".

>>8620646
No one's forcing you to reply.

>>8620646

This

>>8620652
> /pol/ wants everyone to politely ignore them as they take a big shit in the middle of /sci/

>>8620660
>the general perception is that average /sci/ users are intelligent enough not to participate in /pol/-style shitflinging

>>8621039

That's dumb. Might as well open wide as you eat up that big shit.

>people who were outcast nerds when they were growing up become limp-wristed, spineless pussies when they are adults
>these same people hate a dominant alpha male who was the kind of guy that bullied them and then grabbed their oneitis' pussy

Don't overthink it

>>8621064
> trying to sound masculine to hide inner insecurities

>>8620619
Uh-huh.

>>8620646 ===> >>8620164
>>8620660 ===> >>8620164
>>8621039 ===> >>8620164
>>8621094 ===> >>8620164

>>8621094
source for this?

I need it unironically

>>8619078
Since marxism was forcefed to the students, the stagnation of science and society was set into motion. So earlier scientists were intellectualls seeking knowledge and furthering of society, now it is a money grindmill, degraded by worthless studies as religion or womens studies.

>>8621418

Stop reviving this stupid thread. This whole thread isn't science and should have died by now.

>>8619097
Scientific American is a magazine not a journal you retard.

All reputable journals are apolitical and probably incomprehensible to brainlets like you.

>>8621039
We could ignore your idiotic and politically oriented threads, but then you would continue to make them and nothing would change.

>>8619414
>i can't refute any of the claims in it so i'll just call it fake news/biased!
this is why nobody respects you fags on an intellectual level

>>8621452
I see your board is a very welcoming place. Thanks for support. Or... is it just because you yourself are a liberal who cannot stand other points of view? Whatever, in any way it only demonstrates that the notion that today's scientists have this attitude of "muh opinion matters, your does not" is not far from reality.

>>8621435
Exactly. And have you noticed that science has actually slowed down? If you remember 80s-90s when mostly conservative baby-boomers were leading scientific fields there were so many discoveries and new technologies made that is stuns me. Currently we're just using modernized versions of those technologies. There were no significant discoveries in the last decade that would improve lives of everyday people.

>>8619078
>"muh opinion matters, your does not"
Facts and opinions are different things, unless your confident enough in your ignorance, or pull a U-can't-know-nothin.
>Scientists are supposed to be one of the most open-minded people in the world, but the fact that the behave themselves like pussies makes me hate science so much.
The rest of this is so poorly written, it could only be bait. I don't care though! The president is a big fat faggot who works for Israel and got elected with small words and 4th-grade-reading-level ripoff of Bernie Sanders' meme populism. Anthropogenic climate change is real; oil wars and desertification are displacing millions of ~~~refugees~~~ across Africa and Asia Minor, but it's really just those jews again!

If something happens and I like it, then it happenend because I have pattitioned God with prayer.

If I don't like it, then it was the jews! I don't know the details and I don't care to know, but it was THEM!

(You) believe WHO you believe in stead of WHAT you believe. Did you know that "Obamacare" and "The Affordable Care Act" are synonyms? A lot of people aren't aware of this and it breaks my heart.

The true trajedy is that we're so caught up in the red-herring, and so seldom discuss what to do about Climage Change. I'm sure whatever action humans take will be stupid, last-minute, and conveniently will play into the hands of the global banking elite.

>>8621515
>Anthropogenic climate change is real
Even if it is, the humanity can postpone it for maximum of 4 years. All the possible measures, considering they will be executed thoroughly, will lower the temperature by only 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is not nearly enough to prevent catastrophic cataclysms.
But you can go ahead and keep thinking that your "center of the world" opinion is the correct one, and that climate scientists actually know what they are doing.
>If something happens and I like it, then it happenend because I have pattitioned God with prayer.
Although I can describe myself as a center-right, I'm not a believer, so I will not bait this """argument""".
>If I don't like it, then it was the jews! I don't know the details and I don't care to know, but it was THEM!
I never mentioned anything about jews. But you can keep generalizing because it shows how inadequate you are.

>>8620033
Is there something wrong with crossdressing now? God didn't make clothes or decide who should wear them: these thing were dectates by mere mortal humans.
>>8621435
Which classes? I'm sure it wasn't any of te schools you went to, or any of the classes you took. Not in The Gallant South! Not where teen-pregnancy rates are highest, because abstinence-only education is perscribed by the popular skyman.
>>8621474
Besides being an obvious samefag
*loud, sustained farting noises*

Anthropogenic climate change is supported by longitudinal, peer reviewed studies in meteorology, climatology, glaciology, oceanography and by researchers working in countless other fields! There's no effective way to administrate payroll for this many people in this many disperate fields, and they don't get dick public funding to begin with either! Scientists are the true underdogs, and telling poor American whites that they're being attacked by carbon taxes is treason.

>>8621474
>Currently we're just using modernized versions of those technologies. There were no significant discoveries in the last decade that would improve lives of everyday people.
>I'm ignorant and don't understand what perception bias is: the post
-CRISPR (gene drive)
-induced pluripotency
-grid cells of brain discovered
-modern artificial neural networks
pay attention next time

>>8621566
You probably missed the key words which are
>that would improve lives of everyday people
>improve lives of everyday people
CRISPR hasn't done anything as of yet in the healthcare field.
>-induced pluripotency
No practical application.
>-grid cells of brain discovered
But no solutions as to how to apply it on a patient.
>-modern artificial neural networks
Great. Now I can upload a picture of a dick and Google AI or else will draw a dog in a dick. Very useful.

>>8621539
>"scientific consensus" is untrustworthy but dozens of privately-funded organizations (with names like "Americans For Truth And Liberty" "United Citizens For Real Science" "Shiny Happy People For Bottom Text") are the centre of (You)r world.

It's not an argument. I am criticizing organized religion because its followers are systematically steered away from skepticism and critical thought. Every rationale is circular and every crisis of faith is an opportunity to double-down. A similar playbook is being run by ExxonMobil's Chan-shill fiefdom.

You are inadiquite! You uou yoy ooo YYY uuu.

>>8621589
>because its followers are systematically steered away from skepticism and critical thought
Yet now when I am being skeptical about climate change and having critical thinking as to observe all sides of the problem, you're telling me that I am stupid just because of the fact that I DARED to criticize the opinion of the majority. Amirite?

>>8620167
You fucking brainlet. The scientific "parts" of America are the AAAS (publishers of the nonprofit journal 'Science' that you've obviously never read) and the National Academy of Sciences, of whom your emeritus Princeton prof Happer is and will always be a voting member.

Also, that bullshit skeptic "just asking questions nobody else is asking" garbage won't fly here. Clones of you are asking these questions here literally every day and then retreating back to /pol/ when they don't like the answers.

>>8620612

>>8621583


>go to sci - Science & Math
>science doesn't matter literally nothing is happening in science

>go to po - papercraft and origami
>origami sucks there's nothing happening in origami

>>8621597
This.
We've had this thread 6 times this week, and we've become exceedingly efficient at them.

>>8621596
>asking questions that no one else is asking and challenging the authorities responsible for mass social-programming
This is what you think you're doing.
>espousing a nebulous set of beliefs that evaporate under rigorous examination, and relishing everyone's disagreement as fuel for your contrarian underdog victim narrative
This is what you're actually doing.

Why would the scientific community be against Trump and republicans in general?

They only refuse to accept objective facts, think we should "teach the controversy" about evolution, want to cut scientific funding in general, refused to allow stem cell research among other things.

It's so odd!

>>8621646
Here's your guaranteed reply.

>>8621583
see this is where you demonstrate how little you really know and how limited your thinking is.
advances don't turn into day-to-day improvements overnight! when Watson, Crick, and Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, it took DECADES for it to lead to modern therapies. when electronic computers were first developed, it was still quite some time before PCs would grace our desks and cell phones became ubiquitous. and the promise of the advances I listed has not yet been fulfilled.
>CRISPR hasn't done anything as of yet in the healthcare field.
CRISPR allows for the wholesale manipulation of genes in entire wild populations. This means we could take a gene granting susceptibility to a common pesticide and, within a few years, put it into every potato bug out there. the possibilities for agriculture are TREMENDOUS.
>no practical application for iPS cells
are you fucking KIDDING ME? do you even know what the phrase means?
we now have the technology to scrape some cells off an adult and turn them into any tissue you want. this is HUGE for growing new organs, since we can get those pluripotent stem cells without destroying any embryos (and also make them antigenic matches to the transplant recipient).
>no solutions as to how to apply it on a patient
are you unable to imagine how understanding our brains' system for keeping track of our position in space might be useful?
>Now I can upload a picture of a dick and Google AI or else will draw a dog in a dick. Very useful.
If you don't appreciate the value of computers being able to recognize what's in an image, I really can't help you. Imagine what can be done with a computer that can identify things that normally require a human observer to pore over chart after chart after chart. From diagnosis to quality control to IFF to search and rescue, the possibilities are far-reaching.

>>8621616
earth is a Klein manifold pls respond

>>8621583
>No practical application.
You are a literal retard if you don't think iPS cells have no practical application.

>>8621646
Media monkeys in the bandwagon are against trump, not the scientific community. The left is not in charge of anything remotely science related.

>>8621659
>Media monkeys in the bandwagon are against trump, not the scientific community
wanna know how I know you're not in the scientific community?

>>8621583
this has to be one of the most retarded things I've read on /sci/, and that's saying something

>>8619078
scientists are highly educated and tend to be highly indoctrinated because of that.

that's my opinion at least.

Trump the Precedent (sic) is the presentation of the masses of America.
But all countries have their shame, humiliation and embarrassment.

Stagnation begins with being closed-minded and making assumptions: rather than start with the open-mindedness of first seeing "Quest and Question Everything." Most people can get past their first urge to supposition and assumption based on what they were taught was true: just because they "said so" or "because."

>>8621678
Everyone who is educated has been indoctrinated to some degree, including (you). True intellectuals must continuously challenge their own beliefs to be worthy of that distinction. If (you)'re willing to disbelieve educated people BECAUSE they're educated, then the road to earthly knowledge will remain closed to (you).

>>8621680
>Stagnation begins with being closed-minded and making assumptions: rather than start with the open-mindedness of first seeing "Quest and Question Everything." Most people can get past their first urge to supposition and assumption based on what they were taught was true: just because they "said so" or "because."

>>8621678
>scientists are highly educated and tend to be highly indoctrinated because of that.
That's contradictory, critical thinking is required if you do any actual science, the same kind that lets you live beyond 30 years of age and shitpost on your computer. Please refrain from posting uninformed opinions like this.

>>8619245
>wants to make anime real
>wants to work in china
???
Porn is illegal in china why the fuck would you do that there. Try Japan and even that sucks because porn is censored.

>>8621678
>man goes to school
>is taught THINGS, but isn't taught how to think
>looks at people with more education, decides the only difference between him and them is that they have had more things put in their head
I do feel sorry for you, but some of us actually do go on and learn how to think critically. The better schools do teach it, you know.

And in fact, being able to critique one's own ideas and work is vital to a successful career in research. If you spot weaknesses in your own methodology or reasoning or analysis, you can correct them before you try to publish. But if you don't, they get caught during review, and then your paper gets rejected (or requires draconian revisions) and you've wasted a bunch of time.

>>8619097
Scientific American isn't a journal you fucking mongoloid.