what's the point anyway?

[Anonymous No.10159601]

Over 500 years of science hasn't convinced the public into believing in the scientific method nor acknowledging the relevance of data acquired through observations and experiments rather then faith.

>anti vaxxers
>anti nuclear
>anti GMO
>flat-earthers (basically retards but stills)
>climate change deniers
>epic new technologies basically only used to look at cats videos and porn.
>"whats the point of going to space if we have so much problem here??"

Whats the point of acquiring new knowledge through science if most of humankind does have the tools to appreciate it at its full potential?

[Anonymous No.10159603]

Is this coordinated shitposting across multiple boards or is this just what happens when kids have days off from school? I'm getting old and the days are blending together

[Anonymous No.10159609]

>>10159601
you should add human biodiversity denial into the list

[Anonymous No.10159610]

>>10159601

While what you said is definetly depressing, it doesn't invalidate the point of doing research. Every field of science has always been elitist, and it still is. There's no point in giving idiots knowledge they will not understand, because this is not the point of science.

[Anonymous No.10159612]

>>10159603

i have a uni course later this afternoon and therefor, have time to post on here now.

[Anonymous No.10159613]

>>10159609
you mean nigger?

[Anonymous No.10159616]

>>10159601
>magic
For thousands of years science was called magic, retard.
>relevance of data acquired through observations and experiments rather then faith.
And how much of what you know is from your own observations and experiments VS faith in your teachers not fucking with you?

[Anonymous No.10159623]

>>10159610

you are damn right sir. ill try to no longer think about those chimps, but at the same time, africas population is going to explose in the next few years and i think it will be the final blow to climate change action.

so, its nice that we, elitist, have made nice progress in science but if the rest of human population destroy earth before we can make good use of it, its quite shit in the end.

[Anonymous No.10159625]

>>10159616
because i can research all of it in fact-checked, double-backed magazine, website, blablabla, and see the effects of it for myself because, yes, assclown, we do lots of experiments in a science curriculum. now go fuck your own dad

[Anonymous No.10159632]

>>10159601
>>anti nuclear
Nuclear power is garbage and most plants are shutting themselves down because they can't compete with cheaper alternatives. Get over your "i fuckin luv science and science-y themed accessories like atomic power" phase already.
>>anti GMO
Good goy, buy patented foods and legitimize the concept. Monsanto dindu nuffin evar.
>>flat-earthers
It's hilarious leldolts still haven't realized they're being trolled.
>>epic new technologies basically only used to look at cats videos and porn.
Yeah porn and entertainment is totally haram and must be banned!

[Anonymous No.10159634]

>>10159601
>Over 500 years of science
Wat?
>the scientific method
Doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10159635]

>>10159625
>yes, assclown, we do lots of experiments in a science curriculum

Not sure if underage or soft science major.

[Anonymous No.10159639]

>>10159603
Kids being triggered because their parents said grace during the meal today.

[Anonymous No.10159642]

>>10159601
>convinced the public
Fuck the public. My life is better because of science, I will live longer, happier, and so will my family. If allahu snack-bars and christfags want to enagage in hallucinations the more shit there is for me.
You can lead an inbred to water, but you can’t make him not fuck his sister.

[Anonymous No.10159644]

>>10159639
>saying grace during the meal
Wat.

[Anonymous No.10159646]

>>10159601
>nor acknowledging the relevance of data acquired through observations and experiments rather then faith.

Well not quite, unless in denial, people generally respect evidence if they respect the source. What the public doesn't do is acknowledge or consider the existence of evidence. "Hey, maybe I should look at the body of knowledge on this topic before forming an opinion" never crosses their mind.

A related problem is when they think there is split debate among experts on a topic when there is not.

>Whats the point of acquiring new knowledge through science if most of humankind does have the tools to appreciate it at its full potential?

So you can make it to transhumanism and solve that problem. Though I wonder if 4 years of reason and critical thinking in highschool would've made a difference if we started decades ago.

[Anonymous No.10159647]

>>10159642
>I will live longer, happier, and so will my family
Not in an atheistic nation.

[Anonymous No.10159649]

>>10159601
I think you are looking at it the wrong way and therefore not satisfied. Instead of viewing humans as your fellow equals that do not realize their potential, you should view them as farm workers that willingly keep the nest alive for the scientists to operate from. You are in fact quite lucky.

[Anonymous No.10159650]

>>10159647
Hmmm.... it’s almost like that’s not the reason for the difference there. Could it be economic systems?

[Anonymous No.10159654]

>>10159632
>>10159634
go back to the shithole you come from

>>10159635
mostly in highschool im in SE now but still like science shit a lot

>>10159642
thats true, but goodluck surviving climate change because those fuckers wont do shit to prevent any of it because of
>muh capitalism and money and fuck dude, there is snow outside ohohoh

[Anonymous No.10159662]

>>10159616
>And how much of what you know is from your own observations and experiments VS faith in your teachers not fucking with you?

Before you cast the first stone, stop trusting any engineering or medicine with your life.

Yes its faith, but there is a difference between arbitrary or emotional faith in whatever group's opinion is shouted the loudest in your corner of the world, and faith in scientific consensus.

The reason being is not all second hand knowledge is the same, precisely as OP described. Scientific consensus is likely to the the result of observations and experiments, hysteria is likely to be the result of an agenda. Sometimes scientists are dead fucking wrong. Sometimes hysteria saved us from certain doom. But I know which happens more often.

[Anonymous No.10159670]

>>10159654
>im in SE

>>>/g/o back to the shithole you come from

[Anonymous No.10159675]

>>10159654
Use that knowledge to help you and your family survive. Move to Alaska or at least away from Bangladesh or New Orleans.

[Anonymous No.10159686]

>>10159654
>underage b8
Go on and tell me more about how you know how the entire world works from your coddled up family home in the suburban first world.
I can garuntee that rather than doing your own research and reading peer reviewed papers on these topics you just accept them as true because the media tells you to. You're not better than the anti scientific method people who do the exact same thing.

[Anonymous No.10159699]

>>10159654
>im in SE now
>but im going to attack /sci/ on science topics that i dont know about because it's not what i think it is
holy autistic batman

Science is not over 500 years old. 350 years old is stretching it, and it's a lot closer to just 300 years old to what we would call science. The "scientific method" is a meme only referred to by elementary school teachers and popsci. Also most of those criticisms were valid too.

[Anonymous No.10159711]

>>10159647
>implying marxism isn't a religion

[Anonymous No.10159712]

>>10159699
>Antiscience is a position that rejects science and the scientific method.[1] People holding antiscientific views do not accept that science as an objective method can generate universal knowledge. They also contend that scientific reductionism in particular is an inherently limited means to reach understanding of a complex world.

oh no no no

[Anonymous No.10159713]

>>10159642
>You can lead an inbred to water, but you can’t make him not fuck his sister.


kek'd hard

[Anonymous No.10159715]

As a Canadain podcast described it, the average person likes to believe they are in on a secret. Because it's the only thing keeping them sane in the face of realizing their existence is nothing special.

[Anonymous No.10159723]

>>10159711
>that wasn't true <muh side>-ism
>in fact it was <not muh side>-ism

[Anonymous No.10159729]

>>10159712
Looks like Max Planck is anti-science now.

Good thing the non-scientist with no training in science Karl Popper can tell us what is or isn't science.

[Anonymous No.10159735]

>>10159712
>Wikipedia is full of popperism
>every year it gets worse

Thankfully nobody uses it to learn about science.

[Anonymous No.10159742]

>>10159729
What is anti-science about that quote?

[Anonymous No.10159745]

>>10159735
I edit wikipedia in my spare time

Can you tell me your preferred method so we can fight back?

[Anonymous No.10159747]

>>10159654
>goodluck surviving climate change because those fuckers wont do shit to prevent any of it

What's to "survive"? A slowly rising sea level measured in the fucking millimeters, and which won't show a noticeable effect until 2100? And which may be fully attributable to natural effects, which means we can't do shit about it anyway?

Inb4 some gay social forecasting, predicting wars, economic devastation and famine, as if an environmentalist understands the global economic system better than investors who stake their entire livelihoods on this shit...

Focus on your grades, infant.

[Anonymous No.10159750]

>>10159647
>Implying they guide finances
Bet, an atheist society will be successful the same way a religious society is successful so as long as they have the same financial system in place.

[Anonymous No.10159754]

>>10159712
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
>Karl Marx ...
>Karl Popper ...
>Rousseau, ...
>Voltaire ...
>Friedrich Nietzsche ....

The cringe. It's like someone copied and pasted that from rational wiki. Most of the people cited aren't scientists and are talking out of their asses.

[Anonymous No.10159763]

>>10159742
>do not accept that science as [a] method can generate universal knowledge.
>is an inherently limited means to reach understanding of [the] world.

Literally what Planck said. Science is about models, not truth. Only idiots claim science is about truth, usually because they tend to stamp their opinions with "science" to make them "true".

[Anonymous No.10159770]

>>10159750
Didn't work out for France so well.

[Anonymous No.10159773]

>>10159763
>a poseur philosopher uses a strawman and plasticized the definition of what people mean by truth
>doesn't have a better method to judge truth, but surely he has it so that he can make a meta-judgment on science as it relates to truth
Go back to sunday school, kid.

[Anonymous No.10159812]

>>10159763
>do not accept that science as [a] method can generate universal knowledge.

This doesn't work if you interpret "knowledge" as meaning absolute certainty. Because if you did, "anti-science" would be a dubious description that includes people who prefer science. To be anti-science, you need to reject scientific method in favor of some other method.

>is an inherently limited means to reach understanding of [the] world.

Science does obviously respect limits, because it's designed as an exclusionary process. So this text is correct, and even scientific methodists should agree. The problem is the implication that these limitations are a negative feature of scientific method, and not an intrinsic quality of knowledge itself. For example, I can claim something that just happens to be correct, based on no evidence whatsoever, but is currently not demonstrable with scientific method. I'm not limited by the scientific method, but with what confidence do I understand this claim?

>Literally what Planck said. Science is about models, not truth. Only idiots claim science is about truth, usually because they tend to stamp their opinions with "science" to make them "true".

Even pop scientists that couldn't solve a problem or make a discovery to save their lives preach that there is no proof or absolute certainty in science. There is only corroborative evidence and best guess. If someone is claiming scientific method is a tool to determine truth, assuming you mean absolute certainty, they aren't describing scientific method.

[Anonymous No.10159821]

>>10159773
>plasticized the definition of what people mean by truth
Truth means truth, period. And it exists only in mathematics departments.
>doesn't have a better method to judge truth
If it's not a mathematical proof, it's not truth. Science is not in the business of judging truth but models. Which are all wrong, but some of them are useful.
>Go back to sunday school, kid.
Stop projecting religion onto everything. Political groups love to stamp their shit with "science" for credibility.

[Anonymous No.10159831]

>>10159812
>There is only corroborative evidence and best guess
Which is subjective and not objective like the wiki article states science is.

[Anonymous No.10159851]

>>10159821
>muh math is truth
>he doesn't understand what axioms are

[Anonymous No.10159858]

>>10159601
So what's the IUPAC name for that molecule? Dioxychrist?

[Anonymous No.10159866]

>>10159851
>being a non-Platonist

disgusting

[Anonymous No.10159870]

>>10159831
You mean the "universal" knowledge part?

I'm not sure what your point is. Science attempts to make best guesses about a reality that is the same for everyone, an objective reality. I thought that's what that meant.

But what the "best guess" is among competing hypotheses and theories would be subjective.

I've just decided the wikipedia article has a terrible opening description of what an anti scientist is because it fails to describe science in an un-ambiguous way.

[Anonymous No.10159875]

>>10159601
Many people don't trust science especially when the findings relate to what should be done politically.

Naive scientists believe the process is
>want to address some problem through policy
>look at scientific studies
>make policy based on the science

In reality the process is
>decide on the policy beforehand
>pay for studies to justify the policy
>fool science-worshipers into doing what you want

The system, as used by the layperson, can be hacked.
If you pay for enough bogus studies, the "scientific consensus" can be bought.
If the layperson thinks the findings are fishy, they aren't in a position to independently verify the findings.
The cornerstone of science is independent verification but for expensive (beyond what the layperson can afford) studies, the layperson can't utilize independent verification and resorts to faith.

I guarantee that people on /sci/ haven't independently verified 99% of the "science" they believe.
You just have faith that the studies weren't fake or done incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.10159884]

>>10159858
Christ 1,2-dione 3-ene

[Anonymous No.10159890]

>>10159601
>climate change deniers
>muh science
if you could read you would know that this shit is mostly falsified you nigger loving faggot

[Anonymous No.10159894]

>>10159890
>falsified

[Anonymous No.10159915]

>>10159866
>Platonist
Told you you were a poseur philosopher. Feel His Excellency's disdain, pleb.

[Anonymous No.10159924]

>>10159647
NK is more religious than SK. Their leader is their god. SK is a secular state.

Nice try, /pol/

[Anonymous No.10159932]

>>10159712
>do not accept that science as an objective method can generate universal knowledge.

But science can't, even by its own dogma, generate any universal knowledge. This shouldn't be in contention.

[Anonymous No.10159996]

>>10159932
Wrong, yes it can, at least until that knowledge is objectively proven wrong. Anything can supposedly generated universal knowledge, Christianity for example, but Science just contends that you should theirs because it's based on physical observation and a process which tries to be objective as possible.

[Anonymous No.10160005]

>>10159601
Nobody said it'd be easy. Fight for the future, /sci/entists.

[Anonymous No.10160025]

>>10159996
>objectively true

>at least until that knowledge is objectively proven wrong.

Then it wasn't objectively true. What you said made no sense.

[Anonymous No.10160035]

>>10159996
He means truth determined with absolute certainty

Of course if knowledge is just "stuff you're sure about" any system can produce it, right or wrong.

Your post omits a key distinction. Christianity for example would declare absolute truth, scientific method never would under its own protocol.

[Anonymous No.10160039]

>>10159609

[Anonymous No.10160044]

>>10159601
>>10160039
Over 500 years of science and you still have people who think there are no significant racial differences.

[Anonymous No.10160048]

>>10159601
>why wont people obey authority?

[Anonymous No.10160049]

>>10160035
True true, imo only a fool thinks in absolutes.

[Anonymous No.10160050]

>>10160039
Science is whatever follows scientific method, it's not what the scientific community considers scientific

However since a encyclopedia can only cite expert opinion, right or wrong, that's whats on an encyclopedia

[Anonymous No.10160061]

>>10159601
Flat earth follows the scientific method, the globe is fantasy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcEDg7JxfAk

[Anonymous No.10160063]

>>10160049
>only a fool thinks in absolutes.

Is that absolute?

[Anonymous No.10160067]

a lot of the anti-science rhetoric comes from the Republican party.

as the Republicans lose power to an increasingly-liberal American population, science will prevail.

[Anonymous No.10160087]

>>10159601
>Caring what stupid people, weak people, ugly or fat people, spiritually weak people, uncreative people, bad people think

[Anonymous No.10160089]

>>10159601
Good goy

[Anonymous No.10160095]

>>10159609

>Science is whatever follows scientific method
>it's not what the scientific community considers scientific

What do you think they consider to be scientificñ

[Anonymous No.10160098]

>>10160050
>Science is whatever follows scientific method
> it's not what the scientific community considers scientific

What do you think they consider to be scientific?

[Anonymous No.10160099]

>>10160063
Aww geez you got me.

[Anonymous No.10160113]

>>10160067
this

Republican RETARDS are the reason why some people are so anti-science.

[Anonymous No.10160126]

>>10160099
Lol. Why are you being sarcastic? Do you have an answer?

[Anonymous No.10160138]

>>10160126
What? No sarcasm, I guess I really am a fool.

[Anonymous No.10160143]

>>10160138
Cool. At least you learned something new.

[Anonymous No.10160166]

>>10160098
>What do you think they consider to be scientific?

They start with things that won't get them fired

[El Arcón No.10160174]

>>10159932
Even if it can’t, you need a system that can to say it can’t and Platoposter thinks it’s muh eidoi

[Anonymous No.10160210]

>>10160174
>you need a system that can to say it can’t

Why?

[Anonymous No.10160215]

>>10160113
The Republican party is bought by anti-scientist lobbyists such as Evangelical groups that try to promote teaching creationism in school. And of course, there's also the oil industry which promotes propaganda that denies climate change.

[Anonymous No.10160227]

>>10160215
>christians controlling any party
Holy shit /sci/, give on any political topic. This is absolutely pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10160236]

>>10160227
>thinks the Republican party isn't heavily influenced by creationist and anti-abortion evangelical retards

[Anonymous No.10160272]

10160236

[Anonymous No.10160280]

>>10160210
Ignore him he's schizo

[Anonymous No.10160284]

>>10159932
>This shouldn't be in contention

Ideologues absolutely love the idea of stating their opinions are scientific proven, end of debate. Ex: Aryan Science, Marxist Science, Fedora Science, Christian Science, Feminist Technoscience, Gender Science

They don't give a rat's ass about what science actually is, they just want the credibility of the greater than life mythization of science they create certifying their BS.

[Anonymous No.10160324]

>>10159915
>Feel His Excellency's disdain, pleb
Are you trying to imply George Berkeley was a finitist because of his disdain of infinitesimals???

[Anonymous No.10160325]

>>10159924
>It's not true atheism
>It's also not true communism

>>>/leftypol/

[Anonymous No.10160336]

>>10159601
Im not saying i don’t believe in the scientific method, but science itself has been ruined by the Jews.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Notice how it says “social and soft sciences”
>that wasnt there a month ago
>it is not restricted to the “non-hard” sciences
They are changing the information right before our eyes, and most accept it as fact. Life is so much worse than “1984” and we dont even realize it. 20 years from now they are going to claim the Holocaust killed 60 million Jews, and Black people were enslaved until the 1990s, and nobody will bat an eye. Old people who remember it differently will be looked at as senile old racists. WWIII is well underway, and its a war on information.

[Anonymous No.10160463]

>>10160336
>>>/pol/
go the fuck home, for fucks sake, you don't need to spam this shit on every single fucking board 24/7
WE KNOW IT ALREADY, WHAT DO YOU THINK WE COMPLAIN ABOUT ALL THE TIME?

[Anonymous No.10160469]

>>10159647
FEDORAS BTFO

[Anonymous No.10160564]

>>10159601
Yea instead they get people who think sand is prehistoric sawdust made by aliens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqdF5C-rVXU
I can't find the intended vid but this should also cover it.

[Anonymous No.10160646]

>>10160272
Not an argument, retard.

[Anonymous No.10160793]

hey, op here. yall are all faggot, no wonder fucking CIA wants to close this god damn fourchanelle website. you guys are not scientist for a god damn fuck. you fuckers are just assbread fucks take a pause of /pol/ to go shit on other board. fuck this shit im out man, fuck you all

[Anonymous No.10161299]

>>10159609
>>10160044

race and climate change are the two prime subjects on how the science community has compromised to feelings.

basically:

-climate change: climate has always been changing and even without us it will continue to change, the probability that humans are the cause for the next change is very low. this doesn't mean that we should just give up and throw garbage everywhere, that's not what i'm saying and thats not what the ""evil climate deniers"" are saying.

-race: theres a lot of statistical evidence for cognitive capacities/differences in races. this doesn't mean that every black person is retarded its just that the median is lower. it also means that many blacks are more intelligent than the median of whites, but if we take a "whole populous" white countries/societies will have better results in terms of developement.

BTW i'm not white and i don't live in the US so please try not to throw your racist "you are just a /pol/tard white supremacist" bullshit at me, being non white and living in a non white country is the biggest eye opener about the race subject.

[Anonymous No.10161323]

>>10160005
>RISE UP

[Anonymous No.10161351]

>>10161299
>the probability that humans are the cause for the next change is very low.

show your work

[Anonymous No.10161437]

>>10160215
eh, i think it's ok to talk about it, but don't say it's a valid alternative to real science

[Anonymous No.10161682]

>>10159754
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
>left wing antiscience is anti-nuclear power
>right wing antiscience is anti-enlightenment

What the fuck is this shit?

[Anonymous No.10161710]

>>10160067
>an increasingly-liberal American population, science will prevail

Yes, "progressive science" as legitimately science as "creationist science".

Protip: Any movement they tries to dress itself in science, is never ever science but an aberration of it.

[Anonymous No.10161714]

>>10161710
Gender studies isn't science, everyone knows it's just some liberal arts bullshit

[Anonymous No.10161735]

>>10161714
but its being pushed and taught as such.

[Anonymous No.10161736]

>>10161714
But Bill Nye the SCIENCE Guy

[Anonymous No.10161745]

>>10161299
Both of your arguments are false.

Provide evidence or leave.

[Anonymous No.10161753]

>>10161736
I don't know why you are giving him credibility as a scientist. And the whole gender thing comes down to semantics pretty much.

[Anonymous No.10161764]

>>10161753
>I don't know why you are giving him credibility as a scientist
Because the left does along with the other meme scientists...

[Anonymous No.10161799]

>>10161764
Pop science isn't science, its closer to education and entertainment. This is just straw-maning science, totally fallacious.

[Anonymous No.10161901]

>>10161799
>Pop science isn't science

Exactly my point.

[Anonymous No.10162429]

>>10160067
>as the Republicans lose power to an increasingly-liberal American population, science will prevail.

[Anonymous No.10162433]

>>10160067
>>10162429

[Anonymous No.10162444]

>>10160067
>>10162429
>>10162433

[Anonymous No.10162445]

>>10160067
>>10162429
>>10162433
>>10162444

[Anonymous No.10162450]

>>10160067
>>10162429
>>10162433
>>10162444
>>10162445

[Anonymous No.10162453]

>>10160067
>>10162429
>>10162433
>>10162444
>>10162445
>>10162450

[Anonymous No.10162483]

>>10162444
>environmental racism
what

[Anonymous No.10162542]

>>10159601
Entropy is a priori. Turnover is a posteriori.

[Anonymous No.10162566]

www.pastebin.com/ZyAw9rKZ
www.pastebin.com/4a8bf1gD
www.pastebin.com/GcTfuj7G

[Anonymous No.10162568]

Fuck off back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10162592]

>>10159747
>investors who stake their entire livelihoods on this shit
Are they the same ones who saw the financial crisis coming despite all the warning signs?

[Anonymous No.10162731]

>>10159601
If you are looking for a point then you are a fucking faggot. Fuck people. Do science for you. The general public will either learn or die from their ignorance and either are beneficial to society.

[f actual No.10163002]

a "particle": an OBJECT: a MASS

Vectors are made of masses and masses are made of vectors.
Fields are outward vectors. Attractions are inward vectors.
ONLY our familiar scale lacks a nucleus of inward vectors breaking down into a field of outward ones.
"Protons" don't exist, they are where "electrons" which are masses like everything breaking down and out as a field.
Anything fields pass through shifts inward.
Magnets push what resists the passage of its field like sail to wind, attract anything it passes through,
and are neutral to things where as much is resisted as passes through.
If you took a volume and made it disappear everything around it would shift inward.
A mass IS THE VOLUME there, not an occupant of it. When it becomes a field all around shifts inward.
"Space" is BLOOD that sustains the dicks that are masses in an active vectorial process of turnover.
"Space" is a fluid of bodies that slip past each other due to weak cohesion.
There are NO gaps just an infinite range of sizes of balls that are all in surface contact will each other
and slip past each other due to their fields repelling instead of passing through.
Everything can move or it doesn't exist. To move a thing must accelerate, to accelerate a thing must be a mass.
Vectorial phenomenolgy will be confirmed and your mess of jigsaw pieces will look ridiculous. There are not all these things.

www.pastebin.com/ZyAw9rKZ

[Anonymous No.10163189]

>>10161764
>Because the left does along with the other meme scientists...

But Dawkins is an actual meme scientist.

[Anonymous No.10163225]

>>10159821
xkcd is too high for me

[Anonymous No.10164624]

intro actual