How do you talk to people who don't believe in scientific data?

File: 72 KB, 700x350, flat earth cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:13:12 2019 No.10691659 [Reply] [Original]

How do you talk to people who don't believe in scientific data?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:15:57 2019 No.10691666 >>10691659 respectfully

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:17:42 2019 No.10691670 >>10691659 "scientific data" boils down to appeal to authority. There is no logical reason to believe it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:17:55 2019 No.10691672 >>10691659 like the fucking idiots they are

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:20:46 2019 No.10691675 >>10691659 Nail their hands to a table, then whip them until they convince you why you should believe in scientific data. I'm always impressed how quickly find their inner Feynman.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:23:07 2019 No.10691679 >>10691659 Nail their hands to a table, then whip them until they convince you why you should believe in scientific data. I'm always impressed how quickly they find their inner Feynman.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:26:32 2019 No.10691685 >>10691670 >There is no logical reason to believe it. Scientific data is verifiable, there is no need to believe it because you can reproduce it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:30:20 2019 No.10691694 >>10691659 You just have to blend in and pretend you are one of them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:36:04 2019 No.10691699 >>10691685 almost no one can reproduce most scientific data, except a few select labs. You have to take their word for it. ie, appeal to authority.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:41:10 2019 No.10691707 >>10691670 >>10691699 >appeal to authority I do not think it means what you think it means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:47:38 2019 No.10691715 >>10691707 I think you're having a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:51:51 2019 No.10691721 >>10691715 >cognitive dissonance I do not think it means what you think it means.

Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:56:17 2019 No.10691728

I ask them questions about their beliefs and then express my beliefs in a nonconfrontational way. Instead of trying to make someone believe what I believe, I just talk about what I believe and why. Usually you can see the gears turning in their head. You won't change their mind, but they'll be more open to conversation later.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 22:56:42 2019 No.10691730 >>10691699 this is why I don't fly in airplanes, use an automobile or phone, I only use things that I can verify myself.

>>	Hamster father Sat Jun 1 23:11:05 2019 No.10691754 File: 167 KB, 1022x1000, gaschamberflatearth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10691659 You don't

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:20:33 2019 No.10691786 Journal of 4chan: Anonymous Abstract: We prove that >>10691685 is gay >>10691685 is gay

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:22:15 2019 No.10691792 >>10691786 Journal of threads: Anonymous Abstract: We examine the literature in search for evidence of >>10691685 being gay. It is well known [1] that >>10691685 is gay. It appears that this is correct and he is super gay [1] >>10691786

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:23:38 2019 No.10691796 File: 103 KB, 420x420, LQBait.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10691786

Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:23:48 2019 No.10691797

Journal of posts and threads
Anonymous

Abstract: Could >>10691685 be gay and harmful to climate? In this paper we present data that supports this conclusion

It is well known [1] that >>10691685 is gay. In fact, [2] he is known to be super gay. This could be harmful for the environment, according to the literature.

[1] >>10691786
[2] >>10691792

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:24:41 2019 No.10691800 File: 183 KB, 375x523, HQbait.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10691792

Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:24:58 2019 No.10691801

I FUCKING LOVE 4CHAN
Anonymous

HOW TO PROTECT CLIMATE

It is another day of LOVING 4chan but just like I LOVE 4chan, I LOVE the climate. Researchers have shown that there may be a rampant homosexual being gay and causing global warming. BE CAREFUL GUYS

I FUCKING LOVE 4CHAN!

Sources:
>>10691797

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:25:36 2019 No.10691802 >>10691792 Journal of 4chan: Anonymous response to: >>10691792 Recent evidence suggests that in addition to >>10691685 being gay the original author of >>10691792 is also super super gay however these results require more study.

Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:27:30 2019 No.10691808

Channel News Network
Anonymous

Just moments ago science writer Anonymous from well-known 4chan magazine "I FUCKING LOVE 4CHAN" reported that >>10691685 is causing climate change. In an interview he confirms and tells us what to do.

Anonymous: What can we do to fight global warming?

Anonymous: First thing is that we should fund programs to reduce homosexual emissions from >>10691685 because the scientific literature clearly shows that the artic melting is due to his homosexuality

This just confirms it.

Sources:
>>10691801

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:29:08 2019 No.10691817 >>10691666 fpbp

Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:29:56 2019 No.10691819

The Young Shiposters
Anonymous

CNN HAS REPORTED THAT THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IN THE 12 YEARS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. THIS HAS TO BE THE FAULT OF TRUMP AND THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DID NOT HAPPEN EVER. IF YOU DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD KILL >>10691685 IN ORDER TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE THEN YOU ARE AN ISLAMOPHIC HOMOPHOBIC FAGGOTPHOBIC ARMENGIANGENOCIDEDENIERPHOBIC CLAUSTROPHOBIC RACIST!

Source:
>>10691808

Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:31:25 2019 No.10691821

Journal of 4chan:
Anonymous

It has been determined that some studies previously published in this journal have been found to have errors in methodology. We apologize for this error and are immediately retracting these studies.

>>10691792
>>10691797
>>10691801
>>10691802
>>10691808

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:34:01 2019 No.10691828 >>10691821 Your paper has been rejected due to it failing to meet our standards requiring at least one new positive hypothesis for the field. It will not be published in the Journal of 4chan.

Anonymous Sat Jun 1 23:47:59 2019 No.10691870

>>10691699
>almost no one can reproduce most scientific data, except a few select labs. You have to take their word for it. ie, appeal to authority.

Why would you DISbelieve everything you can't prove yourself? If you are sceptical of scientific theories, why wouldn't you hold conspiracy theories up to equal scepticism? Watergate was 5 people, and President Nixon couldn't hide that. How would you coordinate thousands of scientists around the world to fake anything?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 00:03:09 2019 No.10691903 >>10691707 You don't even know what it is pseudo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 00:17:26 2019 No.10691930 >>10691659 Ask them why are they denying the existence of different human races.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 00:36:58 2019 No.10691970 >>10691659 you don't it's imfuckingpossible

Anonymous Sun Jun 2 03:29:00 2019 No.10692141

>>10691659
>How do you talk to people who don't believe in scientific data?
just don't talk to them about science, have a mate who doens't believe the moon landing, think it's some huge conspiracy if he thinks theres a worldwide conspiracy then I won't be able to convince him otherwise so why bother talking to him about it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 08:39:51 2019 No.10692480 >>10691659 Why do you believe in scientific data?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 08:41:29 2019 No.10692483 >>10691659 I dont

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 08:46:15 2019 No.10692489 You can't have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't want to be rational. So don't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 08:48:03 2019 No.10692492 >>10691672 /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 08:51:32 2019 No.10692498 It depends if she's hot or not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 11:43:19 2019 No.10692725 >>10692498 how would you talk to a hot and dumb bitch?

Anonymous Sun Jun 2 11:51:54 2019 No.10692736

This is why no one takes FE seriously, even if there was any actual proof, it’s believers are a bunch of childish Facebook/ /x/ going retards that just spam insults and terrible pictures, claim it’s undeniable proof and that you have to trust them, then turn around and shout that scientific method is wrong and you shouldn’t blindly follow things

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 11:58:10 2019 No.10692754 >>10691659 You don't. It's a waste of energy.

Anonymous Sun Jun 2 14:34:18 2019 No.10693031

>>10691659
I would ask them about the reason they don't believe the data.
Wirting "scientific" before data doesn't imply the data is correct, only failed scientists aka skeptics/zeteticians are trying to suck the dick of anyone writing a paper.
Brainlets are not aware of political and economical powers behind research.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 14:43:10 2019 No.10693054 >>10691659 Don’t. >>10691670 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 2 14:46:17 2019 No.10693061 >>10691930 There’s millions of human races.

Anonymous Sun Jun 2 16:07:57 2019 No.10693217

>>10691659
I try to avoid them. To pursue such silliness is absolutely juvenile and a waste of life's precious time. If one interviews for a job, I will not hire them as they have a serious handicap in making sensible decisions. They're kids, mentally stunted.

Anonymous Sun Jun 2 18:39:41 2019 No.10693615
File: 167 KB, 497x498, navepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I fucking love "debating" flat earth retards, although I can't really call it a debate because it's really just me running circles around them as they desperately try to spew talking point after talking point. It's hilarious watching them become violently angry, incoherent or just unresponsive when you undeniably debunk their main talking points and pressure them to respond to your debunks. Never fails to put a smile on my face.

Anonymous Sun Jun 2 20:18:11 2019 No.10693812
File: 864 KB, 360x200, good burger.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10691659
>How do you talk to people who don't believe in scientific data?

"Yes, I'd like a couple cheese burgers, large fries, medium coke, and extra ketchup packets, please," like that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 00:16:09 2019 No.10694260 >>10691659 Usually at high volume and with frequent swearing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 00:25:34 2019 No.10694288 >>10693812 >that order Don't you think suicide by fast food is a drastic response to people who don't believe in science?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 00:28:16 2019 No.10694293 >>10691659 “Scientific Data” is code for “the lobbyist’s PowerPoint.”

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 00:33:23 2019 No.10694302 >>10693615 this but with climate change deniers it usually takes me about 3 replies before they start spewing political red herrings or just give up and stop posting

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 00:43:30 2019 No.10694317 >>10691659 The earth isn’t flat but “scientific consensus” isn’t a good metric because most scientists work for a small number of large corporations and conglomerates, and are just paid lobbyists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 01:08:00 2019 No.10694364 >>10694260 this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 01:21:55 2019 No.10694392 >>10693054 >Don’t. This, why bother.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 01:34:50 2019 No.10694410 >>10691699 >almost no one can reproduce most scientific data ...and yet, it is done.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 01:36:21 2019 No.10694412 >>10694317 >“scientific consensus” isn’t a good metric It's not a "metric" at all.

Anonymous Mon Jun 3 01:44:21 2019 No.10694425

>>10691659

Most of the things people deem obvious now took significant effort and experimentation to show 500 years ago.

The average person in this board has absolutely no idea how to take the first step to prove the earth is round in any serious way. Same goes for proving most other "obvious" scientific theories.

Because of this they are literally asking people to believe things out of an appeal to authority. You can't be mad at people for not following that.

Only "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" type of people get seriously "outraged" over shit like this. The average skeptical tinfoil hatter has a bigger scientific spirit than most of you. At least they indirectly admit when they can't prove something.

Anonymous Mon Jun 3 01:47:50 2019 No.10694435

>>10691659
People who don't automatically believe scientific data actually know a thing or two about statistics. They actually have some level of understanding, as opposed to the Orwellian doublethink everyone else indulges in.

The very essence of this question is totally moronic. Believing data is completely ridiculous. Believe in a fact, a law, or a result, not my shoddy measurement of g=8.8 m/s2.

>Bacon is good/bad/causes cancer, along with every other food group. Alternate every 5 years.
>Race is real/social construct and has a huge/nonexistant effect on intelligence

Just look at the replication crisis in medicine. 'Scientific data' is essentially just nonsense. Even if things go perfectly, 5% of p=0.05 results are plainly wrong.

Anonymous Mon Jun 3 07:21:27 2019 No.10694838

>>10691685
Unless you personally have gone through the data, understand every statistical method applied to it, and fully comprehend the conclusions, you are taking it on faith. The difference between you and a religious zealot your accepted authority figure.
Am a PhD haver in Materials Science. I try to be at least a little bit skeptical about anything I cannot personally verify.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 07:32:57 2019 No.10694848 >>10691666 you don't you walk away making a dismissive gesture, its not your job to educate people, only yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 07:35:55 2019 No.10694854 Most people who don't take data seriously tend to be massive hypocrites who have allready decided that they will ignore all evidence of their worldview being wrong but expect everyone to take their evidence seriously.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 07:37:27 2019 No.10694855 >>10691659 If they have cute boobs. Male Brianlets are fucked though

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 07:45:59 2019 No.10694865 File: 31 KB, 962x539, 1531480886158.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10694855 >Tfw no cute dumb housewife gf

Anonymous Mon Jun 3 07:47:52 2019 No.10694869

>>10691659
Idk, ask most of /sci/ I guess lmao

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300330001-8.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/psychic
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200070001-9.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/stargate
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/qi
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300380001-3.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1697751/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1978229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594090
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29856007
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275645

Plus many more if you just take the time to look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FksKjCy58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYVdhKVb9WE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03K8fYFUUhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiQTCMolLqI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmo2Bye42go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVr1p-FlLtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB5MdV90v-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad7I7e3CYiw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmn_1AsG10
the last one could be tech and not a psychic technique

https://psychicscience.org/pk2a.aspx
https://imgur.com/a/oLDaSsr

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 3 08:12:11 2019 No.10694908 >>10694869 It's the cheese poster again

Anonymous Mon Jun 3 08:16:19 2019 No.10694913

>>10694908
Can't open the pdf's now. Is it the same declassified government documents shit that they declassified because it's bs?
Otherwise he just posted the same website over and over and the same youtubechannel with a few low quality videos that might aswell be fake.

Anonymous Mon Jun 3 09:12:17 2019 No.10694988

>>10691685
No one can reproduce a Co2 greenhouse affect at human levels of contribution though, so the claim that it causes measurable radiative forcing is not scientific. It’s political.
In every experiment with human levels of Co2 being used vs a control, the control stays the same temperature.
Only if humans produced 100,000 times the Co2 they produce now would “radiative forcing” be relevant.

Anonymous Mon Jun 3 09:16:41 2019 No.10694992

>>10694412
Not a rebuttal.
“scientist” is newspeak for “lobbyist.”
“Scientists say” on your favorite CNN re education program really means “lobbyists say.”
Because most scientists work AS LOBBYISTS for their mega corporation or it’s subsidiaries.
The scientists in the movies aren’t real. LOBBYISTS with degrees are real.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math