Science Denial

[Anonymous No.10944942]

why does /sci/ have so many threads lately by anons who outright deny science? like “it’s a cult” or “(((science)))” or “muh conspiracy!”???

did we trigger some brainlet discord’s or something? or is it just normal /ppl/ raids? or did cripplechan anons decide this was their new pastime?

[Anonymous No.10944953]

>>10944942
>When people think "science" is a set of monolithic incontrovertible facts written in some big book called "the science book".

[Anonymous No.10944956]

>>10944953
http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html

[Anonymous No.10944965]

>>10944942
The type of guy in the image is a pseud who's only obfuscating whatever point is being made in the argument. In my experience, the majority of times people go "souce" or "citation needed" its not relevant to the point of the argument.

[Anonymous No.10944967]

>>10944942
Alcoholic coke heads like to convince themselves that their noses aren't imploding. They'll become quite nasty and dangerous if you try too hard to inform them of the danger.

[Anonymous No.10945004]

bump

[Anonymous No.10945042]

>>10944942
Race exists. Some societies are shit because they are inhabited by Low IQ shitty people, how is this even debatable?
The bible? good book, great stories and a great moral code to structure a society off of. Do I believe the mythology?

[Anonymous No.10945109]

Read some journals and your pic rel makes sense.

> source? I need source! Panjit, we need source on this statement
> oki let me just get this article which somewhere vaguely states xx and yy and put it as a source in our short literature review on our paper

And then the source doesn't say at all what the authors claim it does. I'm used to using the sources that other people quote to gather extra useful sources for my own work and it becomes very noticeable that people just wrongly source stuff all the time in their papers. Apparently the reviewers are too lazy to check if the sources correspond to what is being said.

[Anonymous No.10945122]

>>10944956
I ain't clicking that shit nigger lmao

[Anonymous No.10945163]

>>10945122
Based

[Anonymous No.10945205]

>>10944965
the majority of time someone gets upset about sources being asked they have none and would like to pretend otherwise

[Anonymous No.10945240]

>>10944942
Rejecting bad science isn't science denial

[Anonymous No.10945703]

>>10945122
>>10945163
Clicked because I'm not a pussy afraid of consequences
This opened up

[Anonymous No.10946011]

>>10945205
The majority of the time someone asks for sources it makes no sense to ask for them, like asking for a source on a normative statement or asking for a source about the general theory that the people are talking about, where the "source" would be linking directly to a textbook or something.
The majority of people who say what you just posted are pseuds.

[Anonymous No.10946039]

>>10945109
That is every single thing in the blogosphere, like Crowder and other meme posters.

[Anonymous No.10946050]

>>10946011
>>10945205
>>10944965
>the majority of times X
Thanks for the dumb anecdotes morons.

[Anonymous No.10946053]

>>10945240
This.

[Anonymous No.10946061]

>>10944942
Some of them are just /x/tards speging out

[Anonymous No.10946066]

>>10944953
Your describing some religious Abrahamic "big" book or other similar...

[Anonymous No.10946114]

>>10944942
>why do people feel like science is becoming an SJW field geared at modifying peoples' views to political ends rather than seeking to know and report on reality, to the enjoyment and aid of the reader
Gee I wonder could it be this being published in Nature?

Scientifically banning the discussion of a whole spectrum of topics.

[Anonymous No.10946122]

>>10944942
>scientists and representatives of science start lying or being highly dishonest about an ever increasing number of topics
>people no longer trust science
>"what is wrong with people?"

[Anonymous No.10946129]

>>10946122
like what

[Anonymous No.10946146]

>scepticism is good only when you are sceptical about god
kys basedboy

[Anonymous No.10946158]

>>10946146
kys boomer

[Anonymous No.10946662]

>filename
nice bait OP

[Anonymous No.10946988]

>>10944953
OP described to a T.

[Anonymous No.10946993]

>>10945042
>Great moral code
>Genocide is okay
>Own slaves if you want

[Anonymous No.10947000]

>>10944942
Infiltration of /pol/ / TRS types and gullible Zoomers

[Anonymous No.10947001]

>>10946114
>REEEE WHY DO PEOPLE THAT MANAGE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WANT TO GET NAZIS OFF THEM REEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10947047]

>>10944942
it is a cult, just a good one.

[Anonymous No.10947126]

>>10947001
Why is a good question since they are not obligated to. It also isn't really about controlling extremists, it's also a part, but it's more about pushing political propaganda in a convenient way that majority of people do not realize that it's propaganda. If people do not realize they're fed propaganda, they're much more inclined to believe in it. In Western world this would apply to concepts such as trust in lending / banking system, housing markets, medical world (insurance), multiculturalism and pro 'democracy'. To name a few topics it's actually broader. Social media has huge power since they dictate what people see and what people do not see.

[Anonymous No.10947129]

>>10947126
the people who own social media platforms are jewish and their parents/grandparents were slaughtered by nazis like animals
gee i wonder why they don't like neo-nazis maybe they have a reason?

[Anonymous No.10947136]

>>10947126
>Why is a good question since they are not obligated to.

People don’t like Nazis.

[Anonymous No.10947204]

>>10947136
>their views are so unpopular that people will instantly mass convert to national socialists upon contact and national socialists will take power in the country, so we need to ban anything resembling the normal public views of people in the 1990s to protect against imminent genocide by national socialists with the full support of the population, who all hate "Nazis"

>>10947126
They obviously are obligated to since they all do it and none of them used to. How and why they're obligated to, and how to get around it, are the questions.

>>10947001
You know, if they were just banning people advocating for particular political positions, that would still be ghey. What they're doing is walling off an ever larger amount of reality, of interpretations, and of questions. If you want to be an ignorant (quasi-) religious freak, ok, but don't foist your choice onto others. I don't know if you get this, but speaking for myself, I'm interested in the work of every type of thinker. I started as an anarcho-communist. Now I consider myself apolitical, not "cryptofash" or "hur dur enlightened centrist". For people like myself, it actually is that we want to know, and having generally neutral questions overstretchingly interpreted as Holocaust denial, or discussing biology at all being interpreted as an attempt at genocide, is just intellectually stifling. And I could totally put up with it if your people didn't have the institutional power to severely restrict my job opportunities and get me kicked out of institutions of higher learning while making me socially radioactive. I'm a very patient, non-resentful person overall. I let my temper cool down before doing things. What are you doing?

[Anonymous No.10947210]

>>10947001
>>10947136
Who determines what's hate speech and what isn't?
I'm pretty certain at this rate condemning pedophilia will be considered "hate speech".

>>10946114
Funny how something like this can become so propagandized to the point of misleading. The brainlets of the west gobble up anything they read as fact and then deny whatever comes next. We've seen this time and time again. E.G. Climate change hoaxes and gender BS

[Anonymous No.10947213]

>>10945205
Absolute moron.
Not having a source does not disprove a hypothesis and often times they were the first to bring this up. So, the end conclusion to your cheap argumentative technique is that you use the lack of a source as some sort of evidence for your own hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.10947223]

>>10947001
You know what, we probably just have very different foundational values. I assume that there's an external reality. I want to know it and help others get there too.

[Anonymous No.10947227]

>>10947210
>Who determines what's hate speech and what isn't?

Societal attitudes. The same thing that determines what’s generally considered right and wrong.
This may surprise you but corporations are deeply capitalistic in nature. They don’t want to have their product tarnished by the presence of hate speech and they want to look like they’re combating it actively, because otherwise, their product would develop a negative image in the eyes of the public, their cash source.

>I'm pretty certain at this rate condemning pedophilia will be considered "hate speech".

Okay.

[Anonymous No.10947232]

>>10947223
Okay but that’s 100% irrelevant to people wanting to get rid of internet Nazis and incels because those groups generate literal terrorists

[Anonymous No.10947234]

>>10947210
It's just "hate" now. They're disingenuously reading a subjective emotion into the cause of an ever expanding and changing set of speech acts. This isn't science in the pre-PC sense of the word.
And if this is science now, then science is largely a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.10947240]

>>10947232
Too overt.

[Anonymous No.10947241]

>>10947240
No idea what you mean.

[Anonymous No.10947243]

>>10947227
>Other people decide for me what's right and wrong!
Quick question, do you also enjoy guzzling cum?
But really, do you not have your own moral compass? Do you really just let the society you live in dictate what's right and wrong?
Also we all know 4chin is a pretty "tarnished" product like you say, and yet it's still active (and has been for over a decade), and it stills brings in enough to hire staff, hosting, and whatever else. Before you answer the 2nd question please answer my first, because rather than being the dick, you seem like a swallower.

[Anonymous No.10947244]

>>10946114
And Obama won the Nobel prize just for being elected... asshats did that just to mock Bush. And Bush was amongst the chorus condemning Trump.

Clowns. The lot of them.

[Anonymous No.10947248]

>>10947234
Open discourse has been dead for a while now. Hopefully it will come back so we can start exchanging ideas and philosophies again.
Preferably in a less hostile manner though.

[Anonymous No.10947250]

>>10944942
>why does /sci/ have so many threads lately by anons who outright deny science?
Anonymity + white incel agenda + jannies slacking off = consequence-free anti-science shitposting

[Anonymous No.10947251]

anti-scientism is an agenda of the Trump/Putin new world order. We're being invaded by the same shills paid to spam /pol/. Russia is a big part of this as they have a LITERAL ARMY dedicated to the task of shitposting on online forums like 4chan.

We've exited the cold war era and entered into the information warfare era where winning the hearts and minds of people with propaganda is the MO and destruction of democracy across the globe is the goal.

[Anonymous No.10947256]

>>10947234
I realise that it's actually even more disingenuous than I put it as. They're not even saying comments are motivated by hate - they're saying comments /are/ hate. They're saying that comments are an emotion itself.

[Anonymous No.10947260]

>>10947232
>>10947250
People who use that word are generally hideous, unfuckable, retarded cunts. How does it feel to know that not even basement dwelling nazis are willing to touch you with a 10 foot pole?

[Anonymous No.10947264]

>>10947243
>Other people decide for me what's right and wrong!

Strawman. Yawn.

>Quick question, do you also enjoy guzzling cum?

Sounds fun.

>But really, do you not have your own moral compass? Do you really just let the society you live in dictate what's right and wrong?

I never suggested that was the case, so it’s strange you’re asking. Perhaps you failed to read?

I’ll repeat myself.
“Societal attitudes. The same thing that determines what’s generally considered right and wrong.”

G E N E R A L L Y

The attitudes of any particular person will
G E N E R A L L Y
be influenced by whatever sociocultural standards exist via parental influence, the influence of peers and media, etc. This is baby-Tier sociology and it flew right over your head.

[Anonymous No.10947267]

>>10947260
>stop using the i word! it's incredibly offensive and dehumanizing! we are all special and interesting people!

[Anonymous No.10947269]

>>10947264
Not him. But you sound like a retarded liberal arts phd purple haired fat cow.

MOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.10947270]

>>10947260
Okay

[Anonymous No.10947272]

>>10947251
wait wait, before you go "BUT THAT'S IMPOSIBRU" I can prove it with a fool proof bait....


Imagine a country so weak that the merely the idea of democracy is enough to threaten it's existence.
The ONLY reason Russia hates the US is because communism can't compete with Democracy in a fair way, so they're forced to underhanded trickery, lies, deception, bribery, corruption, and extortion in order to compete with the US.

They practically an heroed themselves with cheaply made nuclear reactors and now need to resort to attacking neighboring countries in order to be "superior."

[Anonymous No.10947274]

>>10947269
Okay

[Anonymous No.10947278]

>>10947267
>incel
Seriously though.
It's only UGLY fat retarded women who will never know what its like to be loved by anything other than their dildo who use that word.

[Anonymous No.10947279]

>>10947278
Can you please cite a peer-reviewed study to substantiate your claim? A survey would do, really.

[Anonymous No.10947282]

>>10947278
Why do you talk about yourself in 3rd person feminine?

[Anonymous No.10947299]

>>10947264
>reddit spacing
Now I get it.
I'm well aware of everything you've said, but you seem to be stuck in the mindset of "preexisting and external factors decide what's right and wrong" Generally though.
In the day and age where "your kind" consider anyone with wrong-think to be a nazi, we're living in a pretty dangerous time which is spawning incels, nazis, white supremacists, and shooters.. Thanks for contributing to it now please go to the website listed below.
>>>/reddit//r/politics

[Anonymous No.10947320]

>>10947272
I can't tell if this is satire.

[Anonymous No.10947341]

>>10947299
>but you seem to be stuck in the mindset of "preexisting and external factors decide what's right and wrong" Generally though.

Strawman. Yawn.
I never made any assertions about my own moral convictions, only societal generalizations.
If you want to lie, do so on a different platform where people can’t read everything that’s been said.

[Anonymous No.10947362]

>>10947272
[...] sœyboy [...] cucked by tyrone’s black horse cock [...] white genocide [...] tranny antifa false flag [...] muh AR15 [...] ethnostate [...]
>trump_pepe.png

[Anonymous No.10947368]

>>10944942
It's /lit/, by far the most intelligent and learned board. Using the phrase "Science denial" is already itself a sign of your brainletism.

[Anonymous No.10947375]

>>10947341
>Implying you can't be read like a book
It's okay, we get it. >>10947269 could tell as well lol
One more time >>>/Reddit/ snowflake-kun

[Anonymous No.10947388]

>>10947368
> /lit/, by far the most intelligent and learned board.
memorizing Julius Ebola is for 94 IQ live-action D&D roleplayers

[Anonymous No.10947430]

>>10947375
>Go to Reddit because I have no argument

Boring

[Anonymous No.10947432]

>>10947388
>t. hasn't read a single book this year, only lecture notes written by literally who professors

[Anonymous No.10947436]

>>10944942
Science is a tool but you seem to think it's a religion

[Anonymous No.10947440]

>>10947432
the last book i finished came out on July 30th of this year:
https://www.amazon.com/Came-Something-Awful-Accidentally-Donald/dp/B07VDG4RLZ/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7OGF4O265AIVmZOzCh36iwwyEAAYASAAEgLDIPD_BwE&hvadid=322300856809&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9008341&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=17037163059735640141&hvtargid=kwd-756773196640&hydadcr=22568_10355169&keywords=it+came+from+something+awful&qid=1567726886&s=gateway&sr=8-1

incidentally it's a book about 4chan and philosophy and politics

[Anonymous No.10947441]

>>10947430
I knew I hit the nail on the head there
>No argument
To be fair redditkun I don't even really remember what yours was at this point other than something about Nazis on your internet and then nitpicking the weak part of my original argument to chase after some red herring or something with weak discourse.

[Anonymous No.10947444]

>>10947441
I don’t use Reddit, but you seem awful obsessed with it. Must be like how /pol/ incels are obsessed with black men fucking white girls.

[Anonymous No.10947445]

>>10947388
>live-action D&D roleplayers


>mfw you can't say LARPers cause larping has taken on a whole different meaning of it's own

[Anonymous No.10947446]

>>10947440
you wrote a book about how awful Donald is?
like literally thousands of other trendy nobodies.
congrats.

[Anonymous No.10947448]

>>10947445
yeah, LARP nowadays is a synonym for "sockpuppet".... i wish i could still use it to refer to, you know, like those people who cosplay as Harry and Herminey or Data and Worf, but it's lost that connotation at least around here

[Anonymous No.10947455]

>>10947448
It’s still technically the same thing
“Live action role playing”

[Anonymous No.10947456]

>>10947446
i didn't write it, but of course when i posted about reading the book on /lit/ i got accused of being the author too. he's a 40-something oldfag. anyhow, i thought it was a decent book, especially the shit about Peter Thiel and Robert Mercer and how Anonymous got fucked by the FBI. his political/sociological analysis was kinda repetitive and lacking though

[Anonymous No.10947486]

>>10947444
What are you talking about??
Are you going to input anything worth talking about or just more yawns, borings, and strawmen?

[Anonymous No.10947642]

the left can't meme

[Anonymous No.10947944]

because scientists showing off are mostly shills or retards
lobbies' best way to make something popular is to back it up with research papers.
some cool stuff like UFOs could be seriously studied,
but instead you have real life >>>/x/ posting by brainlets showing off in the name of science
medical doctors are also making scientists look retarded
and the vast majority of scientists are weak zeta males not pointing out these issues
>muh science is neutral, not political

[Anonymous No.10947977]

>>10944942
funny thing is the average STEMfag will just be totally obliterated by the average (super-erudite) pomo scholar. The fact that the poster began to imitate a hillbilly instead parodying postmodernism just, again, shows how clueless stemtards are.

[Anonymous No.10947980]

>>10947944
>some cool stuff like UFOs could be seriously studied,
>ayy lmao
alien retards are the worst

[Anonymous No.10947996]

>>10946993
yes

[Anonymous No.10948001]

I just do it because it's easy to piss off leddit i am very smarts who would shave their asshole for le science mans and have never had an original thought

[Anonymous No.10948010]

>>10948001
>i am very smarts
103 IQ doe not make you “very smarts”

[Anonymous No.10948013]

>>10948010
yes i know retard that's the point

[Anonymous No.10948023]

Fuck off.

You fags make the same threads all over and over again and got defeated in every single """debatable""" topic you choose. And you keep making threads because you think that if people get tired of refuting your bullshit then it will somehow become true. That if you open your climate change thread, IQ thread or any other thread and you don't see anyone disagreeing (or anyone willing to discuss in scientific terms) you automatically have won the discussion. And that's because you are fucking underage you retard. Go back to Middle School and do your shit before you become a semen-slurper tranny.

And then you fags have a victim complex all the time.
>"waaaaahhh we can't talk about things we like"
No you down syndrome sperg, you're not "discussing", you are just spamming your bullcrap a hundred times. And then you get told to go back to /pol/ and come back with
>"hurrrrr durrrrrr boogeymannn"
Because yeah, you are giving /sci/ good content with your repeated crap. Shitposting, for your information, is not /sci/.

And it's not that /sci/ is a high quality board. If you fags didn't shit the board we would still have 1=0.999 threads, Mochizuki threads and fucking Tooker going around. But stop pretending you deserve some kind of respect for just being an annoying faggot.

[Anonymous No.10948046]

>>10948023
based and high-IQ

[Anonymous No.10948062]

>>10948023
>You fags make the same threads all over and over again and got defeated in every single """debatable""" topic you choose. And you keep making threads because you think that if people get tired of refuting your bullshit then it will somehow become true.
This.

[Anonymous No.10948065]

>>10944942
(((((OP)))))