/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12711502]

ALIENS

[Anonymous No.12711509]

>>12711502
>they found animals that weren't supposed to be there.
Bet that was news to the animals.

[Anonymous No.12711529]

Every single scientific article posted in the last five years has been complete and utter bullshit. Science is finished

[Anonymous No.12711534]

>>12711502
It's just small simple organisms, like sponges, living off of the organic material which is transported to their rock-home by sea currents underneath the Antarctic ice.

[Anonymous No.12711582]

>>12711502
They are just little things sprouting off a rock, not aliens

[Anonymous No.12711600]

>>12711502
over sensationalising

[Anonymous No.12711642]

>>12711502
>Io io io, yer not sposed to be down ear! Go on, clear out the lot of ya! On yer bike ya soft body little shits

[Anonymous No.12711812]

Oh my god things like in places, what if they are in other places too?
We have known about extremophiles long enough that there shouldn't be many places we are surprised to find life.

[Anonymous No.12712134]

>>12711502
These Ayy Lmao's get into everywhere nowadays.

[Anonymous No.12712138]

>>12711502
god i wish all these activists and lit majors posing as journos would just be summarily lined up against the wall in minecraft.

[Anonymous No.12712146]

>>12711529
I'd wager it's more or less to do with science "journalists" and the r*dditors that post and share their trash without any understanding of the actual material. They just want to read the catchy headlines and get those heckin updooterinos

[Anonymous No.12712933]

>>12711529
>Scientific journalism
Choose one

[Anonymous No.12713116]

>>12712933
The type of people likely to author such comics will then place a massive trust in the rest of institutional media reporting, blissfully adopting the assumption that similarly poor or inaccurate reporting is only this egregious in the subfield of their expertise. Despite their direct experiences with the inaccuracies of science reporters, they will then adopt the position that rhetorical attacks on entities like CNN, the New York Times, or the Washington Post constitute an "attack on freedom of press" concerning political, economic, and social subjects that they do not have any direct data-gathering or analyzing experience with (and sometimes cannot even have in principle, particularly when purportedly anonymous sources are said to divulge purportedly classified information).

[Anonymous No.12713467]

>>12711502
no fucking link
OP is more and more of a faggot every fucking day

[Anonymous No.12713750]

>>12711502
>weren't supposed to be there
>supposed to
The absolute arrogance. Is it so hard to say "weren't expected to be there"?

[Anonymous No.12713757]

>>12713116
Gell-Mann Amnesia.