Why do normies use language like "settled science," when scientists & scholars themselves don't?

[Anonymous No.14965399]

Pic related, for example, is from a very well respected peer-reviewed academic journal, Synthese. Hundreds or even thousands of other examples of such claims can be found in literally every major academic journal, and from professors at every major academic institution in the world, including places like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and other world-renowned institutions.

So how come normies and IFLS plebbitors insist on using language like "settled science" and "disinformation" and "conspiracy theory"? Even if an empirical claim turns out to be false, that does not entail that it was a "conspiracy theory", but that's effectively how the word is used today. Anything which conflicts with the prevailing narrative or explanation for something is a "conspiracy theory". If you try to point out the logical flaws in this position, people just start talking about Qanon and microchips and white nationalism, and other completely unrelated strawmen. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't have some ulterior motive, and I'm not low-key trying to sow doubt about modern science or democracy or some other crazy shit. It's simply a matter of fact that something like our understanding of COVID is not "settled science". Even in the most precise and exact areas of science like physics and computer science, things are far from "settled", and we don't have a single complete theory in any subfields of science, not even the "easy" ones like physics to say nothing of far more complicated topics like biology, anthropology, or psychology. Of course, there are some topics where we can pretty reliably say there wont be major revisions of prior knowledge (e.g. number theory or formal logic), but even in the most well established areas of the biomedical and behavioral sciences this is far from the case, and this is really exemplified by the ongoing revolution in biotech and quantitative biology which is in the process of revolutionizing our understanding of evolution and genetics.

[Anonymous No.14965403]

>>14965399
>Why do normies use language
Because that's what they rely on. Words word words, but no explanation with said words.

[Anonymous No.14965404]

>>14965399
People use adjectives to make their points sound more authoritative all the time. What can you do?

[Anonymous No.14965609]

sounds like lawyerspeak, a variant of "settled law" (which doesn't exist either)
similar to "burden of proof is on the claimant"

[Anonymous No.14965633]

>>14965399
This is from the English modeling team that made a fraudulent covid model to promote lockdowns right?

[Anonymous No.14965659]

>>14965399
I think they’ll stop saying “settled science” now that it’s pretty clear the vax (if you’re lucky) does nothing. It’s just people who can’t achieve so much as making a pot noodle in the real world so they want to sound like geniuses on the internet.
>not legal advice
>not financial advice
>correlation does not equal causation

[Anonymous No.14965673]

>>14965633
>This is from the English modeling team that made a fraudulent covid model to promote lockdowns right?
Looks like, but what do you except from political virology. But sadly most science is fraudulent nowadays because it's based on lies, (self-)deception, corruption and "career".

[Anonymous No.14965676]

>>14965399
A fairly large chuck of the population doesn't think for themselves, all of their thoughts and beliefs are inherited from authority figures. Since the death of God people have moved to seeing "science" and the scientific county as their authority figure in place of a church. "Settled science" is just today's version of "the Bible says".

[Anonymous No.14967341]

>>14965676
>Since the death of God people have moved to seeing "science" and the scientific county as their authority figure in place of a church. "Settled science" is just today's version of "the Bible says".

This is absolutely correct, which is why 99% of Christians and 99% of woke normies would be infuriated to hear this.

[Anonymous No.14967560]

>>14965399
They are parrots repeating what social engineers have used focus groups to carefully test and vet.

[Anonymous No.14968156]

>>14965399
because they are normies, duh

[Anonymous No.14968182]

>>14965399
>normies
Noone who deserves respect used those words.

[Anonymous No.14968198]

>>14965399
>there wont be major revisions of prior knowledge (e.g. number theory or formal logic)
Godel incompleteness means there could possibly be room for improvement, but I lack the knowledge and creativity to even guess at what such improvements might be, or how they might be of use.

[nonnarcissism No.14968202]

>>14965399
maybe it's because of the christian allergy to the word theory. instead of saying scientific theory, these journals resort to saying settled science. although it could have another reason.

[Anonymous No.14968210]

>>14965673
Thus has it ever been. Galileo recanted. Bismarck said that politics is the art of the possible. Science pursued without heed of politics risks irrelevance because its conclusions, while possibly correct, are impossible to implement until however much time it takes for the political weather to change has passed. Most scientists would like to see their work fructify in their lifetimes, and would like to have funding for their current and future projects.

[Anonymous No.14968221]

>>14968182
The life of a normal person is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Hobbs' only mistake was confining his remarks to primitive man. Civilization has been made possible and sustained only by the thought, work, and sacrifice of extraordinary men. Normies are simply the overwhelming majority of people who have been and must continue to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better world.

[Anonymous No.14968571]

>>14968182
t. Newfag plebbitor normie

[Anonymous No.14968593]

>>14965399

[Anonymous No.14968673]

>>14968198
>but I lack the knowledge and creativity to even guess at what such improvements might be
Platonism.

[Anonymous No.14968708]

>>14965399
Because they're thought terminating cliches. People resort to them because what they refer to as "the science" is accepted by them on authority, not on rational argument at depth. That isn't inherently a bad thing or wrong, knowledge has been specialised and most things we do in life depend on faith (as in we don't typically go through rational syllogisms to justify our belief in everyday things in everyday instances as we do them, we just subconsciously believe in certain truths and have a degree of trust in those beliefs, i.e. on faith), but it does mean that the persons acceptance of "the science" can't be rationally defended by the person, even if they believe, and in fact said "the science" is, rationally based. Rather they believe in "the science" because of their trust in the authority of scientists, so when forced to defend "the science" on rational grounds, they sense the danger of not being able to use the appeal to authority that actually justifies their belief, and resort instead to thought terminating cliches that merely restate that appeal to authority in a vague and generalised way to extricate themselves from the argument.

It would be more honest to say "I don't know, I trust in scientific authorities," but they sense that by pleading ignorance they concede the field of debate and that, wrongly, they then also concede to the other persons premises and conclusions, when really all they'd be conceding is an inability to make judgement for or against either view of "the science" at stake in the debate.

[Anonymous No.14968714]

>>14965399
Obviously for rhetoric. I'm the 1300s it would've been god

[Anonymous No.14968870]

>>14965399
They tought Trump said that you had to drink bleach, you show them the video and still believe it finally you show them the context (longer video) and they don't get it.
It's just hate from the people who say that hating is bad lol

[Anonymous No.14968875]

The only reason this kind of talk became necessary is because people like you are so insanely intellectually dishonest.
That's really the only reason why.
If it was up to people like you we'll be taking whatever Elon Musk says is right within the first 10 minutes of a new crisis, as long as he says it in a "based" way.

[Anonymous No.14968932]

>>14968875
It's ok. You can just apologize for being so wrong about covid. We might even forgive you if you ask for it, and admit you were wrong.

[Anonymous No.14969001]

Why? I don't know. Normies don't even care about this shit. It just gets shoved up their ass by the media. You're delusional if you think this place is any better than normies and reddit, however. Just a different flavour of retardation.

[Anonymous No.14969114]

Part of it is malicious propaganda by the media and part of it is people's lack of understanding what science actually is. A lot of people think in binary terms of something being true or false, so when these people hear about something being a scientific theory they either think it's completely undoubtedly true, or "it's just a theory" and it must have no evidence behind it so it's as good as a random guess. These people don't get the idea that we can have a model that explains something as accurately as we can with the evidence that we have, while it's still always open to being changed or being outright wrong.

[Anonymous No.14969127]

>>14965403
is that pajama boy? kek i recognize the smugness.

[Anonymous No.14969139]

>>14965399
It's a religion to them.
It is interesting how the types of persuasion these sheep deploy reveals what is effective at persuading themselves.
The sheep are inclined to trust/follow authority and avoid stigma and the moral framework in their minds rewards them with "good boy points" dopamine hits when they enforce the compliance of others.

[Anonymous No.14969146]

>>14965399
>Why do normies use language like "settled science," when scientists & scholars themselves don't?

Those aren't normies, those are Democrat cultists.

[Anonymous No.14969164]

>>14965676
>>14967341
/thread

[Anonymous No.14970599]

>>14965676
>A fairly large chuck of the population doesn't think for themselves, all of their thoughts and beliefs are inherited from authority figures. Since the death of God people have moved to seeing "science" and the scientific county as their authority figure in place of a church. "Settled science" is just today's version of "the Bible says".
This is quite true. It seems humans must have some form of religion, even if "secular worship of science" is their religion. Good post anon.

[Anonymous No.14970863]

>>14969146
"settled science" is one of their cult programming phrases.

[Anonymous No.14970865]

>>14970599
>>14965676
Surface level understanding. Employing faith and authority arguments is the ordinary and default method of human thinking, and the trust in divine or scientific authority is an extension of normal human thinking.

You have faith in the authority of eyes and senses to reproduce the external world, it's not something that you can rationally believe; you have faith in the authority of your memory to know the past as it was, it's not something you can rationally believe; you even have faith in rationality-itself as a truth-making authority: rationality can not ground itself, it can't prove it's own truthfulness with it's own methods of reason, the axioms of reason have to be accepted on faith, or demonstrated ex post facto by utility.

What matters is not that the employment of arguments from faith or authority, which are necessary and ubiquitous to all human thinking, but whether those faith and authority assumptions can be subject to critique? All human understanding and arguments has their origin and ongoing grounding in faith, what matters is can they critique their present grounds and seek to re-ground and develop themselves so that no grounding or assumption can constrain the truth-making process of human judgments.

The problem is when faith or authority arguments are used as a limit to stop and arrest enquiry, rather than a grounds to begin an enquiry from that will question, cultivate itself, and outgrow the bounds of the faith/authority assumptions that began the process.

[Anonymous No.14970871]

>>14965399
>normies
npc can't think

[Anonymous No.14970881]

>>14965633
>>14965673
Pic related for those not familiar with the context.

[Anonymous No.14972218]

>>14968708
never heard the term before, but it is exactly it. ty anon.

[Anonymous No.14973602]

>>14965399
Because they know they're wrong, but it's still eaiser being unreasonably stubborn than agreeing with someone opposed to you.
Giving that other person any kind of positive recognition would make you look stupid/weak etc.
Normies are also just one bad day away from psychosis, so you could think of it like a mantra.

As for the online adamance, it's obviously paid shills, bots, feds, jannies, instigators, accelerationists, resentful 'betas' who are also one bad day away from psychosis, and trolls, who all work tirelessly and zelously trying to lower the quality of all communication, crucially under the guise of plausible naivete.