LIBERALISM IS ANTI-SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.4390410]

RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
ACUPUNCTURE IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WESTERN MEDICINE
NUCLEAR POWER IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN COAL

[Anonymous No.4390756]

<span class="math"> RAGE! [/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.4390763]

[Anonymous No.4392031]

The worst thing is that some /sci/ users promote this shit.
At first I thought they were trolls, but they seem to be serious.
Unbelievable how stupid humans can be.

[Anonymous No.4392044]

No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.

[Anonymous No.4392049]

>>4390410

>NUCLEAR POWER IS MORE DANGEROUS

Well no shit, but it's amazingly powerful source of energy. If you want it to be safe help by becoming an engineer/physicist instead of anohter liberal arts fag

[Anonymous No.4392053]

EVOLUTION IS A HOAX

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

HOMOSEXUALITY CAN BE CURED

PRAYING CAN CURE SERIOUS ILLNESSES IN CHILDREN AND BRING MUCH NEEDED RAIN DURING DROUGHTS

THE EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD

STEM CELL RESEARCH IS SATANIC

ELECTRIC CARS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ARE SOCIALIST

[Anonymous No.4392055]

>>4392053
The first three statements seem pretty rational to me.

[Anonymous No.4392062]

>>4392055

>The first three statements seem pretty rational to me.

Well they're not.

[Anonymous No.4392067]

>>4392062
They are at least debatable. It's a matter of opninion/belief and no absolute statement can be made on these issues.

[Anonymous No.4392070]

>climate change debate

[Anonymous No.4392073]

>>4392067
They are not a matter of opinion.
To reject these statements as fact is to reject the scientific method as a whole. You have no place on this board. Please leave or please stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.4392075]

>>4392055
2/10

[Anonymous No.4392078]

>>4392073
I think you don't understand how science works. Defending wild geusses in a pseudo-religious fury is not science.
You please leave and grow up.

[Anonymous No.4392089]

I'm reading this article on antimatter (because I sometimes stumble around wikipedia aimlessly and read whatever I can vaguely understand) and I came across this part where physicists speculate about an antimatter galaxy that somewhere collides with our matter galaxy, because there seems to be no natural presence of antimatter anywhere else. Having studied some Taoism, I can't help but ask... shouldn't the absence itself be evidence of the antiparticle? Maybe antimatter is the Tao.


Jesus I hate college girls.

[Anonymous No.4392090]

>>4392078
Leave and educate yourself. After that we welcome you to the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.4392092]

>>4392078
I know exactly how science works. Both evolution and climate change are perfectly valid (= falsifiable) scientific hypothesis. Both have been confirmed. Hence, they are a scientific truth.
As to the 3rd statement. The existence of a cure implies that homosexuality is a disease. It's not (look up definition of disease), hence the statement is false.

[Anonymous No.4392097]

>>4392070
i always love how the black woman's head is turned 180 degrees

[Anonymous No.4392102]

>>4392067

>They are at least debatable. It's a matter of opninion/belief and no absolute statement can be made on these issues.

No, they aren't. Only creationists seriously think evolution, for example, is debateable and nobody takes creationists seriously for very good reasons.

[Anonymous No.4392110]

>>4392090
>>4392092
You are defending very vague concepts that lack scientific basis. There might be some data that can be interpreted as evidence, but it can easily be interpreted in any other way since your interpretation is arbitrary.
As for your argument against homosexuality: The definition is not commonly agred on. It is an arbitrary definition used and accepted by only a small group of people. Don't call this science. This way you are not only insulting science but more importantly showing off your own ignorance.

>>4392102
Being skeptic is important for science. Blindly accepting anything (even if it is disguised as a scientific theory) belongs in the realm of religion.

[Anonymous No.4392112]

>>4392110

>Being skeptic is important for science. Blindly accepting anything (even if it is disguised as a scientific theory) belongs in the realm of religion.

Show me where I said I blindly accept evolution, or anything else.

[Anonymous No.4392114]

>>4392092
>perfectly valid (= falsifiable) scientific hypothesis
>scientific truth

you sure you know what you're talking about bro?

[Anonymous No.4392115]

>>4392102

Good sign of someone with incomplete education on the matter. The case for evolution is ridiculously strong, and it's essentially certain that it operates in a way very close to the modern understanding evolutionary biologists have of it (which is a little distinct from the public perception)- but there definitely are very intelligent people out there that are skeptical for very good reasons, both philosophically and scientifically. If you investigate those objections they usually turn out to be resolveable one way or another, but that doesn't mean the initial concerns are trivial.

[Anonymous No.4392120]

>>4392110
1/10

Read some scientific papers. If you disagree, refute them. Post refutation here. Then we'll talk.

Until then we'll treat you like you deserve to be treated: a person with its head up the arse.

[Anonymous No.4392128]

>>4392115
Examples. Citations. Names.

[Anonymous No.4392126]

>>4392112
You accept it although it is not scientific. This is what we call faith.

>>4392120
I cannot refute them entirely. Nobody can. At least not now. This is why they are debatable and a matter of belief. Either you believe them to be true or you don't. Please don't confuse belief with scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4392131]

>>4392128
>Names

Science doesn't need authorities. If you believe in authorities, you can as well be a christfag and believe in the pope.
Oh wait, you are already a relgion troll.

[Anonymous No.4392133]

>>4392126
>Nobody can
Let me get this straight:
1) We have scientific prove for X.
2) Nobody can disprove X.
3) HURR MATTER OF BELIEVE

0/10 you are not even trying troll.

[Anonymous No.4392143]

>>4392133
>prove
*proof

No, science does not prove anything. Science deals with falsifiable theories. Proofs can only be deduced in axiomatic systems like mathematics. Scientific theories at best hold until they are proven wrong.

You must be underage to have such a wrong understanding of science.

[Anonymous No.4392145]

>>4392114
What are you on about.
A falsifiable hypothesis that is confirmed, should be accepted as scientific truth; at least until they are falsified.

[Anonymous No.4392146]

>>4392131
English motherfucker, do you speak it?

Read the post I answered to. Troll claimed to know "many intelligent people with serious doubts about evolution".

I don't try to appeal to authority. I wanted to know the names so I could search for these persons' papers.

[Anonymous No.4392147]

>>4392143
Scientific proof != mathematical proof.
A word can be used for several things, how confusing.

[Anonymous No.4392149]

>>4392145
Science doesn't know any "truth", only theories.

>>4392146
>English motherfucker, do you speak it?
Your reply does not refer to any grammatical or spelling errors. Thus it is not a problem of understanding or using the English language but a problem of semantics.

>>4392147
You are abusing the word proof. It does not belong in science. Using it in this context is simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.4392159]

>>4392143
And since there is no proof your car starting in the morning, you do not even attempt to turn the keys, right?

While your definition of proof is valid, it's also very narrow. There's something called reality. We live in it. Try to apply your way of thinking to everyday life and see how far you come.

Thanks for ad hominem, btw.

[Anonymous No.4392161]

>>4392149
>You are abusing the word proof. It does not belong in science.
Get out aspie.

[Anonymous No.4392169]

>>4392149
I'm not abusing the word proof. Other scientists use it in the same way. I'm sorry if your philosophy of science 101 teacher told you differently.

[Anonymous No.4392171]

>>4392149
>Thus it is not a problem of understanding or using the English language but a problem of semantics.
It is a problem of you being a retard. Read the sequence of posts and their meanings.

Nice dodging of the issue.

[Anonymous No.4392174]

>>4392159
I don't need proof of my car starting in the morning. I try to start it and either it works or it doesn't. But a priori I cannot be sure what will happen.
Anyway we are not talking about everyday life here, we are talking about science and science has to be more rigorous.

>>4392161
>>4392169
You are using a word where it doesn't fit, where it doesn't belong and where its application is incorrect. In other words: You are abusing the word "proof".

[Anonymous No.4392175]

>>4392115
Evolution needs to be considered in parts. There are the principles of natural selection, which are essentially mathematical in character and can be fitted to all sorts of phenomena other than life, there are experiments which demonstrate some capacity for evolution in life (well demonstrated, repeatable, indisputable scientific finding), there is observed evidence of recent microevolution (good observations, hard to argue with), and there is the historical theory that all features of life not produced by recent human genetic engineering arose from evolution.

The last is arguably falsifiable, but certainly not proven. Like the theory that God does not exist, it is preferred on the principle of avoiding the assumption of complications which are not required by the available data: Occam's Razor. This principle is only a guide to making good guesses.

Preferring a theory for the sake of simplicity is not the same as having strong evidence against alternatives. There's no proof that life spontaneously emerged on Earth, or that others haven't done genetic engineering before us.

[Anonymous No.4392178]

>>4392128

Philosophical
The self-refutation objection, its unfalsifiable nature (if we're talking about the public idea of "evolution")

Scientific-
The common, naive form of Haldane's dilemma, evolution of some trivial or "strange" straits like metamorphosis, biosemiotic concerns.


The philosophical issues we can kind of ignore or sidestep. I obviously can't find citations to the scientific objections because with serious analysis they all turn out to be resolveable, so you won't find much of modern relevance published about them. I never said the objections were damning though (again, I'm not denying the truth of evolution- that got settled some time ago), just that the were weighty and worth serious investigation and discussion.

There have historically been prominent intellectuals that weren't overtly religious but still found aspects of evolution difficult to resolve. I think if you're unaware of those difficulties it's more likely that you experience at a higher level and rely more on polemics, but that's more of me hazarding a guess. I don't get upset or act superior when people have initial concerns about relativity either.

[Anonymous No.4392179]

>>4392174
>You are using a word where it doesn't fit, where it doesn't belong and where its application is incorrect.
Nope. It belongs there and it's correct. Even though it's not the same as a mathematical proof, the meaning there is actually closer to the natural meaning of the word proof.
A proof is a piece of evidence that should be sufficiently convincing to everyone capable of understanding it, and giving it objective consideration.

[Anonymous No.4392182]

>>4392179
Nope. Evidence is always nothing more than examples. An example never constitutes an absolute proof. Learn your semantics, kid.

[Anonymous No.4392186]

>>4392182
Then an inductive proof should be an oxymoron to you.
Too bad it isn't.

[Anonymous No.4392188]

>>4392182
Proof
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
Too bad the facts don't agree with you. But you're used to that problem, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.4392189]

>>4392186
The correctness of inductive proofs in mathematics can be proven by deduction. Try harder, troll or underage kid, whatever you are.

[Anonymous No.4392190]

>>4392178

Oh, when I rewrote my post I accidentally omitted the big one-

Irreducible complexity. Again, it's something that's been resolved but doing so isn't a trivial matter. I sort of touched on it with the evolution of specific microbiological components- it's the one objection that still sees active discussion in the modern, post-genetic synthesis era (facilitated variation, spontaneous organization, TSR and the role of HGT). Every serious case of it that's been proposed has been dealt with, but it's very understandable for it to initially cause concerns in intelligent and open-minded people.

[Anonymous No.4392192]

>>4392188
We are talking about science, so only the second definition you posted applies here. And this is pretty much what I said.
The first definition of yours is the colloquial one. Colloquial definitions are incompatible with scientific rigor.

[Anonymous No.4392191]

>>4392182
>>4392188
Just to include two sources:
Proof:
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

[Anonymous No.4392193]

>>4392189
Really?
Why this then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

[Anonymous No.4392195]

>I think if you're unaware of those difficulties it's more likely that you experience at a higher level and rely more on polemics
First part of the sentence??

I'm not a biologist, evolutionary biologist or any of the sort, so no, I don't know all details about the history of evolutionary theory and its parts and how they came into being over time.

Probably a comprehension problem on my part, since your initial post sounded like there was serious opposition to theory of evolution in the present, which is not the case (there are details which are still being discussed and refined, but overall it's a very, very solid case in favor of evolution).

[Anonymous No.4392197]

>>4392192
Wow, you're aspie.
First, you argue that it's technically incorrect. You lose that argument. Now you argue that it's technically correct, but still somehow wrong.
lrn2concede a point

[Anonymous No.4392198]

>>4392191
See >>4392192 to learn about the difference between colloquial speech and technical language.

>>4392193
This is not what you posted before. A proof by induction is a mathematical method of proving a statement. The problem of induction you are posting now is a philosophical problem that applies to sciences and which I already referenced several times ITT because it supports my point.
Get your semantics together, my friend.

>>4392197
I did not lose any argument ITT. It is technically incorrect. That's it.

[Anonymous No.4392199]

>>4390410

OP has a good point. Liberals may be less anti-science than conservatives overall, but there are libtard nutjobs nonetheless. Also:

>GMO are inherently evil
>gaia bullshit
>anti-fluoride and anti-vaccination bullshit
>fucking hippies
>various conspiracytards
>venus project and free energy idiots
>etc.

[Anonymous No.4392201]

>>4392199
Those aren't liberals you fucking idiot, those are white people.

[Anonymous No.4392200]

Am I the only one who reported the thread?

[Anonymous No.4392203]

>>4392201
Those are fucking liberals.

[Anonymous No.4392205]

>>4392200
I reported the aspie. His blathering about proof is a disgrace for the board and humankind.

[Anonymous No.4392206]

>>4392198
Jesus fucking christ.
I said inductive proof. Not a proof by induction.
What I was refering to was an inductive proof. Which is exactly what they talk about in the wiki article.
>I did not lose any argument ITT. It is technically incorrect. That's it.
It's not technically incorrect. Read any scientific paper, I dare you. They refer to experiments that confirm hypothesis as proofs. Which corresponds exactly to the definition of the word proof. It just doesn't constitute a mathematical proof.

[Anonymous No.4392211]

>>4392201
i know you are counter-trolling but ...

i never thought about it much - you never see niggers with these insane ideas

[Anonymous No.4392214]

>>4392203
Goddamn you are so fucking stupid, where did you go to school, Alabama?

[Anonymous No.4392217]

>>4392195

Oh wow, that sentence is a clusterfuck. As I just alluded to, I rewrote the post a few times to try to make it clearer that I don't actually think evolution is hiding any serious cracks in its foundation (which apparently I did a poor job at doing in my first post).

What I was trying to get at is, despite the sort of atheist polemics and blogs that get passed around and quoted across the internet like wildfire, there historically have been good reasons for people to at least initially question the validity of evolution, in the same way that many intelligent, well intentioned people will initially question the theory of relativity both when they first learn about it and when they get farther into it. The corner cases of any science that isn't inuitively sensible will always seem weird, humans aren't good at immediately grasping the dynamics of non-linear systems.

There isn't a high-level, scientific case against evolution. There won't be, because (with sufficient education and understanding) it's obviously true. What there is though, is a good array of strong, understandable reasons for people to initially find evolution suspect, and we shouldn't just reject them as religious idiots when they do so- I personally know an atheist (physics grad students)that took many long, serious discussions to convince of fully natural selection evolution.

[Anonymous No.4392213]

>>4392205
Submitting false reports is a bannable offense.
If you can't stand definitions how they are used in science, you might consider visiting other boards instead, maybe /b/ fits your intellectual needs better.

>>4392206
By "inductive proof" one always means the mathematical proof by induction. You cannot define words arbitrarily just to fit whatever you want to believe.
As for the scientific papers: No scientist would make a fool of himself by wrongly using language in a ridiculous way.

[Anonymous No.4392239]

>>4392213
We've already established that you can't handle when a word is a homonym, so there's no point in starting a discussion.
Just for the record, induction is NOT the same as mathematical induction. Obviously, in mathematics we use the latter, and drop the word "mathematical". However, the term is misleading, but that's not my fault.

[Anonymous No.4392243]

>>4392217
Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand what you meant, and I agree with you.
Tbh, I had probably a kneejerk-reaction after reading your first post and should have taken more care to think about this.

[Anonymous No.4392244]

>>4392239
This is not about homonyms. He wasn't talking about induction, but about "proof by induction" which has only one meaning.
Read the posts before making a fool of yourself.

[Anonymous No.4392250]

ITT AUTISTS GET MAD AS FUCK

[Anonymous No.4392254]

>>4392244
It is you who didn't read properly. I introduced the word induction, and it was most certainly about inductive reasoning. He then started buttfucking about proofs by induction. Which I explained to be something else.

[Anonymous No.4392256]

>>4392254
Induction is first mentioned in >>4392186 where it is used in the phrase "inductive proof", which is not referring to inductive reasoning in the broader sense but to the mathematical method.

[Anonymous No.4392267]

>>4392256
I wrote that, and if you read the context, you'll see that it does refer to a proof constructed by inductive reasoning. Maybe my choice of words isn't very unambiguous, but it's still correct.

[Anonymous No.4392276]

>>4392182
Oh god. Even though I agree with you 100%, the fact remains that you are everything wrong with this board.
Pedantic braggarts are the worst kinds of people. Please kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.4392289]

>>4392267
A proof can only be a mathematical proof. Stop abusing language. The context doesn't matter. You used words that have a fixed meaning. If you wanted to say something else, please educate yourself before posting in order to express your thoughts properly. It was a huge waste of time having to explain to you why you were wrong, especially since you were not willing to accept corrections.

>>4392276
If you agree with me, you should also agree that these people who don't know definitions and have a wrong understanding of science are much worse than me who tries to correct them.

[Anonymous No.4392291]

>>4392276
>>4392276
Kinda this.
@there-are-no-scientific-truths-but-mathematical-guy: Sorry man, I too like correct definitions and discussion about scientific methodology. But what you are doing in this thread is taking it too far.
@both: Start a new topic about the issue if that's so important to you.

[Anonymous No.4392297]

>>4392291
>Start a new topic about the issue if that's so important to you.

NOOOOOOOOO

DON"T MAKE MORE SHIT THREADS ON MY /SCI/

[Anonymous No.4392299]

>>4392291
>making a new thread

Yeah right, because OP was so science related. We should totally discuss his post.

[Anonymous No.4392301]

>>4392289
I'm a scientist bro. I too had mathematics courses, logic courses and philosophy of science. I also sometimes communicate with people, for example here. The correct usage of words, in those contexts, is defined by the dictionary. Which supports my poin completely.
Now, this isn't the main point. The point is that you're a pedantic fuck, who doesn't know when to concede a point.

[Anonymous No.4392313]

>>4392301
I don't have to concede because I am right. Why do you even attack me, if you agree?

[Anonymous No.4392321]

>>4392297
As if I stop them. I'm just a bystander, man.
>>4392299
If the topic is important enough for them, it gets its own discussion to clarify what the thread is about. If this one is as unrelated to science as you claim, it will get purged anyway.

In no way do I feel entitled to encourage anyone to do anything and would rather prefer everyone to do nothing.

[Anonymous No.4392328]

>>4392321
What a pointless post.

[Anonymous No.4392327]

bump for anal autism

[Anonymous No.4392330]

>>4392327
>>4392327
>>4392327
NOW EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS SHITBUMPING FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.4392339]

WHERE DID ALL THIS AUTISM COME FROM?! WHY CAN'T WE STOP IT?!
THE BIGGER THIS THREAD GETS, THE MORE DIGNITY WE LOSE! THE MORE AUTISM IS ON OUR STREETS! CAN'T YOU FIGURE THIS OUT?!

LOOK AROUND YOU! LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE COME! /SCI/ WASN'T MEANT TO BE LIKE THIS! OUR EVERY WAKING MOMENT SPENT TRAPPED IN SHITPOSTS AND TROLLED AND BUTTHURT!

IT'S TIME TO STOP SUBMITTING TO THIS TYRANNY! IT'S TIME TO REALIZE THAT WE'RE BEING TROLLED!

[Anonymous No.4392343]

>>4392339
We are not trolled. There are people genuinely retarded.
You are one of them and should stop shitbumping.

[Anonymous No.4392346]

>>4392328
>wow what a pointless post
wow what a pointless post

(Now starting: loop to infinity)

[Anonymous No.4392349]

>>4392346
wow what a pointless post

[Anonymous No.4392359]

>>4392343
UH OH IT'S OUR "RESPONSIBLE POSTERS" AT WORK TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES

HEY FAGGOT I USED TO BE ONE OF YOU, STOP SELLING OUT YOUR OWN PEOPLE!!

[Anonymous No.4392361]

>>4392359
Stop shitbumping.

[Anonymous No.4392366]

>>4392349
wow what a pointless post

[Anonymous No.4392367]

>>4392361
FUCK YOU I'LL CUM IN ANY TROUSERS I WANT

[Anonymous No.4392368]

>>4392366
wow what a pointless post

[Anonymous No.4392373]

>>4392368
wow what a postless point

[Anonymous No.4392380]

>>4392373
wow what a pointless post  

[Anonymous No.4392386]

bump

[Anonymous No.4392390]

HHHUUUURRRRRR!!1!11!

[Anonymous No.4392391]

This is so obvious I'll give it a score so low, it becomes good.
-13/10 to you.