/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6648784]

Thoughts?

>1/3

[Anonymous No.6648786]

>>6648784

>2/3

[Anonymous No.6648787]

Jesus, and I thought the insecurity level on 4chan was bad.

[Anonymous No.6648789]

>>6648786

>3/3

[Anonymous No.6648791]

>>6648789

[Anonymous No.6648794]

>>6648787

You read the whole article, before it was entirely posted, in 2 seconds?

[Anonymous No.6648796]

The 'geek' culture all stems from the problem of people wanting an identity more than wanting to do the things which define that identity.
It's about power over others and feeling they are the dominant voice.
As for Neil being a bit of a self-righteous twat, I agree.

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6648798]

>>6648784
As soon as he referenced Portlandia offhandedly, I stopped reading. There was a bunch of stuff before that that irked me, but that was too much. The rest is most likely hipster drivel

[Anonymous No.6648803]

>>6648796
2 + 3 said this for me, my bad

[Anonymous No.6648813]

>>6648798

>National Review
>Hipster

That's certainly a new accusation, haha. Not saying it's wrong or right but it's not something you hear everyday, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.6648832]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.6648838]

>>6648787
I think you pretty much nailed it. The entire article is pretty much, "I hate it that these really smart people say things that don't coincide with my perception of society. They must be FUCKING COMMUNISTS."

[Anonymous No.6648841]

>>6648784
>nationalreview

who cares?

[Anonymous No.6648842]

>>6648784
Wow, that guy really hates left wing. It seriously looks like he wrote this as a revenge to someone who proved him wrong in a debate

[Anonymous No.6648846]

>>6648842

Yea but he is spot on about modern 'nerd culture'.

[Anonymous No.6648849]

>>6648846
True, but that shit will blow over just like every other subculture.

And then it's back to having to put effort into getting laid. So in the meantime, ride that gravy train, gentlemen.

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6648854]

>>6648813
Dude, I'll tick off his hipsterisms until where I stopped

>"trying marijuana for the first time"
Oh God, I can't look.
>"Insecure hipsterism"
>"and, really, everyone who conforms to..babbling..."
>"ruse"
an obvious trolling reference
>bashes star wars
>Mario Cart v World of Warcraft (this isn't hipsterdom just wtfness)
>Portlandia reference for about half a page

no, just no thank you.

[Anonymous No.6648856]

>>6648846
He is. But the article was less about nerd culture and more about "buuu i hate these people with the fact checking and data and science at their side, THEY ARE EVIL CAUSE I DONT LIKE WHAT THEY SAYIN"

[Anonymous No.6648865]

>>6648856
Seems more upset about their condescension which i think is fair. If you want to encourage people to come toward science which is still deemed (and still is in many fields) a scary, lofty challenge, having those who have 'made it' look down upon you doesn't do much for the good for the things they would appear to be promoting

[Anonymous No.6648867]

>>6648856

I still think there is some truth to what he is saying about the 'fans of science', for example having never even taken a peek at a single actual scientific journal article; yet touting all science by the people they love and look up to as un-erring and using it as a weapon against anything and everything.

Often times they are in fact right, but it's just the general psychology behind it that interests me (and admittedly can be very annoying).

Also his claims of these people pretending to be perfectly neutral about everything at all times (as science is supposed to be) is fairly accurate as well. They simply are not. I will accept that they TRY to be moreso then others, as they are scientists (or were scientists) but they still aren't.

[Anonymous No.6648879]

>>6648784
The hallmark of being popular is that you get the 'wannabe' this always happens. Only difference is that nobody except the true nerds used to wanna be a nerd up until now.

[Anonymous No.6648892]

>>6648867
Well define "fans of science": I consider myself one, but I am not going around debating thing i do not understand. And the subject I do debate are the subject I am literate about, meaning I actually read books and studies. As do all the fans of science he is talking about. So who are these fans of science? He had in mind all left wing, liberals, all the people daring to oppose conservatism openly, while what he described was the "fedora" minority. At least that is the impression I got from the article

[Anonymous No.6648898]

>>6648865
Well what can I say, not everyone can increase scientific awareness as classy as Sagan did

[Anonymous No.6648904]

Couldn't read past the second paragraph where he clearly misunderstands Tyson's point

[Anonymous No.6648946]

>>6648898
Of course not but Tyson especially panders to those who already have an interest and looks down upon those who do not. Promoting science is probably not his number 1 goal but I think his rhetoric can cause more harm than good sometimes.
Much like Dawkins shitty, condescending rhetoric to promote atheism

[Anonymous No.6648954]

>>6648867
I'd much rather our society be full of science sycophants than the current crop of retards who insist global warming can't be real while they pray to god for rain, who think vaccines cause autism and are then surprised when their community has an outbreak of measles, and who dismiss evolution as "just a theory" while continued overuse of antibiotics creates antibiotic resistant (or even immune) super bacteria.

[Anonymous No.6648959]

>>6648946
I don't think it's fair to compare Tyson to Dawkins. At least Tyson isn't outright hostile. But the thing is, he's trying to counteract shit like this article, and the other anti-science bullshit that the media constantly perpetuates. I can hardly blame a nig for getting a little shitty with the lowest common denominator. I don't condone it, and I'd prefer an inclusiveness like Sagan brought, but I can't say I could do any better in his position.

[Anonymous No.6648965]

>>6648954
This. Lesser of two evils. At least the blindly trusting in science have more opportunity to develop proper skepticism than the blindly anti-science have to become properly open to it.

[Anonymous No.6649007]

>>6648954
What's the alternative to antibiotics

[Anonymous No.6649021]

>>6649007
viruses

[Anonymous No.6649043]

>>6648784
>JUST BECAUSE YOU KNOW MORE THAN ME ABOUT SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE SMARTER THAN ME!
Lel. Special snowflake ahoy.

[Anonymous No.6649048]

>>6649007
>What's the alternative to antibiotics

He said OVERuse. As in, taking antibiotics when they serve no purpose.

[Anonymous No.6649050]

>>6649048
The problem still will still exist just progressing slightly slower

[Anonymous No.6649054]

>>6649007
It's not antibiotics that are the problem, it's their overuse. They're still inappropriately prescribed for shit like colds and headaches because a lot of people are idiots and think "antibiotic" means "cure-all" and bitch at their doctor until he gives the prescription, which he will because he wants a good reputation and to him the only issue is that the patient will just be wasting money on unnecessary medicine.

The biggest factor though is that the livestock industry feeds antibiotics to virtually every animal at every meal, every day, for their entire lives.

[Anonymous No.6649063]

>>6649054
I agree but this resistance is an inevitability and we all know that if something works for big business it is hard to get rid of it.
IF this resistance is such a danger it would seem using them at all is as dangerous as getting rid of them completely. I don't see a solution as much as a postponing of an inevitable major problem. I suppose that's better though

[Anonymous No.6649077]

Now this is some fresh, new anti-intellectualism par excellence. Bravo, National Review. Who else will think for the stupid people and get them to vote against their interests in such a spectacularly pathetic fashion?

[Anonymous No.6649164]

>>6648784

The entire article is a red herring, drawing attention to a popular movement towards science amongst the Left instead of looking at the actual science. Just because he states this science is a hipster trend and examines the trend in detail, does not mean the science disappears or is any less valid, even if this trend is happening.

If he wanted to be taken seriously, he should have examined the scientific claims and explained why it is wrong, scientifically.

Otherwise, his tears are palpable.

[Anonymous No.6649242]

>>6648784

Don't really care. Being "lol im suhca nerd", and blowing loads on printed-out pictures of Neil deGrasse Tysons face is a fad right now. Fads pass.

Still waiting on the whole "memes being mainstream" fad to pass though.

[Sage in all fields No.6649252]

>>6648784
>>6648786
>>6648791


>National Review

[Sage in all fields No.6649289]

>>6648784

Also, I can't think of any people he named in the article who would actually subscribe to the belief that "one can discover all the secrets of human experience through differential equations"- most of them (Silver, Klein/Matthews/Yglesias) are data journalists (ie liberal arts majors with a few statistics classes and the Excel knowledge they learned at their Goldman internship), Krugman's a trade theorist, Dawkins is a biologist, and the rest are armchair statisticians. None of those individuals (except possibly Krugman) would ever even use a diff eq at any point, and most would be actively hostile to the idea that human behavior is deterministic or could be predicted in such a manner.

And he holds up fucking Murray as an example of a "conservative" leading light, despite the fact he's been repeatedly taken to task for playing fast and loose with the data to support his preordained hypotheses.

What a fucking hack. This is even worse than typical K-Lo level NR trolling.

[Anonymous No.6649359]

>>6649063
Yes, it is inevitable, but it's the time scale that matters. It's one thing to have an antibiotic become useless after a century. It's something else entirely to have it become useless after a decade or two.

[Anon No.6649374]

>let me tell you how self-righteous and insecure you are in the most self-righteous, insecure way I can think of

[Anonymous No.6649392]

>>6649050
If it progresses slower that means pharmaceutical development can reasonably keep up in the biological arms race.

[fox No.6649735]

>>6648784
'Thou' is a subjective pronoun. They should have used 'thee' instead.

[Anonymous No.6650328]

>>6649164

I think people are missing the point. He never said that those scientists are wrong; the article is specifically about the 'hipster trend' with a bit of whining about 'waaah pay attention to our scientists to here on the right' thrown in as well; but the main point was about the 'hipster science trend'.

[Anonymous No.6650419]

>America's nerd problem
>the extraordinarily puffed-up "nerd" culture
>presume themselves to be smarter than everybody else
Cooke evidently has some serious issues about his feelings of inferiority.

[Anonymous No.6650422]

Is Tyson liberal?

[Anonymous No.6650443]

>>6648791
too bad STEM nerds are too autistic and ugly to convince anyone to follow their ideas.

[Anonymous No.6650445]

>>6650422
Yes, because reality has a liberal bias.

[Anonymous No.6650451]

its scary that this article even got printed. most people aren't fooled by the stretches he's made, right?

[Anonymous No.6650453]

>>6648784
Ok, I've finally parsed why this entire piece is bullshit - it's three pages of "science sucks because it's fanbase is a bunch of liberals, hipsters, and nnnneeeerrrrrrddddssss, and not Southern, white, Christian Republicans."

[Anonymous No.6650469]

>>6649007
>What's the alternative to antibiotics
>>6649021
>viruses

Yeah, phage therapy is, in addition to being totally awesome, only going to become more viable with advances in genetic engineering are made.

The major roadblocks are legal (IE: patents, FDA hoops)

[Anonymous No.6650477]

Smarter than thou.

Sounds about right. Someone needs to lead the Epsilons and the Deltas and the Gammas, right?

[Anonymous No.6650504]

>implying world of warcraft isn't casual as fuck
for some reason this part upset me

[Anonymous No.6650507]

>>6650422
No, he's a Republican

[Anonymous No.6650516]

>>6648784
>>6648786
>>6648791
Ah, that stupid line of "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" is almost always wrong. almost.

[Anonymous No.6650546]

>all over the internet, ndg's face is presented next to words he may or may not have spoken

HMMMM I WONDER IF 4CHAN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT??

[Anonymous No.6650547]

He sees that all the smart and intelligent people disagree with him on important and fundamental things, but instead of drawing the obvious conclusion (him being wrong), he thinks that must mean the smart people aren't smart after all, they are just pretending.
Kind of sad, really.

[Anonymous No.6650589]

I don't HATE Obama but I didn't like how he introduced Cosmos. Keep the political shit out of it. Of course, I understand that the show Cosmos itself is not free from politics, but I don't like presidential endorsements.

[Anonymous No.6650590]

>>6648784
he writes like a retard, and has a lot of stupid references and political shit in it, but i agree with his core point.

[Anonymous No.6650597]

>>6650589
For Obama it' seems to be about grooming his image. Not sure why he'd need to, though.

[Anonymous No.6650641]

This claptrap screed is the cover story for NatRev?! William Buckley must be turning in his grave.

[Anonymous No.6650651]

>>6650589
I'm glad a president recognized the need to bring reality of scientific truths of our universe to the American public.
I'm sure many of the founding fathers of the US would have been proud of his efforts to combat anti-intellectual thought in the public.

[Anonymous No.6650658]

Unfortunately, I think this is a fundamental problem with our "oh, I'm so fucking important" culture we have going right now. Often people, especially in my experience on the right, are just unwilling or unable to actually admit that someone they don't agree with is possibly smarter than they are on the subject, and possibly right about it as well. Why is this so hard? I'm not the smartest guy in the world by any means, but I'm able to look at hopefully objective information, see things from both sides, and make an informed decision as to whose version I'm going to go with. This is impossible for many. Case in point, my sister. I walk into the living room the other day (mom's house, we're both visiting for her birthday) and she's watching 700 club. I'm like, "seriously?" and she says "no, it's not religious stuff, it's about climate change, it's really important". I'm like, ummm how about you get your climate change info from real scientists? Her answer, "why, so I can get force fed their liberal agenda?"

FACEPALM

[William F.Buckley Jr. No.6650662]

>>6649735
>thee
"thou" is correct if you accept the elision of the verb — the complete sentence being "I am (we are) smarter than thou art."

[Anonymous No.6650669]

I agree. Only read half the first page but seriously these internet pseudo intellectuals really need to shut the fuck up. I miss the days when my facebook feed was filled with vapid shit about how hot x or y is instead of this patting your brain on the back stuff that's even worse.

[Anonymous No.6650670]

>>6648796
great point.

[Anonymous No.6650671]

>>6650641
Yeah I'm sure he cares sooooo much.

[Anonymous No.6650677]

>>6648946
ya dawkins was never the greatest at debating or speaking publicly about atheism or science because of his condescending tone.

[Anonymous No.6650688]

I get that Cosmos is pop science but I really enjoyed it anyway.

[Anonymous No.6650699]

Yeah, this seems about right.

[Anonymous No.6650700]

>>6650688
The entire point of Cosmos is to bring science to wider audience. It is not some underground project that became popular by hipsters, it was made with the intention to be a genuine part of pop culture. So there is absolutely nothing wrong about liking it, even if most of the science is high school level

I personally loved the new Cosmos, mostly because is presented stories of scientists, not only their discoveries, and they did it in sort of a poetic fashion

[Anonymous No.6650711]

>>6650700
>The entire point of Cosmos is to bring science to wider audience.

I have to admit, Cosmos, and most of the shows, have the problem of showing people "look how awesome scientific discoveries are", rather then show the joy of the process of discovery. Sure, a blackhole looks awesome, but you know what's cool to see? The way black holes were formulated in theory and then observed.

Cosmos actually showed some of the processes, briefly, and those few moments were great, but for the most part it followed the standard formula.

[Anonymous No.6650714]

>>6650589

Dude, Cosmos was the most political science documentary outside Nazi Scientists. Shit was pushing it's agenda over and over and over.

[Anonymous No.6650724]

>>6650711
>showing joy of the process of discovery
That is impossible. You can showed a hyped scientist looking at data, you can see his joy but that does not make you feel the joy with him. Passion for science and discovery cannot be shown, it can be experienced. That is what Cosmos, Bill Nye the science guy and all the other Tv series were trying to do. To push generations of people towards science, so they can try it for themselves and discover the passion and joy behind it.

Just look at the Wow signal. For someone who doesn't have the knowledge, it is a bunch of numbers. Hardly something to be joyful about. But for a scientist it is something remarkable, despite being a bunch of numbers. Your problem with Cosmos is that it is not trying to teach the joy of the later example to the scientific literate people of the first example

[Anonymous No.6650761]

>>6650724
Bullshit. In my first geology course, the professor spent a whole class session going over the history of the discovery of plate tectonics. It's a fucking epic, and when Harry Hess finally worked out seafloor spreading and vindicated Alfred Wegners work 50 years earlier, you do feel the joy that comes from discovery. Nowhere near actually doing it, of course, but it gives you some semblance of it, and motivation to want to experience it yourself. The end results were important, but the methods were what was exciting.

[Anonymous No.6650765]

>>6650724

Allow me to rebut...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

I'm sorry with replying with nothing but a video, but said video shows everything I like.

[Anonymous No.6650782]

>>6648784
Is/was 'geek chic' silly? Yes. Did I appreciate the politically polarising tone of the article? No.

[Anonymous No.6650784]

The average IQ of top scientists is at least 2 standards devs above average. Stop trying to get a population with an IQ of 100 interested in science. At the very best, they'll be able to handle watered down popscience.

[Anonymous No.6650793]

>>6650784
>The average IQ of top scientists is at least 2 standards devs above average.
That's maybe the average IQ of mediocre scientists. Top scientists are another SD or two above them.

>Stop trying to get a population with an IQ of 100 interested in science.
There's a whole lot of science you can learn without having the intelligence necessary to handle the hard math.

[Anonymous No.6650804]

>>6650784
Nobody expects the population to understand science.

We just expect them to brush off the idea that Jesus Christ rode dinosaurs and lying bastards exist in the world.

My mom believes every single shit. Its hard work explaining step by step how some people will do everything to cheat you. It takes time

[Anonymous No.6650813]

>>6650765
I dont see how that debunks what I pointed out. Not saying it is a bad video, but it is about scientific method, not teaching science to general public

>>6650761
Well of course he get you an introduction to the field you were about to study which can give you joy, but as you said, that is nowhere near the joy of discovering something on you own by hard work. That is what is unteachable, that you can only experience

[Anonymous No.6650821]

>>6650669
It gets worse, he starts off taking about nerds in pop culture but it slowly devolves into political whining.

[Anonymous No.6650823]

>>6650445

Except that the Tea Party is more scientifically literate then liberals and Tyson himself said that the Republicans support science more then the democrats.

[Anonymous No.6650828]

>>6650823
>Except that the Tea Party is more scientifically literate

[Anonymous No.6650834]

>>6650823

lol

[Anonymous No.6650836]

>>6650813
Most people in that class were MUH PSYCHOLOGY majors who were just looking for a natural science credit, and everyone was pretty into it. Still, what are the alternatives? Sit on our hands and hope people just naturally get exposed to science? Just because it's not the same doesn't mean it's not reminiscent. The feelings I got doing my own Astronomy research for my advanced classes was the same feeling I got listening to stories of exceptionally well done science, just taken to a different level. I'm not saying a documentary can make you feel the legitimate joy of discovery, I'm saying that's a needlessly high standard to set. Most professional baseball players watched baseball as kids, most great directors grew up idolizing the work of great directors, and most great scientists have some initial pop exposure to science that kick started their interest. If I hadn't watched Cosmos as a kid, I might very well have ended up a damn accountant, regardless of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6650837]

>>6650828

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/

" I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.

But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party. All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the “paper” (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico).

I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view."

[Anonymous No.6650838]

>>6650834

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

[Anonymous No.6650841]

>>6650837
So your source is one study on a website with such objective articles currently on its homepage as

>Brutally Funny: Comedians Tear Into Obama Administration and Leave No Doubt Why It’s a Joke

>9 Times Obama Blatantly Made Fun Of Republicans Just This Year

and

>White House: We’ll Put Illegal Immigrants Wherever We Want, And We Won’t Tell You

Come on, buddy. This is a science site. Step your game up.

[Anonymous No.6650843]

>>6650841

What is your source? At least there is one study showing that the Tea Party is scientifically literate compared to the left; a study created to prove exactly the opposite.

What website would you like the source to come from? That was the just the first link when searching for the study; I thought the study itself was the important part.

You could be right, so I'll be waiting for a link to the studies you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.6650845]

>>6650700

The production value of Cosmos was a bit too high in my opinion, it took away from some of the wonder.

[Anonymous No.6650846]

Got thru one and a half pages and skimmed the rest.

The article is gobbledygook, I can't tell what it's talking about or why it matters.

[Anonymous No.6650849]

this really does belong in /pol/

[Anonymous No.6650853]

>>6650843
I searched a few databases for proper scholarly research on the matter and didn't find anything one way or the other. While I won't posit I'm right without evidence, I'll also need a primary scholarly source before I give any credence to you, either.

[Anonymous No.6650878]

>>6650853

So in your search of 'proper scholarly research databases' you didn't bother to check Nature?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html

[Anonymous No.6650884]

>>6650853
>>6650878

And a few more were this information is used:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2466715

[Anonymous No.6650886]

>>6650878
>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html

>Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

Okay, perhaps I'm missing something, but how do you get "the tea party is more scientifically literate than liberals" out of that.

[Anonymous No.6650894]

>>6650886

Obviously there is no paper that is only 'The Tea Party is the smartest!', it was part of the data used for each of the papers I posted.

'The Tea Party is more scientifically literate' was not a primary part of any of them and wasn't even a very big deal, it was just a piece of data like any other in those papers. It's just an interesting piece of data for the public.

It was more of a 'huh, interesting...well, anyways, on with the paper...', in context.

So if you are looking for a published, peer reviewed paper about 'The Tea Party is smarter then ____ (insert liberal group here)' then I guess you are right, there isn't one that I know of.

[Anonymous No.6650898]

>>6650886
>>6650894

Oh and to point out one part of the paper were that data is used that is mentioned in the summary you pasted:

>Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.

[Anonymous No.6650903]

>>6648784
first, he dropped nomenclature. Next, paragon. After that, I wasn't reading anymore,

[Anonymous No.6650906]

>>6650898
So the only criterion for being a member of the tea party is not being concerned about climate change? And it goes on to suggest that they aren't concerned about climate change because they are more commited to forming beliefs in line with their group than rather than by using the best available science. So, if it is in fact discussing the tea party, it's saying that they're willfully ignorant of the science available, rather than genuinely ignorant. Is that supposed to be better somehow?

[Anonymous No.6650907]

They're kinda stupid.

[Anonymous No.6650911]

>>6650906

No, and this isn't what he is saying, you should probably read the paper (though even from the summary I find it hard to see how any could come to the conclusion of the papers contents that you have). But even if that is what he was saying, how is that relevant at all for what you were originally arguing against? Isn't that an admittance that you are wrong, if you say 'is that supposed to be better somehow?'? Yes, willful ignorance may be worse, but that is not what we are arguing. For it to be worse that would mean that the Tea Party being more scientifically literate then others is TRUE, making your initial argument wrong.

[Anonymous No.6651028]

I understand a lot of peoples contention with this article but can you guys at least try to reign in shit like this?

http://fth.sagepub.com/content/21/3/309.abstract

For every scientist that it is easy to defend and call others 'ignorant' for not trusting, there is a slew of others that are full of shit and are still used as a weapon to uphold certain peoples ideas.

[Anonymous No.6651037]

>>6651028
We can't exactly force people to stop going for the major they want.

[Anonymous No.6651066]

>>6648784
>Maddox
into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.6651068]

>>6650516
>"my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" is almost always wrong. almost.
Why almost?

[Anonymous No.6651079]

>>6648954
>who dismiss evolution as "just a theory" while continued overuse of antibiotics creates antibiotic resistant (or even immune) super bacteria.
Is humanity going to go extinct pretty soon?

[Anonymous No.6651084]

>>6650469
>The major roadblocks are legal (IE: patents, FDA hoops)
The law is going to kill us all? What the FUCK? Are all experiments in this area on the black market?

[Anonymous No.6651089]

>>6649077
>National Review
Is National Review always so shitty? I thought they were famous and reputable and stuff.

[Anonymous No.6651092]

>>6649289
>This is even worse than typical K-Lo level NR trolling.
Could someone show me an example of that pretty please?

[Anonymous No.6651094]

>>6651089

The left will call anything on the right shitty, and vice versa. Not saying it is or isn't shitty, but I can guarantee that all the 'into the trash it goes' comments are based on it being a conservative publication.

[None !SSDoCt0rTo No.6651099]

already made contact with ETs online after giving cosmic codes. a new age is upon us.

rainbow warriors of prophecy

[Anonymous No.6651101]

>>6651094
I agree with the conservatives on a lot of things, but righteously indignated anti-intellectualism and throwing around words like "hipster" in a serious discussion is just shitty journalism. I don't agree with his opinion, but I do agree with his right to have it. Guys an insecure cunt and uses valid points (pop science being a questionable thing with a lot of issues that need addressing) to sloppily support his political beliefs and put words into the mouths of scientists as a whole.

[Anonymous No.6651134]

>>6651101

To be fair, from what I have seen I believe that liberal publications have on average many more articles with this type of snide, pop-culture referencing, pseudo-journalism. To the point that this article even comes across as an attempt to emulate that style of 'hip, cool' writing.

[Anonymous No.6651148]

>>6651134
True, but I believe it's a case of young journalists killing the field with unprofessionalism than with political orientation. It's just that more young journalists lean left than right. It's bullshit regardless of which side is slinging it.

[Anonymous No.6652895]

>>6650793

What do the terms average and mediocre mean to you anon?

[Anonymous No.6652956]

>>6648813
does it matter what the magazine is?

he based it off on the material he read, not who is saying it.

[Anonymous No.6654255]

>>6652956

No. Does /sci/ take everything deadly serious or something? I meant that it was a funny comment.

[Anonymous No.6654799]

>>6650546

They most certainly did, but that shit wouldn't be all over the internet if people hadn't reposted/upvoted it without having the basic level of scientific understanding needed to call bullshit. That was kinda the point.

[Anonymous No.6655108]

>>6651089
>>6651094

They used to be a reputable magazine until decades of strident anti-intellectualism drove off all but the most ardent ideologues.