It's been a while my friends

[Anonymous No.7189685]

So just to remind you m8s: this whole thing started as a spoof of "fucking science lovers" - ignorant retards with sheep mentality who might've just as well been believers in 6k year Earth, mormonian god and watched Oprah or read "Jesus is love, Jesus is life" publics instead.

Last threads were quite primitive and mostly consisting of nigger humour, which was fun, but it's become bland and boring now, so I suggest we get back on the track creating something clever, ironic and expository.

After all, as Oscar Wilde once said
> Nothing, but my genius.
> ...Ugh, yeah, well the buttplugs are mine too, that's... yeah, ahem..."

[Anonymous No.7189698]

The one and only.

[Anonymous No.7189796]

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.7189837]

>>7189685
>>7189698
>>7189796
These are terrible. Stop making them.

[Anonymous No.7189852]

>>7189685
/r/ing the Mochizuki samurai poem thing.

[Anonymous No.7189861]

>>7189685
>who might've just as well been believers in 6k year Earth, mormonian god and watched Oprah or read "Jesus is love, Jesus is life" publics instead
Be careful what you wish for, lest it might come true.

[Anonymous No.7189870]

>>7189861
ha ha ha
Still better than Turkey

[Anonymous No.7189872]

>>7189861
>turkey

Also, let's be honest here, the crushing majority of people can not understand or evaluate a theory, most people agree with evolution and cliamte change just because of social pressure and they way they see themselves, regardless of the actual merit of those (not saying they aren't true, just that a broken clock is still right twice a day).

[Anonymous No.7189877]

>>7189698

This one is my favorite of all time

[Anonymous No.7189908]

>>7189877
I like to think it's the oldest and the one that started it all.

[Anonymous No.7189916]

>>7189872
But hell, if 90% of the population accepts it as true, there must be some other condition that is holding back even immigrant religious zealots from denying it. I'm betting education.

[Anonymous No.7189926]

>>7189685
It's true
Despite the rise in popularity or 'belief' in scientific principles, our genes have not changed enough over the last 300 years for the average person to be significantly more intelligent so you basically know bitches just take shit on authority still
But now instead of quoting you scripture they were too dumb to come up with they quote some new 'deep intellectual' they probably barely understand despite having had similar ideas drilled into their skull for 12 years at school.

[Anonymous No.7189979]

>>7189861
>70% Germany
yeah nah im pretty sure its over 98%

[Anonymous No.7190033]

>>7189916
Nah, it's "faith" on both sides, one trusts science, other trusts religious tradition (I say religous tradition because not even the fucking pope goes against it anymore), it's more about on how you see yourself, something like "I'm a modern person that trusts science and reason" which causes you to accept the autority of the scientists in question as near absolute, despite you not understanding it a decent ammount (decent from a scientific perspective), against "I trust god above all", which is a traditionalist behaviour and relies on the authority of a religious figure or just plain indoctrination.
Either way it's about trusting authority of someone else, unless you're a specialist.

[Anonymous No.7190175]

Do I trust somewhat blindly in science?
Yes. Because it fucking works.
There is no scientific dogma. Science is antidogma.
You show a scientist compelling evidence, they change their mind.
That is the difference

[Anonymous No.7190214]

>>7189861

>only worse country is fucking Turkey

We're fucked.

[Anonymous No.7190245]

>>7189698
yeah, this one was got my jollies of a lil

[Anonymous No.7191335]

> Either way it's about trusting authority of someone else, unless you're a specialist.
There's a difference between trust (or confidence) and belief though. First is a measure of how likely you think it is someone or something is true, second is a maximum quantity of this measure, you trust in something 100% regardless of other evidence. Most people believe either in scientific facts or/and superstitions. It's how you come to conclusions that's a tell of your intelligence. Also whether you're a truster or believer, there's simple social logic to guide you: superstition popularisers present no, by any means, compelling evidence, while scientists tell you stories about theories and experiments (all of which are more or less readily verifiable for a lay person). So to think the former tell the falsehood is not to take a random set of notions as true - in case you're a believer - or true with some degree of probability, while to think the latter tell the falsehood is not to take a set of random notions as true or to believe in conspiracy "theory".

And even if you are specialist, there are always new articles that potentially can be scams or experiments that you cannot do yourself. Unless you're a believer, in which case nothing really matters, it inevitably comes down to social abduction, induction and deduction logic eventually.

[Anonymous No.7191391]

[Anonymous No.7191461]

>>7191391
2deep

[Anonymous No.7191698]

>>7190175
>show a scientist compelling evidence
>they cling to their pet theory
>contrary evidence accumulates
>new generation of scientists marginalize the work of tenured old fogey til he retires and then give him a gold watch and tell him to fuck off

[Anonymous No.7191706]

>>7191698
Underposted post.

[Anonymous No.7191980]

>>7191698
don't forget
>show scientists compelling dosh
>suddenly new study comes out showing ghosts are real and they want you to buy chevron gas

[Anonymous No.7192087]

>>7190175
>[science] works.
Science has brought us mobile telephones, digital watches, evidence medicine, nuclear weapons etc, but plenty of other things 'work' too, art has advanced in the degree of realism enormously, and then when it could advance no more there it advanced conceptually and broadened completely, many other fields (including relgion) show progress and success that are not science and do not make use of the scientific method.
>There is no scientific dogma.
There is scientific dogma, Galileo faced greater opposition from the scientific community than from the Church on the subject of heliocenterism, but of course it's unfair to pick on 17th century science. To think there is no modern scientific dogma though is naïve of human nature.
>You show a scientist compelling evidence, they change their mind.
Some scientists will, some won't. Kuhn would claim that in a period of scientific revolution some scientists will remain with the old theory, some will move to the new theory, but until the old generation dies out, the old theory remain in use. Some scientists work while plainly contradicting compelling evidence, just as Galileo and Kepler did. There was an enormous body of evidence for the non-movement of the Earth that was built into many disparate areas of science including: "cosmology; physics; astronomy; the calculation
of astronomical tables; optics; epistemology; and theology." (Feyerabend, Against Method, 3rd Edition).
Instead of looking at all the evidence to the contrary and thinking that Copernicanism couldn't possibly be true, Galileo went on to create an entirely new mechanics in which only relative motion was detectable, and absolute motion wasn't. He discounted the current evidence that didn't agree with his theory and manufactured his own evidence and his own interpretations, which is just how irrational intelligent design morons act, but if he didn't act irrationally science wouldn't have moved on.

[Anonymous No.7192403]

>>7189685
>Man, even though every individual cannot possibly be an expert in esoteric science, I hope they value it and have some enthusiasm for the elementary concepts and are aware of its worth to society.

>LOL FUCKING PLEBS SAYING THEY LIKE SCIENCE AND SHIT ON FACEBOOK WHEN THEY AIN'T EVEN GOT DEGREES OR IF THEY DO THEY HAVE THEM IN PLEB "SCIENCES" LIKE BIOLOGY OR SOME SHIT LOOK AT HIM TRYING TO READ A HAWKING POPSCI BOOK LOL SMH I AM SO SUPERIOR SCIENTIST MASTER RACE

>>7189872
Well, an argument from authority is only really bad when the authority isn't an authority on the subject at hand. When a large majority of good authorities hold stock in a theory, that provides some good inductive evidence that it is rational to find the theory credible.

I mean, obviously not everyone can be a quantum physicist. Does that mean that they should disbelieve it?

Evolution and climate change should be taught in high schools, but in places were the cirruculum isn't good enough for the average person to have elementary understandings of them, I think it's still more rational for somebody to believe in them on the basis that all the relevant experts do, than to disbelieve in them because they don't understand them. I see nothing wrong with the former. Imagine if we only believed in things we completely understood ourselves. Only a radical skeptic would advocate that.

[Anonymous No.7192412]

>>7191698
This is true. But it also shows why the scientific method is so useful.

I mean, it would be naive to believe that scientists are completely objective and unbiased and only choose the theories with the best evidence. But, even if individual scientists are biased, the nature of peer review and challenging theories means that an individual scientist's bias means little in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous No.7192831]

>cling to pet theory
When you disregard scientific principles, you cease to be a scientist.
That's like a Christian denying the divinity of christ. they're not really a christian any more, even if it's the only label they feel is appropriate for themself.

[Anonymous No.7193102]

>>7192831
>When you disregard scientific principles
So where in the holy book of science does it say you must not cling to your pet theory in spite of the evidence?
There are no 'scientific principles'. The advancement of science actually requires people to cling to their pet theories against all the evidence, as I said before, all the evidence was against heliocenterism and required auxiliary revolutions in many areas of science which would take until Newton to make heliocenterism look supported by the evidence, but Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno and others supported heliocentrism on a hunch, against all the evidence, and science couldn't have advanced if they didn't act 'unscientifically'.

[Anonymous No.7193106]

>>7193102
> Kepler
> not having evidence
um what?
he couldn't have formulated his laws if he didn't have evidence.

[Anonymous No.7193113]

>>7193106
Yes, he based his laws on observed motion of the planets, that is evidence, but you should understand that from the motion of the stars alone, heliocenterism and geocenterism provide exactly the same observations. The mathematics of heliocenterism are rather less akward than geocenteric celestial mechanics, and remove akward epicycles and eccentrics, however that is not evidence that one theory is more true than the other.
Imagine a red circle you can see in the distance, without parallax, focal depth and other depth cues you could hypothesise it was huge and very far away, or small and very close - both hypothesises are observationally equivalent and you have no reason to believe one over the other. Kepler formulated his celestial mechanics on observed data, but many astronomers at the time that recognised its accuracy simply thought of it as an easy way to do the mathematics, not that the earth was actually in motion, and indeed there was no real reason to think that it was, and many good reasons to think that it wasn't.

[Anonymous No.7193142]

>>7190033
I don't know if that's true for all science. For example, thanks to modern technologly it is now possible to see images of the internal structures of animals, mass reproduction of images of skeletons and through this the connections and evidence for evolution are made manifest. We can actually SEE the evidence for some things. Others, this may be true. Most of us probably have to take the scientific communities word for it that atoms comprise the molecules that make up the universe.

[Anonymous No.7193147]

>>7191980
But those people are a tiny minority, and are rapidly discredited.

[Anonymous No.7193164]

>>7193142
But atoms are just a model to describe how that which we call matter behaves.
Regarding your point about observable evidence: how many people do YOU know that have dissected a pig, or looked through a telescope and confirmed an astronomer's calculations about the distance of a given star from the earth? Just because evidence for many things can be seen doesn't mean the majority of people blindly believes scientists instead of checking the evidence themselves. The only times they question what they are being told is if it clashes with previous "knowledge" or if the general public does so (herd instinct, peer pressure).

[Anonymous No.7193182]

>>7193164
Oh, I agree. If next month the entire scientific community suddenly started claiming the existence of the Mormon God, millions of people would suddenly become mormon. But the point is that the evidence is still observable.

[Anonymous No.7193250]

>science good
>religion bad

/sci/ in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.7193311]

>>7189685
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.7193712]

>>7193311
Thanks for letting us know of your butthurt arse, cleric.

[Anonymous No.7193726]

>>7189852