If science was never questioned..

submitted by zyxzevn from media.communities.win

all 28 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]filbs111 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Would that be so bad?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I'm actually pretty okay with this scenario. Kids don't get the heroin tho, that's papa's.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

at least none of those things were required to have a job or go outside

[–]RandumbZer0 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's difference between legitimate Science & the garbage $cience that Fauci & Gates back/invent.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

The reason we can trust science and not the sickos who write comments like this is because science is - by definition - a self-questioning mechanism, thanks to which dangerous substances and corporations have been regulated. Question the right-wing 1% and corporations who push anti-science propaganda.

[–]chadwickofwv 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol

[–]turtlew0rk 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why didn't science question itself when it was wrong all those times?

"Question the right-wing 1% and corporations who push anti-science propaganda."

100% agree. Which is why I am not subjecting myself to a one size fits all medical treatment I do not need, does not work, and only lines the pockets of the 1% and corporations you speak of.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

one size fits all

Vaccines are not that complicated, as they only target virus strains - so one size does indeed fit all

medical treatment I do not need

It's not about you, specifically, but about reducing the spread of a deadly and debilitating virus

does not work

It does. Look at the statistics

and only lines the pockets of the 1% and corporations you speak of

Big pharma has earned a few billion, which is still a 'drop in the bucket' by contrast with the broader scheme of the profits of Big corp, the 1% &c (in the trillions).

[–]turtlew0rk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Vaccines are not that complicated, as they only target virus strains - so one size does indeed fit all

MRNA vaccines are not complicated? Are you a rocket surgeon or am I just dumb? They seem complicated.

It's not about you, specifically, but about reducing the spread of a deadly and debilitating virus

Agreed. Other people should have no opinion on my vaccine status and I have none about theirs.

It does. Look at the statistics

I don't think I can argue you there because I have lost track of what the vaccine is supposed to do to be considered effective. But T the very least I thought it meant I would no longer need a mask. They removed that carrot at the end of the stick for me which probably would have made me reconsider eventually.

lines the pockets of the 1% and corporations you speak of

Big pharma has earned a few billion, which is still a 'drop in the bucket' by contrast with the broader scheme of the profits of Big corp, the 1% &c (in the trillions).

So big pharma is OK? What other big corps? The sub trillions ones are OK? Which corp is making a trillion?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I refer to Big Corp profits in general, which - in the US - passed $1 trillion in the early 2000s. See the chart here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP

The reason this is a serious problem in the US is the increasing rate of income inequelity (which is having serious consequences). See these charts:

https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality

[–]turtlew0rk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ok? So wouldn't Big Pharma be included in the those general profits? Like one of the the big major huge extravagant profits even before this pandemic, price gouging, opioid epidemic, fraudulent marketing claims and countless other crimes over the years?

None of that contributes to income inequality or serious consequences? Or not enough to risk being infected with a mild to severe virus with a low mortality rate and instead agree to endless jabs and boosts and profits and all that comes with it?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Certainly. I am against the abuses of Big pharma and Big corp and would argue that they should have received much much bigger fines for those abuses. (I am however not against science or vaccines, which are part of a global resarch project, of which US Big pharma is only a portion. And it helped to have US Big pharma in order to respond to COVID. Alternatives to this process were vaccine factories in India, China and Russia, which I think have been less regulated than the Pfizer factories.)

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am however not against science or vaccines

Me neither.

Big pharma is only a portion.

Seriously?

[–]Noam_Chomsky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

science is - by definition - a self-questioning mechanism

This should be true, but the grant funding and publishing processes work as research regulators, and evidence suppressors.

Only research favorable to the agenda is funded.

The publishing cartel functions as the secondary academic censorship.

Question the right-wing 1% and corporations who push anti-science propaganda.

I have some questions.

  • Why is the pharma industry working with big tech to silence and deplatform scientific medical critics?

  • Why are only certain limited topics publicly discussed?

  • Why are doctors being fired from hospitals when they refuse to participate in experimental gene therapy injections? These are the people who are the most familiar with the outcomes of the injected gene therapy.
    Why would they quit???

science is - by definition - a self-questioning mechanism

Scientific dissent has become taboo.

Per your own definition; the current "scientific" established is anti-science, in every literal sense.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are referring to abuses of scientific work, not to science itself. I am not referring to the 'established' or to corporations, or to process. I am referring to scientific facts. Propaganda aimed at getting people to distrust science is truly aimed at complete idiots who aren't expected to question their sources. What the right-wing propagandists don't want to put too fine a point on is the corporate corruption tht you mention. This is because those corporate folks are paying for the propaganda, to get GOP hacks and others elected, so that regulations on corporations can be dropped. Look at the financial interests of those involved. The 'science' is not the problem here. Indeed, only those who are focused on facts and science will have a way of addressing the corrupt corporations and .01% and politicians. Focus on these latter folks, their abuses and their investments in dumbing down the discourse on science in order to manipulate voters into voting for right-wing candidates who can only win on lies. If the 99% were more aware of the abuses of the 1%, none of the far-right GOP would be reelected. Science is not problematic - as it is marely a tool for determining facts and for finding scientific solutions.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Still shilling for big science.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

There is no "big science". Cut it out, Node.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Socks go get your booster shots already.

They were designed for people like you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Chomsky would tell you to stop using his name, especially while you're pushing right-wing disinformation for the sake of the .01%. He'd ask you to think of the 99%, and to support their concerns.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Socks.

Go get your booster shots. ASAP.

You are putting others at risk. Quit being so selfish.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Way to try to spin this one around, Socks.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Science is itself founded on questions.

Implying that science isn't questioned is itself spin. The spin in this case is political, implying that government regulation that's based on science should not be trusted, whereas government regulation should be based on science, rather than the opinions of the right-wing politicians pushing the anti-science propaganda. Why trust those asshats? (I say rhetorically.)

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

implying that government regulation that's based on science should not be trusted

Does science change, or does information change?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The information.

(Classical exact science is a tool, involving a standard method and mathematical analysis.)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  • a self-questioning mechanism

And yet when questioned people say it shouldn't be....

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

when questioned people say it shouldn't be....

When questioning the 'scientific mechanism' or process, it is of course important to question likely potential biases in the process, but not good to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The origin of OP's comment is a corporate & political campaign to discredit science, facts and academia so that the resulting mistrust can help sway public opinion to the corporate & right-wing will, to vote for their candidates, to trust the expensive propaganda, rather than science, thereby accepting their lies even when it's possible to appreciate that they are indeed lies. The only way to buy votes among politicians and individuals (via propaganda, bribes &c) is to make people believe that they cannot trust science, facts, or democracy; to help them vote for a Führer and Schutzstaffel.

[–]ShalomEveryone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Back then science was questioned by other scientists and researchers who were not biased. Today, people question science based off of a Joe Rogan podcast where Rogan interviewed some conspiratorial quack.

Shalom

🕎

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

rogan got covid but treated it and is now fine, so I trust him more than those like fauci recommending a shot that gives heart attacks