"Research"

submitted by FediNetizen from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]madcow-5 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (45 children)

I noticed vaccine discussion is really similar to global warming now. Braindead normies flooded the discussion and now it has to be black and white all the time: either you’re an anti “SCIENCE!” Nut who doesn’t trust vaccines or you want all the vaccines you can get, no matter how little you need them or how rushed they were. It’s the same with global warming, you have to be on gretta’s level or you’re an anti “SCIENCE!” nut.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

OK - where is the 'grey' area that proves SCIENCE is wrong? Consider the black and white argument for math:

2+2 = 4

Unless of course you want to consider the nuanced, grey, non-black and white argument about math, and assume that 2+2 does not equal 4.

Let's say you're getting heart bypass surgery and the doctor decides that it's much too black and white an argument to attach the arterial root properly, and instead lets it bleed a bit.

Consider neurodegenerative consequences of mad cow disease. Science notes that it can easily spread to other cows, but that's too much of a black and white argument. Leave the mad cows alone, you say. Meanwhile mad cow disease spreads across the rest of the world, so that the cows suffer extremely and then die.

Science is not a fucking political or social choice or an opinion.

[–]madcow-5 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

Math and science are not the same thing lol.

Not even remotely. Science evolves. Math goes according to its own strict rules. You just made it clear you don't have a clue what science is. You're exactly the sort of dimwit I'm talking about.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You cannot have science without math. Did I say they were the same? Seems you're unable to respond any of the arguments and have resorted to name-calling and misdirection. Rather weak, madcow.

[–]Zahn 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Science is not a fucking political or social choice

Proceeds to declare race is a social construct, and announces 26 new genders.

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

Here ya go (though this too is social, not necessarily about science):

https://www.healthline.com/health/different-genders#1

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

Sir, that is one of the most garbage articles I've ever laid eyes on. You've got to snap out of it. There are 2 genders, occasional hermaphrodites and 26 types of gay. You are anti science if you can't grasp this most natural and rudimentary fact.

[–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Then why are you bringing up math? You didn’t make an argument. You just demonstrated you don’t know what science is by declaring it black and white.

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

Do you not understand the relationship between math and science? How's this: exact sciences. Why do people argue over the exact sciences, argue over facts, argue over 'science'? Part of the reason is that there are social networks of people who want to do so. Why is this? Depending on how old you are, you might remember a time when this didn't happen, not that long ago. The policization of facts and science is one of the strangest achievements of the GOP. It's also dangerous. It's fucking up the US.

[–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The original comment is so far over your head, it's not even funny.

Here it is if you want to read it:

Braindead normies flooded the discussion and now it has to be black and white all the time: either you’re an anti “SCIENCE!” Nut who doesn’t trust vaccines or you want all the vaccines you can get, no matter how little you need them or how rushed they were. It’s the same with global warming, you have to be on gretta’s level or you’re an anti “SCIENCE!” nut.

Your kneejerk reaction to this was to claim science is black and white, like math, and I must be an anti "SCIENCE!" nut.

You're the exact sort person I'm talking about. A guy in a suit on the television says something, and to you that's "SCIENCE!". He said it's "SCIENCE!" and the tv would never lie, therefor you think you're pro science. You're not pro science, you're pro perceived authority. That's not what science is. There's a reason I'm writing "SCIENCE!" instead of science. I shouldn't have to explain the comment in this much detail for you to understand it.

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

Eventually you might realize that you know what you want to say, but cannot communicate it appropriately to others. You might not learn this on Saidit. Your either/or argument still does not work. For example, one does not have to be on Gretta's level, or one would be an anti-Science nut. That's not necessarily what's happening at Saidit. Instead, there there are emotional users pushing their agendas and beliefs, much of which they learned on TheDonald, or Breitbart. Yes, this polarizes the discussion, but not in the manner that you suggest. For example, I see no "Gretta level" users on Saidit.

[–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For example, one does not have to be on Gretta's level, or one would be an anti-Science nut.

My point, idiot.

Unfortunately, neckbeards like you act as though this is the case. You immediately chimed in to say not believing "SCIENCE!" is tantamount to saying 2 + 2 isn't 4.

You're the exact sort of dimwit I'm talking about, and you just proved this over and over.

Nobody else here needed this explained to them so thoroughly.

You're not pro science, in fact, you've demonstrated you don't know what it is. You're pro "SCIENCE!". In other words, you blindly believe what somebody in a suit on the television tells you, while confusing that for science.

OK - where is the 'grey' area that proves SCIENCE is wrong? Consider the black and white argument for math:

2+2 = 4

Unless of course you want to consider the nuanced, grey, non-black and white argument about math,

This was your knee-jerk response. Demonstrating my point that: if you're not on greta's level, you must be anti "SCIENCE!". As well demonstrating you think science and math are the same thing.

[–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Holy hell, there's plenty of math involved in physiology, physics, chemistry, and medicine.

[–]madcow-5 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

No shit there's math involved.

That doesn't mean they are the same thing. Just because something uses math, does not mean it is math. I'm shocked I have to explain this concept.

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

Take a step down from that high horse, you might bust your ass.

Science is in a constant state of evolution because we're constantly disproving theories and finding out new information that solidifies previous theories etc. I'm agreeing with that aspect of what you're saying, but the way you worded it in your argument was retarded.

[–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

but the way you worded it in your argument was retarded.

Which part?

The person responded to me stating that science is black and white because math is black and white. They fundamentally don't understand what science is.

[–]Comatoast 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I'm looking over the comments stream and I'm having trouble finding what I was reacting to, or rather thought I was reacting to. I might have misconstrued some of what I was reading there. Either way, I fucked up. I'm sorry for jumping your case.

Edit: found it. I still did a dumb. Whoops.

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

Well, when you have private companies that can fund research, the results can end up skewed to meet an agenda.

We need research that cannot be funded for gain of anything outside of knowledge and betterment of understanding.

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Unfortunately the same thing happens with government research. Rigorous standards for publication are the only thing that prevents it, and certain fields, like social sciences, have basically lost all standards.

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

I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about that though. How can this be changed to where it actually benefits research vs holding it back?

OT as hell, but did you know that there's a 3rd party group that goes between pharmaceutical companies and government funded programs like Medicare to price drugs? Look up information on prescription Nexium and price gouging, it's fucking insane what these people get away with while the general public takes the hit. All of these companies need to have strong repercussions for their actions.

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

But your second line is the general requirement for the research, and was initially the principle behind land grand universities that were funded by state governments. Regulations of university research help develop an honest approach to the research, though of course regulation is also under attack by corporations and certain politicians. International funding for Pfizer and others is also regulated. Yes, corporations can try to skew the data. Thus is why government regulation and investment in educational institutions should be supported.

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

We have pharmaceutical companies funding programs within universities, you can understand how that would cause a problem though, yeah? They're regulated, but they're not regulated enough by any stretch, and for them to be able to go in and fund programs in educational institutions makes me suspicious.

[–]christnmusicreleases 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

2 infinity + 2 infinity = 1 infinity

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

IF there can be 2 infinities. (Perhaps a Rick and Morty equation.)

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I can't stand Thunberg or the people that prop her up, but you're not going to be called an anti-science nut for not "being on Thunberg's level". You're going to be called an anti-science nut for claiming that either 1) the earth isn't getting warmer, or 2) that human emissions aren't the primary cause, or 3) that this won't eventually lead to disastrous consequences. Or some variant of 1-3, all of which are well-established at this point.

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

if you claim the earth isn't getting warmer

Which almost nobody does. But the entire left larps as though conservatives all say this.

or that human emissions aren't the primary cause,

Now we've just made a tremendous leap. Last I checked the jury was still out. While I personally think human activity is a driving factor, we've crossed the line of if you disagree with my claim that's disputed within the scientific community, "you're anti SCIENCE!".

or that this won't eventually lead to disastrous consequences.

Define disastrous. And again, what's this have to do with science? This is layman's conjecture and subjective. We've entered the realm of politics being labeled "SCIENCE!".

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You've disproved your own point. You're not being called anti-science for "not being on Thunberg's level", you're being called anti-science because in 2020 you're claiming the source of the warming is still ambiguous, denying the entire AGW theory in the process. Unless the last time you checked was in the 1980s, the jury definitely wasn't out on that, and your position is being called "anti-science" quite fairly.

[–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

okay...... This here..... Is not... science.

This is believing what someone wearing a suit on the television says. This is nothing to do with science.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

No, none of this involves some shit from a talking head on TV.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

2) When you combust fossil fuels, CO2 is created

3) CO2 levels have increased massively since the beginning of the industrial era

4) The primary source of this new CO2 is combustion of fossil fuels and clearing of forests

Tell me which of these points you think isn't well-established by science.

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

You’ve never read a study in your life.

You believe these things because someone on the tv told you to.

That’s not science. That’s faith in perceived authority.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You see /u/ReeferMadness, this is what an actual ad hominem looks like. Notice how he never addresses the argument, and just calls me a dum-dum instead.

To address your assertion directly, you are wrong on all counts. I've read many papers, including some bad ones. One of my favorite bad papers is authored by Richard Lindzen, who tried to argue that just because the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that the warming trend is both real and human-caused, that doesn't mean that there is a consensus on the matter. By that same logic, the existence of Kurt Wise means there isn't a consensus among paleontologists that dinosaur fossils are tens of millions of years old. Why do I bring it up? Because Richard Lindzen is a climate "skeptic" (who just happens to get paid millions by oil companies to give talks around the world promoting AGW "skepticism"), and over the years he has made plenty of bad arguments just like this one.

You want an example of another bad argument AGW "skeptics" make? You probably won't believe this, but just recently I had some idiot tell me I've never read a study in my life in response to being presented with extremely basic assertions about the theory of AGW and being asked which of those assertions he believes isn't supported by science.

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

What argument?

How about you address mine?

Instead you’re calling for backup like a massive faggot.

Also, there’s no ad hominem in my comment.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Instead you’re calling for backup like a massive faggot.

No, I told reefer he doesn't understand what an ad hominem was in a different comment thread. I'm tagging him in this one to show him what that actually looks like, not asking him for input. And yes, your comment is an ad hominem. You called me a sheep and didn't address the actual argument. Read my fucking comment before responding next time, and stop to think about what you're actually saying.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Co2 is just harmless plant air, plants love it