use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~6 users here now
funny
"Research"
submitted 3 years ago by FediNetizen from i.imgur.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (5 children)
So if two identical studies are done the thing that determines which one is science is who did the research? Do you understand that this is illogical?
Look up appeal to authority fallacy.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (4 children)
No - that's not true. And the best way to avoid the interference of authoritarian or more powerful influences is to have a democracy support the science of the research. Otherwise, the more powerful group (oligarchy &c) will tell you what is and what is not 'science'.
Science is supported by the scientific method, and must be supported by rigorous attempts to negate the hypothesis. The least refutable evidence is the scientific result.
[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (3 children)
You literally just contradicted yourself.
Otherwise, the more powerful group (oligarchy &c) will tell you what is and what is not 'science'.
That is exactly what IS happening and you are the fool enforcing it by denying unapproved science. It doesn't matter who does the science as long as it follows the scientific method and is sound in its execution.
You literally made the opposite claim, that it is not science, not because the scientific method wasn't followed, but because it wasn't done by oligarchy approved scientists.
As of right now no study has been provided, either for or against the correlation hypothesis. But I suspect even if one is provided you will deny it anyway. Facts be damned.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (2 children)
No, ReeferMadness, it's very simple:
1) There is science, based on math and facts and a rigorous approach to the scientific method
2) There are comments like yours that question obvious facts
Why do you have to complicate the issue?
[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (1 child)
1) please point out where the science that you are attacking is not based on math, facts, or a rigorous approach.
2) "obvious facts" is not a thing. Just because you are sure of something doesn't make it a fact.
I honestly don't think you are capable of understanding the arguments. If you want your friend to stop sending you "conspiracy stuff" just tell her you don't give pearls to a swine. She will understand.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (0 children)
I honestly don't think you are capable of understanding the arguments.
That's rich, coming from you, ReeferMadness
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)