"Trust the Science"

submitted by zyxzevn from i.imgur.com

all 52 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Kyto113 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (38 children)

How many of y'all have actually read the scientific publications?

Trusting random memes on saidit seems a step lower than trusting news sources lol.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

I do look into the science publications, and the news channel that I follow go step-by-step through them as well.

There also needs to be some logical reason for something to work or be true.
And each publication is affected by bias and group-think. It is great to be able to see them.
Many publications are circle-jerking of theories (or political bias) and not really progressing anything nor have any real-world data, even when peer-reviewed.
So it is best to have your critical thinking hat on for each publication.

[–]Kyto113 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Also, if you do read the science, why is it that all of your submissions are either memes or conspiracy sites like bitchute or thenewamericanvagabond.

it shouldn't be that hard to find reputable scientific sources that support your views...

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

"Reputable" .... I think everyone, even the "experts" disagree on what is to be considered as "reputable".

[–]Kyto113 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Having some disagreement and gray area does not mean that all sources are equal.

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

How about you actually discuss it with all the different users? Or, you can sit and dwell in your assumption, and feel intelligent in doing so.

[–]Kyto113 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do... Regularly lol. And I do so here and on reddit in liberal bastions like r/politics.

[–]Kyto113 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Except what most people think is "critical thinking" is actually just confirmation bias or plain old contrarianism.

Look at the sites that are shared on this forum. There's absolutely no critical analysis of anything that agrees with the preconceptions of this site's userbase. in fact, one of the main reasons I'm on this site is to get fodder for my critical thinking class

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

'fodder' for critical thinking?

Have you been examining your own mental processes, or do you just want ammunition to support your adherence to the instructions given my media?

[–]Kyto113 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

The site is an excellent example of failures of critical thinking. Just the other day I saw a thread full of people accepting as fact a meme that was easily identifiable as misinformation with three seconds of googling.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

you are an excellent example of the failure of critical thinking. Confirmation Bias is your go-to

[–]Kyto113 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Except I haven't asserted any beliefs lol

I'm not sure how you can accuse me of confirmation bias given that I haven't made claims or provided sources.

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

your words are littered with your beliefs. That you are blind to them just highlights how unskilled in critical thought you really are. Yet another hollow drum

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You just want ammunition, be honest. Conversations and personal dialogues are, to you, games where one party must score more intellectual, factual, truths over the other party to "win".

You can compare the entire user-base to Trumpists, flat-earthers, and the like, you have the freedom to do so. You seem to insinuate that you go to a place that treats all conspiracy theorists as if they are one of the above. I am sorry if I am assuming. If you are really here for fodder, make a separate post specifically concerning this. I dare you to. I actually dare you to. Ask for legitimate sources, be courteous, and try to challenge the user-base, and yourself. I will keep bugging you about this. If we were in class together, I would most likely calmly challenge you quite often. That is why I am doing it here. Thank you.

[–]Kyto113 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I said one of the reasons I'm on this site is to get examples of fallacies and biases. It's exactly one of the reasons why I'm subscribed to r/politics...

I'm posting here to call out people who post from conspiracy websites, random bitchute videos and the like while also mocking liberals for just accepting what they see on the mainstream news. The sources and evidence that are common on this site are a step below trusting mainstream news.

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

You should make a separate post concerning this, so that the people who you are "getting examples from" can describe to you why they do what they do. I have a strong feeling that you go to a liberal school and have very mainstream beliefs. You'd probably group users into the "crazy conspiritard" group without a second thought. You should make this post, because it's respectful. You should do it because you'd probably get more" examples" which is what you want, and you'd also be subjected to users who are not fools, who CAN source their claims, who have more experience than you do in regards to the modern power process. You seem to be similar to the Trumpists. They say no words from the mainstream can be trusted. You seem to say no words from the alternative can be trusted.

If you aren't saying this, then please, make a separate post and treat all the users here like they might actually have something to teach you. Some of them surely do. Thank you.

[–]Kyto113 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I do regularly engage and challenge people for their sources. You want me to make a general post "show me the evidence for your conspiracy theories"? It is much more productive to simply ask people actually making the claims for the evidence (or to challenge bad evidence when I see it).

It's not that no information from alt sources can be trusted, but the reliability of these sources is really fucking low. That's not to say they never contain truth or good reasoning, but the whole reason they're "alt" news sources is that they generally operate on a different evidentiary ethos than "mainstream" sources.

And again, I'm trying to draw out glaring hypocrisy in the general mode of discourse on this sub. Everyone claims to read the science, but when they offer evidence for their beliefs, it comes from bitchute, thedailyfodder, dailyhandle etc. (taking examples from s/politics right now). How is that better than trusting mainstream media?

Finally, you're painting what I'm saying unfairly. Obviously I can't say that nobody here has evidence for their beliefs or that everyone is exhibiting fallacies. What I am saying, though, is that the general quality of evidence favored on this site is a step lower than even MSM (which is itself very low).

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

See, I continued to talk to you because you are now being far more careful with your words, and you are actually portraying your side in an accurate way, unlike earlier, where you were definitely acting foolishly and making it seem as if you were just mining this site to score intellectual points in your class. Make a post, treat us like people, and you might actually understand how some of us know what we know. Like, you would probably argue with me concerning the bankers and their evil grip on society, BUT I have already experienced it firsthand. No reputable or accepted source could change what I have seen and experienced. Where would we stand, then? To some, I am just a person on the internet, so therefore, not worth listening to. To others, I am what I am: a young man who has been burned and will try to help others avoid that same burning. Sometimes I can use sources to do that. Usually, I have to tell people to get more experience, which they won't do if they just think I am blowing hot air up their ass. You seem to come here with a closed mind. What is the purpose of that?

I never said alt. sources are better. All sources have their worth only when their biases and agendas are understood. Most people do not understand the biases within "reputable sources" which is why many people here are upset with you. Some of them ARE fools, and they are forum sliders. Yes, they are on every forum. Still. Make a separate post concerning this. Be upright. I dare you to, I am actually daring you to. I would do this if I were in class with you. Do it, and you might actually learn something, rather than think ALL conspiracies come from shitty sites.

Some of us watched these conspiracies tear apart our families. You can't deny that, no matter how badly you might want to. You have a person right in front of you (separated only by a screen) saying that he has been burned by people the "reputable" sources claim are amazing upright people, when they aren't. Most of the "reputable" sources are owned or indebted to the same people who burned me and my family. It literally only happened because we weren't of their specific tribe. Only because we can't help but fight against tyranny. We've done it now for many hundreds of years, and no amount of "reputable" sources would get us to stop. You should try to understand why people who have been pushed around for hundreds of years finally decide to stop getting pushed around. You'll find that we are acting from facts and truth, oftentimes facts and truths that cannot be experienced unless you actually accept that it is real and happening. That is how they play this game. If you have a closed mind, you won't see them. If you willingly accept that there is more going on that what your "reputable" sources could tell, then you will actually come to understand a little of truth.

I should say, I despise Trumpists like u/christianmusicreleases. Shills and establishment supporters (like yourself) can point to users like him and say "SEE, aren't these saiditors just so retarded?"

Make that post and be upright. Thank you.

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

What you saw was a minority of people liking a meme either because it was funny or because they believe it was relevent.

To assume that these same people are 1 : A good representation of the user base. And 2 : In agreement to the belief that the said meme was factual. Is quite the strech of the mind. I often like stuff that are funny even if they incorrect. If I want factual information, I'll use US census, OCDE data bank or peer reviewed documents. I will look at the data and judge. I'm not taking my information from a news network and said it is mostly a censor free media. It's a mixt between reddit and 4chan in a way.

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That would be me.

I regularly post papers from highly respected journals, and the 'trust the science' people refuse to read them, because I'm not agreeing with the TV narrative

[–]ReeferMadness 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And here it is yet again. The belief that people who don't go along with the mainstream narrative have simply chosen to blindly believe someone else rather than blindly believe the news. This is not how it works.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

How many of y'all have actually read the scientific publications?

I do. I research the pros and cons, then come to a "more" truthful conclusion. The one thing I learned is that Snopes and other "fact checkers" are absolute garbage.

[–]Kyto113 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Garbage because you disagree with them? They're not perfect, but they tend to do a pretty darn good job of utilizing facts. If your reason for disagreeing with the fact checkers is the kind of sources that are posted on this site, you're not executing critical thinking properly.

"Critical thinking" according to this site:

Fact checkers utilizing evidence to back up positions

"Mainstream media bias, liberal agenda"

Random screencap of graphic without attribution or context

"This proves my point entirely!"

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (9 children)

but they tend to do a pretty darn good job of utilizing facts.

We get it, you are a fanboy. good on YOU! bonus social points.

critical thinkers according to me:

A deep understanding of the language and systems described by said language, backed up by interesting peer reviewed publications that show failures in mainstream understandings (or in some cases, complete misrepresentation)

[–]Kyto113 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Lol, disagreeing with mainstream understanding is part of your definition of critical thinking...

So in your world one cannot accept the mainstream story while being rational... Sounds unbiased

[–]ReeferMadness 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It just happens that blindly agreeing with the mainstream and coming to the same conclusion is indistinguishable. However, a sheep always agrees with the mainstream while a critical thinker will eventually disagree. Ergo the way to identify a free thinker is when they disagree with the mainstream.

Is there anything important on which you disagree with the mainstream?

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

looking for the failed assumptions and data errors in the current status quo is critical thinking, and to dismiss it as 'bias' shows you know fuck all about anything.

Your failed logic is also pretty poor showing. To conclude as you did "in your world one cannot accept the mainstream story while being rational" is a wild extrapolation based on nothing but the shit that resides in your ego.

If a mainstream idea holds up to scrutiny (say, a spherical earth shape and an orbit around the sun), then yay, go mainstream.

[–]Kyto113 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Looking for the failed assumptions and data errors in all beliefs is critical thinking

Critical thinking isn't just about challenging the official story. It's about subjecting all beliefs and information to critical analysis. And what you see on this site and read it, is people are more than willing to accept crap sources for things they want to believe while having exacting standards for things they don't believe.

Your failed logic is also pretty poor showing. To conclude as you did "in your world one cannot accept the mainstream story while being rational" is a wild extrapolation based on nothing but the shit that resides in your ego.

It's a direct result of your improper definition. If you altered your definition as I did above, then you have a pretty good one. As you stated it, your definition is incomplete and leads to this result.

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

now you show a doubling down of your failure to think critically. You made an error, but work to pretend you didn't, rather than accept truth and grow.

[–]Kyto113 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lol, you do actually Post quite a few reputable and quality sources. But nothing you post in those sources is controversial, I don't think people are not reading them.

On the other hand, your controversial material is backed up by random Twitter threads. Or best yet, the idea that a TV show included a fantasy tower that microwaved people being evidence that 5G was bad for you. It's laughable the disparity in critical attention that you spend on things that you agree with versus things that you don't.

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

idea that a TV show included a fantasy tower that microwaved people being evidence that 5G was bad for you

That wasn't what I was trying to say. I was saying that they like to announce the shit they do before hand, so that everyone has seen it, heard about it and accepted it, so that when they do their evil shit, they have their spiritual legalistic side dealt with. We are dealing with powers and principalities, and part of that world is the rule that free will is inviolate. They must get your permission before they cut out your heart.

As for 5G, if you wanted to debate the potential risks, then I'm up for it. I can bring a whole bunch of phased array, distributed source engineering that is in patents on navy weaponry ideas, demonstrate how the fires they were suffering had little to do with people, and everything to do with using the wrong cable sizes and generating resonant plasma in them (like a grape in a microwave).

5G, if used according to the communications protocol specifications is safe. It is the potential to weaponise it that isn't. Think gamma knife surgery and you'll be on a rightish track, although the 5G can be far better focused due to the phase array source rather than a neutron gun.

What is laughable, really, is your inability to engage in discussion to get more data before you share your judgements. Being woefully misinformed is a sin in this modern information age

[–]Kyto113 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The only judgments I've shared other than the kind of sources that are used in this site- . I also pointed out the glaring double standard with which you treat scientific sources versus those with which you treat conspiracy theories.

If you applied the same standards of evidence you use for the "official story" as you do for conspiracy theories, I'm sure your beliefs would change significantly...

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

you are a leftist, with pretentious to intelligence.

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

For mundane facts they're okay. For anything controversial they clearly misinterpret data points, and spin it to fit an establishment narrative.

they tend to do a pretty darn good job of utilizing facts

With your feeble verbose wall of text apology on their behalf. It's clear you do not do any serious amount of research on your own. Nor, have you mastered critical thinking.

While you're playing video games, or otherwise jacking around wasting your precious time. You would find me reading science and medical research, abstracts, and verifying subject credibility...and everyone involved.

Snope's bias is obvious to any one who has dedicated time to researching a topic. Common informational malfeasance on their part includes but is not limited to moving "field goals", ignoring dissenting evidence, shameless appeals to authority, disregarding "inconvenient" sources etc..

I shouldn't have to tell you this! If you were a researcher, you would already know what I'm talking about.

Not to mention Snope's shady history, and lack of transparency as to who is paying them to spread disinformation.

Sorry kid, you have to actually do the hard work of proving a topic. Instead of lazily being dependent on being fed erroneous information from a sleazy, incompetent site that you like to treat as an "I win" button because Snopes said so. At this point you look like a fool doing that.

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

People aren’t touting memes as science though. They are aggressively insisting literally any left wing view equates to science.

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

Trust the lie.

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

A+++

Saved.

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

Umm... No. What if the person talking to you is indeed a scientist who practices in a relevant field?

Suggesting people ought to jump to conclusions whenever they hear a particular phrase is embarrassingly childish. This is a supid meme.

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

Group-thinking, logical fallacies, bias, misplaced optimism, reductionism, etc.

Addition:
Even when you don't understand them, you can find errors when other experts contradict each other (or themselves). Or when they do not follow the science/evidence, but the money/politics.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Who are you supposed to trust? The cult leader who says the earth is 6 thousand years old? The tobacco company that says smoking doesn't cause cancer? The selfish politician who pretends he loves you?

Well, I did do some lab work. I measured the force of gravity. Not a big deal. You could do it too. So called 'hard science' is replicable. You might not have the laboratory to test all science, but any university in the world can challenge inaccurate science. And one can get a Nobel Peace Prize if they succeed. So if you can disprove climate change, gravity or that the earth is an oblique sphere; do so.

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

Let's do a non-political topic: The big bang.

There is refutation of cosmological background radiation. After inventing the MRI scanner, radio-specialist Robitaille dived into the many problems with the cosmic radio background observations. Link

Did you know there is the refutation of cosmic redshift? Halton Arp picked out examples of high-redshift Quasars that were close or in-front-of nearby galaxies. He quickly lost his job. Redshift can be observed in electrified plasma and depends on the amount of free electrons. link

There are very old structures very far away. You probably already know, but can also check Hubble for that. For these structures astronomers create new theories with invisible stuff, but are not willing to step away from the estimated age of the universe based on redshift.

Feel free to appoint them for the Nobel Prize, but I don't think the establishment likes it when you break with the established beliefs.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don't care about the big bang.

Let's go with small pox. It killed people. They came up with germ theory. They made a vaccine based on germ theory. Now nobody dies of small pox.

I am not saying that someone called a scientist is always truthful about everything. I know about the "scientists" big tobacco paid off to tell us cigarettes don't cause cancer. I know that phrenology was considered a science. But good science sticks around. The the scientific method is second only to mathematical proofs when it comes to epistemology.

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

How much influence would you consider that funding has in promoting or dismissing scientific data?

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

Depends. When fossil fuel companies pay geologists to find oil, they get a return on their investment. But some scientists can create a climate change lie when the fossil fuel industries pay them to do so. But even the most devious 'gun for higher' climate denier can't change the data of an honest climatologist. And if the media lies about surface temperatures to cover up climate change, consumers will catch on with their own thermometers.

Climate change denial, leaded gas denial and tobacco cancer denial come from the same play book. And the media gives 50/50 time to issues where the scientific community is 97/3. And the 3 who disagree with the 97 could be correct, but if those 3 are saying something the billionaires want us to believe, I get suspicious.

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

can't change the data of an honest climatologist.

If this honest climatologist was denied funding until he came back with the 'correct data", this would drastically reduce honesty across the board.

consumers will catch on with their own thermometers.

The general populace noticing discrepancies, correlations and coincidences rarely has any effect on policy or the science establishment. Some exceptions apply, but only "authority" is the arbiter of what is supposed to be true.

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

Sometimes it is hard for a regular person to collect data, but it can be done with some things.

Even if a climatologist is compromised by funding, science experiments are replicable. The truth will eventually prevail. You can't change the co2 evidence in antarctic ices sheets, even with Koch brothers' or George Soros money.

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

You can't change the co2 evidence in antarctic ices sheets, even with Koch brothers' or George Soros money.

That's an unprovable statement, therefore simply an assumption and the Achilles heel of your premise. We only know what we're told.

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

No. We know relevant first hand information about many important things when we think about them.

Take that "stolen election". I have worked as a poll worker before. I went through the county training and I watched my fellow poll workers. It was mostly pleasant. I didn't see any shenanigans. I did have to turn away a registered young black voter because the only id he had was a student id. Years later, mail in voting didn't have id. And when I registered to vote, I didn't have to show id either. After an adult family member died, they were removed from the voter registry. I know it is a bit anecdotal, but it is consistent with what my local news says it is.

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

No

You submitted anecdotal information and personal opinion as fact...again. Your premise is still awaiting supporting proof.