"Trust the Science"

submitted by zyxzevn from (i.imgur.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.