Scientific Consensus is extremely fallible

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

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

view the rest of the comments →

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

If you dont have experience or qualifications in the field, you have no basis to challenge scientific consensus.

Scientists proceed under the principles of logical positivism. Thanks to this, their human foibles don't really enter into the picture. Scientists make a claim, make a null hypothesis, and collect data to see which is statistically more likely. Their own hunger or sex drive or loneliness doesn't matter to the statistical methods.

What you're really trying to do here is tell the readers, it's ok to pretend you're cleverer than the experts. I just want to rebut that, no it's not ok. If your issue with science is that "this doesn't feel right to me" or "this doesn't match my religion", that's fine, but don't try and pretend it's coming from a place of reason and logic

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

You don’t need experience or qualifications. Just go to a library and get educated in the basics.

Ignore the experts.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yup and famously CRISPR, the w3 standards, and nuclear fusion were all projects by people with no more knowledge on the topic than could be gained from picking up a library book.

(Also come on. Nobody here is going to their library for a book. Know your audience dude)

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

They my have knowledge but they are still human.

Basic facts like the size of a virus particle and the size of holes in cloth mask are enough to tell the experts were wrong. Basic statistics would tell you the so called pandemic was a scamdemic.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Bruh now you're pretending to be an expert, and you already said people don't have to believe experts. So I think I'll write you off as a moron lunatic and stick with the qualified and educated speakers on the topic, thanks.

Basic statistics? Like what a person could gather if they

Just go to a library and get educated in the basics

Ok moron what's the name of the basic statistical book you picked up at the library? Tell me the name of the library book on which you're basing this. Because I do believe it's plucked out your ass

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

I'm not appealing to my authority. I'm appealing to physical facts and asking you to think about it. Understand the science.

PCR tests and the fact that flu was mislabeled as covid showed us that the cases were not sampled correctly.

Maybe All of Statistics by Wasserman, Statistical Inference by Casella and Berger or Probability and Statistics by deGroot. Or if they are too complicated fo you could try OpenIntro Statistics.

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

I'm not appealing to my authority. I'm appealing to physical facts and asking you to think about it. Understand the science

I will rather listen to people qualified and experienced in the matter, thanks. Because from such people we get space travel, the internet and microchips. Whereas from you we just get hot air and unearned smugness

Statistics

Were those books written by experts, do you think? Or morons like you ... :~\

Now explain how you applied anything you read in those books to COVID data to come to your moronic conclusions.

And the data better not have been gathered by experts either, because you only believe basic library books and laymen

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

Okay, you can "trust the science" and appeal to authority over in that corner. I'll continue in understanding the science and critical thinking.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic1/

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/cdc-pcr-test

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

Ok you can "trust your uneducated moronic self" and appeal to smugness over in that corner. I'll continue being aware that I'm not an expert in fields other people are experts in

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

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

Most scientists agree with whoever is paying them or whatever would win them accolades.

This ain't true btw

only a very small percent of scientists are compromised, they just get the loudest voices because the government and/or companies are promoting their schtick

Bad practice and shoddy science in order to advance their career is more common, but accolades aren't a part of it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

70 years ago doctors recommended smoking, and I’m pretty sure that is because they were paid to.

Today, despite the mathematical order of the universe, most scientists will call noticing intellegent design as religion without fairly judging the evidence because their peers don’t believe in a Creator.

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

most scientists will call noticing intellegent design as religion

Wow, that's retarded. "Noticing intelligent design" isn't evidence of a creator.

If there was an omniscient powerful being, it wouldn't be a "creator" in any sense we can imagine, because the concept of a "creator" is a low-IQ human-level concept. If God existed based on any religion, he would be a piece of shit and an insult to himself. Man made God in his image, not the other way around.

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

You don’t have to be religious to notice intellegent design.

But it’s precisely because of the stigma of religion in scientific circle that they won’t even consider the evidence.

Either the universe is designed or it isn’t. As a seeker of truth you have to weigh the evidence. Even if the rest of the boys in the science club call you mean names.

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

The evidence is basically "wow, life exists". It doesn't tell you anything. Also, if there is a Creator, he would be an evil piece of shit.

Let's say there is a Creator and he allows free will, explaining why people are capable evil. The Creator himself, also must have free will meaning he is capable of evil too, but most religions believe the Creator is all good.

But if he's all good and can NEVER do anything evil, then he doesn't have free will and he must be a deterministic entity rather than a conscience being. Therefore, in order for a Creator to exist, he can't be all good.

The Creator gave us free will, letting us choose for ourselves and allowing for evil to exist. No rules says he can't interfere or reduce evil acts. HE is the one who makes up the rules, he's the Creator after all. Now imagine Bill Clinton and Podesta fucking and torturing little kids who are shrieking and screaming in fear and pain. The Creator sees this and goes, "yep, I'll allow it".

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

It doesn't mater if the Creator is good or evil, scientists should be able to assert there is a Creator if there is one.

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

No they shouldn't, it's beyond the reach of mankind's current capabilities. It's like trying to assert what happens after death.

A Creator may not be a conscious being, meaning it's a type of force in the laws of physics, like gravity. In which case, it wouldn't be called a "Creator".

It could, for example, have something to do with dark matter and scientists are working on figuring out what that is right now.