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 →

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

It proves that even scientists are not discerning people. They are not infallible, and are just as gullible as the worst Q-tards. Scientists will eat up your academic bullshit if it happens to align with their pre-existing beliefs. Dogmatic Scientism is real, and it's far more common than critical thinking.

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

Exactly!

The scientific method is the basis for science. It's a tool for weeding out biases like these. Peer review functions as a multiplier for this effect.

However blind faith in scientific consensus is not science at all. It's actually inherently unscientific. This is Dogmatic Scientism like you said and it's really not very different from any other religion or faith.

This is just one of many tools post modernists have used to undermine human knowledge and growth. I know that's not how they see it, but it's literally the same kind of thought process that lead us into the dark ages a one and a half millennia ago.

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

It's even more insidious than that. The number of people who believe in anything at all has dropped through the floor - but humans have a need to believe in something. . . . so they cling to "The Science." But the powers that be know this and have used it to their advantage. Instead of using actual scientific principles, they swap them out for dogmatic scienTISTIC principles which are not to be questioned. Something like "vaccines are safe and effective" replaces religious statements of faith like a Hail Mary prayer. Being anti-vax is the new HERESY. The idea of being cancelled from social media, or losing your job because you won't take the jab is the new Spanish Inquisition.
The new state religion is the Cult of Dogmatic Scientism, and vaccination is the holy sacrament. Amen.

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

I agree up to a point. I don't think all humans need to believe in something in that sense.

I really don't believe in very much at all. I have things that I think are true, but I am a man of very little faith.

I want to add I don't think this makes me particularly special, I think I'm in a minority but not a significant one, I'd estimate somewhere between 10-20% of people are like this to some degree. I don't think this has any baring on intelligence or anything either, it's just different.

I think for most of these people though I would agree entirely, they need a belief system, and they simply have eschewed one religion for another while deluding themselves into believing it's not a religion.

But again what I think is insidious about it actually is the corruption of science. It's an absolutely necessary tool for improving our understanding of the world and it's being appropriated and misguided.

A similar corruption is happening with language too. Words are being redefined or replaced and words that describe important topics or distinctions are being muddied by vagueness or vulgarity. This is becoming obvious now, but the first time I witnessed the ramifications of this was what happened with the definition of homosexuality or gayness in the late 90s, and then watched it happen again with Amy Coney Barrett's interview as a supreme court justice.

The definition used to be someone who engages in sexual acts with a person of the same sex. It was an ACTION. Something with tangible and provable effects. This is why you had questions that seem so silly today like "If you are in prison and a man rapes you, does that make you gay". We switched the definition to a sexual preference. Something that is internal and not provable for the sake of strengthening the argument that homosexuality is not a choice. Well it absolutely was by the previous definition, as excepting situations of rape sex is a voluntary act and a choice. We proceeded to shame and make fun of people who were confused asking why it wasn't a choice, without acknowledging that the definition had changed. Then in 2020 when Amy Coney Barrett was interviewing to become a Supreme Court Justice she used the term "sexual preference" to define homosexuality, which they shamed her for, claiming that a preference is a choice (no it's not, I don't choose to prefer pizza to tacos, I just do) and the new term is "sexual orientation" even Merriam Webster literally changed their definition that very night.