I feel as if science has become a lot less scientific lately and a lot more religious.
I mean, most people who laud it also are clueless about anything beyond high school chemistry and physics. Many are ignorant of these as well.
Yet, with this lack of knowledge, they still assert that every popular consensus is reality and everything spoken by a scientist is unquestionable truth.
Also, science isn't the pursuit of truth. That is epistemology, a major part of philosophy. Science is simply the pursuit of understanding all that we can observe to the limits we can comprehend. By its very nature, science will yield untruths and will be perverted by those who aren't interested in its purpose. That is why it is important to not hold things that are presented under the banner of "science" dogmatically as being truth.
@Doctor Krieger, so that whole "climate change" thing....Chinese Hoax amirite?
@Welcommatt, of course! Nothing that we need concern ourselves with.
@Doctor Krieger, this is true, but we can take solace in the fact that despite all of the public weirdness, there are still real scientists doing the science that matters, and we are moving forward based on that real science, not the general public's idea of it. In the end real scientific discovery is based on objective fact and well-researched theory, and no amount of "it's scientifically possible to be otherkin I saw the article on my sister's tumblr" is going to affect the outcome and effects of a real, published discovery.
@Doctor Krieger, what a convenient way to simply deny any science you disagree with. Science is by it's very nature the pursuit of truth. There's this lovely little thing known as peer review and with the size of the independent scientific community being around 95% of the total scientific community it's not as if any idiot who calls himself a scientist can just declare a truth and it's accepted by everyone. There are centuries of rules in place to restrict scientific theory to only that which can be retested and those conclusions that follow logical thought. Only once a theory has reached overwhelming support is it presented as truth. A theory with only 80% support will not even be called truth by those who support it (they will call it truth but only within the community itself and not to the public)until it has reached overwhelming support. In the rare occasion the popular theory is proven wrong, the old theory is thrown away without remorse.
@Doctor Krieger, to disregard science in such a way is to disregard nearly the entirety of human progress to this point. Humans have never been perfect but we always do the best we can with what we have and right now our best is the collection of scientific theories and the process that gave them to us
@Doctor Krieger, I agree. The study of 27 different types of gender should not be considered real science. Also i believe in climate change, and that we need to reduce pollution, but I feel like the government is using it as a big bad scary thing to derive more control from businesses. It's also a massive problem that the developing world accounts for about 2/3 of the pollution on earth and no one wants to hold them at all accountable
@Donald Drumpf, overwhelming consensus is not truth. If anything at all, it's suspicious.
Truth is almost impossible to determine in any instance. Outside of a handful of circumstances, it appears to be entirely impossible to determine.
Science provides only best approximations that are limited by our very much flawed senses and finite mental capacity.
To elucidate, truth is absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is, philosophically, extremely difficult to even approach. That's why epistemology is a thing.
@Doctor Krieger, I said it wasn't always true and perfect because humans never are even in the field of epistemology. Science is simply our best course of action and only a fool would deny the best course of action
@Doctor Krieger, While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it saddens me that your comments would start an argument like this. Come on, guys. We are better than this. We aren't just a bunch of trolls: we are trolls from FP. No need to sass and downvote one another over this stuff. Let's just talk like mature 17+ year olds.
@Thinlizzy, you are arguing about politics with a veil of science. If biologists and geneticists study gender and conclude that there are 27, it doesn't matter what you consider to be "real science". Also, the government aspect of your comment, while not wrong, has no part in this. All in all, don't mix objectivity and subjectivity. Also, remember results that you don't agree with are still results
@Doctor Krieger, you say we shouldn't be asserting every popular consensus as reality. Can you give some examples of current assertions that you don't think should be considered reality? Also how is overwhelming consensus suspicious? Lastly, just because science only provides our best approximations and is technically limited doesn't mean we should doubt scientific findings. That's like saying it's rational to claim vaccinations cause autism because the science opposing this view is just an approximation. Approximations in science, like scientific theories, are much closer to fact than a random person making an approximation.
@Doctor Krieger, I love everything you stand for
@SirKillingsworth, joke's on you, I stand for having sex with radioactive pigs.
@Doctor Krieger, classic Krieger. Will write paragraphs and paragraphs with no substantial thoughts but enough truth to get agreed with, and then disappear when starting to get contradicted by people who prove how hollow your words are. No matter what you say, you're simply anti-science because you don't agree with it's findings. I remember your climate change statements. You don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. You didn't even know if there is more or less ice on the planet now. Disappeared for those contradictions too.
@Blue Shirted Guy, I'm at work. I can't spend all of my time responding to your quasi-religious dogma.
I'm not anti-science because I recognize the limitations and potential perversions of it. Stop trying to brand me a heretic to your religion, not for my sake but for your own. You look ridiculous and entirely reactionary right now.
Also, I do believe that anthropogenic climate change exists. I'm simply not convinced that state institutions are being honest about the extent to which it is present. The whole subject is so entirely politicized that experiments surrounding it are very prone to confirmation bias, if not outright fabrication and dishonesty. People are going so far as to agitate for the imprisonment of anyone who challenges the official model. That's not science, that's religious dogma.
It's telling, by the way, that you assumed that I was addressing this with my generalizing statement and that you assumed that I deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
@Doctor Krieger, oh please, you've stopped responding to multiple conversations in the past and this was no different. It's easy to come back and further a discussion. I didn't assume whatsoever, you're changing your views now simply to seem correct and more rational for approval on an app. You have stated before that anthropogenic climate change is far from proven fact and called someone an idiot when they gave evidence to the contrary. You've stated multiple times that science is incredibly politicized and is not dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. You say overwhelming consensus on a scientific topic is suspicious. All of that, combined with your other statements here and you saying there is more ice on the planet now, gives evidence that you are anti-science and a non-believer in anthropogenic climate change.
@Doctor Krieger, also, notice how *not once* have you ever acknowledged that you were wrong about there being more ice on the planet now. Is it because you never want to look incorrect or because you still believe your falsehood?
@Blue Shirted Guy, I work 5 or 6 days out of the week, genius. I don't live to waste my time responding to you, sorry.
Are you going to source these claims, by the way? What picture did I contradict myself on?
All you seem to have right now is salt and you're just pouring it on.
@Blue Shirted Guy, unless you can source your claim, please don't waste my time by responding with more rhetoric. I also have to sleep, in addition to work. Shocking, I know.
@Doctor Krieger, salt? So immature, Krieger. You know what I'm saying, you can respond when you get the chance. (You've stopped responding to multiple people). Found the pics online but don't see ID#s. I'll quote your statements.
@Doctor Krieger, "except you know, anthropogenic climate change isn't even close to proven fact." "It has not been proven that humans have a considerable impact on climate change." "This idea... is only prevented as fact by politicians and certain corporations." (Then you called someone an idiot and asked if they flunked out of middle school when they provided evidence from the IPCC!)
@Doctor Krieger, ice comment: "there's actually more ice now, though..."
@Doctor Krieger, like clockwork, Krieger disappears!
@Doctor Krieger, full time CNC Machinist and grown man coming on a funny pics app multiple times a day to call people names and post agreeable comments for self-validation but not partake in meaningful discussion. Bailing when proven incorrect about something. For someone on the right, you sure do like your safe space here. Sad man you must be, Krieger.
At last, a man with culture
What is the science march for?
@Scottles, government-subsidized cheese curls.
@Scottles, FOR SCIENCE!!!
Progressive leftism and fundamental religion is trying to redefine science.... hail the new Dark Ages!!!!