all 49 comments

[–]makesyoudownvote 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

I think this was clearly and with sweet irony scientifically proven by the works of James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian

[–]Drewski 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This was very revealing (and funny), but just getting into a scientific journal doesn't mean the study has scientific consensus.

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

True, but it does illustrate the same vulnerability in bias that can lead to a false consensus.

Getting published in a scientific journal, though a far cry short of a scientific consensus, is still a HUGE step in that direction. Especially paired with the fact that several of these studies were touted as "groundbreaking" and garnered a fair amount of praise with little to no challenge. Without CRITICAL peer review the current system breaks down.

[–]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.

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It is a combination of 2 fallacies. Appeal to majority and Appeal to authority.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Feynman
"Science advances with each funeral" - Planck

[–]bootylicious 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Science isn't supposed to appeal to anything. (It's about facts.) The Feynman quote is WAY out of context. Ignorance helps develop reasons for scientific study. Planck's comment is also taken out of context. Science advances with the younger generation.

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Science is made of people, not made of facts.

[–]bootylicious 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Science is a fact-finding process ("the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"). Self-affirmation is not science. It's thus not about personal opinion or the self. Science is about facts, not people. Perhaps you're thinking of social studies. I've responded to this post by platonic1 because this questioning of science, facts, knowledge, scholarship, scientific research and the rest of it is one of the most absurd and egregious assaults on humanity in the Republican arsenal of misinformation and disinformation propaganda. If you can get people to argue over facts (as is happening in recent years), you can get them to do anything, at the expense of the 99%. It's evil. And for those who don't want to believe in facts, they should also avoid hospitals, cars, airplanes, phones, and any other place or thing that exists because of science.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

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

    You refer to the misuse of science. (Skewing the results does not fit a concensus where the scientific method is properly used.) One can write about those who abuse the scientific process, which happens all the time. platonic1 is saying that science is the problem, whereas those who are skewing the data are the problem. And to deal faulty scientific resaerch, only additional scientific research can solve those problems (not the opinions of platonic1). For example, JAMA and other medical journals require the publication of retractions, of which there are many.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

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

      I would agree we're all interested mainly in the truth.

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

      Real science encourages debate.

      [–]jamesK_3rd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      2020 calling, they want their tropes back

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

      Good therefore that the scientist removes - as much as possible - any biases from the scientific method he/she uses. Mathematics cannot lie. And the corrobration of scientific evidence across a discipline and around the world is another way to confirm accuracy. What is extremely fallible is one's opinion, which is not related to science, or in some cases not related to facts.

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

      1000%

      This is the basis of how mobs/crowds conglomerate. An idea doesn't need to be the right idea; it needs be only the most readily accepted and accesible. Scientists are every bit as vulnerable to the sensation of "looking around the room and going which way the wind blows" as any other profession, and more so when they need to fund their infrastructure.

      Millions of people are now dying and having their lives destroyed because of this mistake in the mRNA world we live in...

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

      Money, power and social acceptance determine our actions, scientists are no different. I fully agree with you, platonic1.

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

      This has been going on for decades. Consensus once believed that there were no such thing as microbes. You should see the hell they wraught when specific people proposed the mechanism of action of DNA and mitochondria.

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

      This is also why quoting people for weight in an argument is ridiculous.

      Either the argument and evidence stand, or they don't. Saying 100,000 scientists AGREE means jack shit.

      [–]ID10T 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      What about 9 out of 10 dentists?

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

      I am sure it is 9 out of 9 due to cancel culture

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

      You mean Colgate isn't the number one choice toothpaste? 😯

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

      Yes...

      True science is hard: engineering, physics, chemistry, data processing.

      Health "science" can exist, granting that complex biological differences have very different negative results, but it's been perverted in the worst ways.

      Globalists hijacked and invented low IQ "sciences" to legitimize reddit-tiers (braindead retards) selling the shackles of globalist-communist cattle-enslaving ideology with prestige. Social "sciences" of the mind mostly shouldn't exist. Milking sensitivity is much to the dysgenics of humanity. Globalists push poison and pandora's boxes: most "vaccines", "transhumanism", "climate" scamming, unwarranted drugs/chemicals, and political theater thereof to reach the end game.

      [–]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

      [–]platonic1[S] 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)

      [–]platonic1[S] 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

      [–]platonic1[S] 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

      [–]platonic1[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      [–]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

      [–]platonic1[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      [–]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.

      [–]platonic1[S] 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.

      [–]platonic1[S] 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".

      [–]platonic1[S] 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.

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

      The scientific method suggest there is not consensus and every assumption to continually be tested and retested.

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

      I'll say it: scientific consensus is completely worthless. Without replicating the experiment, getting others to agree with you has no meaning and adds nothing to the body of scientific work. A million people CAN be wrong, and are, all the time.

      [–]dexim62493 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Crown is a major danger of the century which influences genuinely, intellectually and monetarily/To defeat these troubles and take advantage of this prisoner period and make web based procuring. Check this web interface for more data.. Copy Here→→→→→ 𝐰𝐰𝐰.𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐨.𝐜𝐨𝐦

      [–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

      Mistake no.1: Treating science like some democratic vote or a "consensus".

      Mistake no.2: Assuming that "$cience" is free of the corrupting alloy of money.

      Mistake no.3: Trusting those who've historically proven to be unable to translate their gobbledygook to the lay people they often directly affect.

      Mistake no.4: Listening to the spokespeople of science -- government, corporate mouthpieces etc. -- who have direct, vested interests in what they are promoting and, often, paying for.

      Mistake no.5: DELEGATING ALL THINKING TO THE SO-CALLED "THINKERS".