The difference between conservative and progressive science explained!
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (48)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Indeed. It honestly frustrates me that these science worshippers have a worse grasp of its fundamentals than creationists have.
Listen, Science isn't a method of figuring out the truth; on the contrary, its a method of gradually and slowly eliminating untruths until only a limited, often untestable set of possibilities remain (Despite a scientific requirement being that a hypothesis has to be falsifiable, most scientific conclusion actually rest upon presently unfalsifiable conclusions that we simply lack the tools or resources to refine further. End of the day most things end up at a "just because" conclusion. Why does mass create gravity? Just because. Seems to be an innate function of mass and thats an assumption we must roll with because we don't know any means of testing this in a meaningful way). You take a set of things propositions that aren't self-evidently false and eliminate them until you reach one that seems self-evidently true based on the limited set of evidence you have.
Most things in science we know as "scientific fact" are things that we spent decades upon decades iterating upon to the point that we've literally reached the point where testing the propositions further require circumstances beyond our ability to replicate.
Early on however, science gets shit wrong. A lot. Its not a bug, its a feature. Pretty much any given phenomena can't have any real "scientific conclusions" behind it until about 6 months in. Depending on the complexity, ethics and logistics of testing it, this may be far longer than that.
And yes, until AT LEAST April or so, everything we knew of covid were essentially educated guesses at best and irresponsible conjecture at worst. You think the "Face masks don't work" and "No human-to-human transition is possible" were lies? Nope, that may have actually just been irresponsible idiots proposing conclusions based on incomplete early datasets.
When lay people make definitive statements based on incomplete data, they're idiots. When "experts" do it, its lying. What they're lying about is the degree of certainty backing up their claims.
I used to work in the sciences and many PHD types have huge egos to the point where they are allergic to the words "I don't know." They'd rather lie than admit any gaps in their knowledge. The big ego types also tend to crave status and have the biggest mouths, so they often end up in undeserved decision making roles (Exhibit A: Fauci)
"The fights in academia are particularly vicious, precisely because there is so little at stake." - Christopher Hitchens
I want to push back on this a little bit because "just because" implies that no attempt is being made to figure it out. I think "we don't know" is more accurate most of the time - "we don't know" if the observed physical laws and constants are the way they are because of happenstance (the anthropic principle) or because of some undiscovered mathematical truth that prevents them from being anything else.
The "just because" of the anthropic principle (if that's what we end up having to settle for) also only really applies at the level of fundamental physics - a lot of other things further up the chain might be a consequence of random events, but we can usually at least determine the mechanism that would allow something to happen given the right circumstances and enough time.
Well put! This is especially problematic in the behavioral sciences. Soooo much we have taken as Gospel in psychology and sociology has not been able to be replicated in other studies which is a big red flag, and really, who is suprised by this? Humans are weird AF.
All of this to say, one should never utter the phrase "It's settled science".
The best one should be able to say is "According to the current research we have..."
Communication sciences and behavioral sciences are extra tricky because it is completely reliant on the researchers having a near-perfect grasp of how their own behavior, the phrasing of the question, the setup of the answer and the subject being asked affect one another.
"most scientific conclusion actually rest upon presently unfalsifiable conclusions that we simply lack the tools or resources to refine further"
Those are called assumptions.
Most all "science" is based on assumptions because they just couldn't figure it out and decided that this was probably the right answer, let's move on.
I worded it better.
You sound like an apologist.
No, conclusion.
An assumption by definition is a conclusion made prior to investigation. whether you like it or not, its a scientific conclusion, not an assumption, as it was derived from an investigation in sofar practical means allowed it.
And again, its not "because they couldn't figure it out". Its because you can only break down a phenomena so far before you reduced it to the parts we only have an axiomatic understanding of. At the end of the scientific method, you are left with the conclusion in as far we are capable of refining it. We can't conclusively demonstrate that gravity is a function of mass, we can only conclude that all our present observations show a linear relationship between mass and gravity and accept this to be the most reliable baseline upon which to base our theories relating to gravity. That is to say, our understanding that gravity is a function of mass is the most reliable and accurate model of reality we have.
And that is what science strives for; refining our model of reality; but anyone with a proper appreciation for it knows that we will never actually reach a faultless model of reality. But with almost all things, we reach the axiomatic elements of it. Things we must assume because we are incapable of modeling theories without it. These are the "laws" of science, like the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of force, the laws of communication etc etc. We stick to these laws because the theories these laws produce seem to predict reality most accurately.
It is because they couldn't figure it out.
You are wrong.
Nice word salad though.
Exactly, its because they CAN'T figure it out. That is my point. They aren't guessing for the sake of guessing; it is literally impossible at the moment of speaking to ACTUALLY FIGURE IT OUT. So, as the scientific method advises, we stick with the one that we can use to model and predict reality most effectively with
But that's MY point , you doofus, remember you are the one that disagreed with me.
Even if you can't figure it out doesn't mean that you can just make up some crap because that's the answer you wanted.
That is not science. Assumptions are not ok when it comes to science.
Theres a step missing on the right about whoring out the bad analysis for acceptance or funding
Beat me too it.
I suspect the acceptance of this sort of thing is related to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
Postmodernism, which says everything is subjective and doesn’t demand any logical consistency, is even worse.
They use postmodernism as a tool to deconstruct our reality, then impose their own views and ignore the fact that we could just as easily deconstruct them in turn. "There is no objective reality, therefore you should accept my subjective views."
I don’t support imposing false truth claims on people.
"We follow science" is such a manipulative and misleading statement. Science provides data, but it takes a real leader to take the data and find the best solution in balancing everything.
Scientifically, we could end COVID immediately, you just have to isolate every human in the world in their own cage 6 feet apart for 14 days.
Just because you can use math and data to prove something doesn't mean anything. It's the application that matters.
Cartesian Doubt (skepticism) is also arguably the most critical principle of science. “The science” has to be subject to skepticism or it isn’t science, and no progress is made.
"We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress." ― Richard P. Feynman
As for covid, it’s actually worse than you say. If all you care about is “science” and all you care about is ending covid, you could just kill everyone who might have covid and disregard ethics along with all negative consequences of killing people. That’s what the National Socialists did: kill the children with disabilities “because science” and “muh ethical claims are unscientific”.
Hell, you can describe impossible things with math also.
Mmm, but you're forgetting a super-critical piece on the right chart: idea laundering.
What does that look like? A group of "science worshipers" (to use the chart's naming) gather to create a peer-reviewed journal. They accept submissions that only rely upon Theory (from critical theories, wherein "Theory" is just philosophy, not any actual scientifically-based or tested theory), which legitimizes these ideas and referenced Theory. Now, these ideas are seen as having validity because they were peer-reviewed (by other science worshipers, of course), and "peer-reviewed" journals carry a lot of official weight in the academy.
The process repeats... someone else makes some crank journal focused on Theory and references the articles in the first journal... creating an appearance of validity. This continues as more journals reference these articles, which are then referenced by other journals, which students search up on their university's library database and included in their own writing for classes in departments that are created for the purpose of continuing the laundering of ideas, etc.
This idea laundering is a critical piece because a lot of knowledge generation in our society comes from the academy... and the academy is very poisoned right now. I do not think people understand how central the academy is to narrative-building in our society.
If you never heard of idea laundering before, look up James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian and the "hoax papers." Eye-opening.
I haven't heard of this before, I will look into it. Thank you!
Here is an interview with James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian that (if I recall correctly; watched this video probably a year ago) does a great job at explaining their "hoax papers" (what they are, why they did it) in an accessible way. Great entry point into learning more about how the academy is allowing people to make BS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97FuO-hEhQo
The left taught people that believing in science meant they didn't answer to God. Man, are they going to be surprised when they figure out who made everything science is supposed to study.
If all else fails, pay somebody to create data that aligns with their models.
That is called Lysenkoism....
This has had a name for 90 or so years. It is called “Lysenkoism”, or the idea that scientific conclusion is not finite, and can be bent to serve the Will of the Party. Look it up....
Thanks. Great reminder of the USSR.
Only thing I would change is the “Science Worshippers Method”. I feel like if we thought on it a bit we could title this category something better.
These people are not simply worshipping science, they are using scientific formatting to deceive others.
Scientific Method vs. Scientific Deception
We should make a documentary titled the above and show examples of dems saying that bi-partisan expert studies back up their claims, then look into those studies and the people who did them, and try to reproduce them.
Who’s with me.
I have always called the junk science that the left always pushes on people as "Politicized Science" - For example, the coming ice age scam, the ozone depletion scam, the rain forest scam, the global warming scam, the melting ice caps drowning all the polar bears scam, the climate change scam, the Wuhan virus scam, etc. are all based on agenda driven "sciences" that was/is highly politicized. All use a smidge of real data combined with creative and/or created data to conclude a "science" that is "final and irrefutable" - ironically the most unscientific statement they love to push.
Brilliant!
TOP KEK!!
THIS IS THE PERFECT CHART TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAS GONE WRONG IN SCIENCE AND WHY SCIENCE NO LONGER SEEKS THE TRUTH.
The Metropolitan Museum of Black History has already proclaimed that the scientific method is a creation and belief of white supremacists. Oh yeah, and so is time and hard work. Don’t you bigots know anything? 🤡
I am so making this my Zoom background for all my classes
bUt tHe sCiEnTiFiC mEtHoD iS rAyCisSsSsS because liberals apparently think black people are too dumb to use it.
The scientific method is missing a couple that are often missed. When the results comport with the hypothesis, you need to report on the power to detect a difference and then map that back to the research node.
Holy shit this is gold. Did you make this or find it somewhere? Whoever did this is truly a Jedi Master of the Meme Rebellion.
I came across it on gab from someone who posted it with the caption: "BTW, stolen from Ace of Spades HQ." I wasn't familiar with that, found this:
http://ace.mu.nu/
...and an Ace of Spades facebook group. So I really have no idea who put this together, but I agree - gold!
"They like what science gives them, but not the questions that science asks"
Sayaaance!
Wrong. It's not that much. They just make shit up on the fly, call it "common sense" (to deceive you from the fact that it is UTTERLY INSANE), and demand you to worship the ground they are standing upon and - as Fauci phrased it: Do as you're told.
Conservatives love leftist science. But just the older stuff, they’ll wait a bit before they accept the newer stuff.
Does everyone notice how math is not part of the scientific method?
The one on the left is a simplification of sorts but also some aspects of science are simpler.
The left one has a fault in an infinite test loop. Testing is important for a process of elimination including of competing hypothesis.
It's not really important. What's important is that the left wing concept of science is far superior than you make out. It's not that long ass inefficient multiple stage pipeline.
It's almost a single click button. "Is it CNN?"
A guy at work believes there is 70+ different genders cus mah science says gender is more of a spectrum. I told him that is false and argued when he lost he scoffed and said well if thats what you believe. I told him no its not what I believe its whats already been proven by real science and that transgenderism is been proven to be a mental disorder called gender dysphoria.
And thats how the fight started
Needs to be flipped. The right one should be on the right. Cuz that's not just the right position, it's the Right's position. The left is what's left.
Sad, and oh so true!