Science makes a wonderful servant and a terrible master. The problem is that science can only ever offer probability never certainty. Something may be very probable and yet completely untrue. Conversely something may be very improbable and yet completely true. Science is terrible at dealing with paradox and is easily co-opted.
I mean, sure I guess. But god doesn’t seem to even do that at least with most people, hence the thousands or religions people believe with “absolute certainty” that theirs is the one true religion.
If you are saying that “if there is a God than that God is certain”, than sure, I agree, I’d hope that God could be certain because they would in most religions be the creator and knower of all.
It's becoming increasingly common isn't it? along with labeling "conservatism" a cure all? I've been around _TheDonald for 5 years and this is one of the more irritating developments. I'm not sure what to make of it yet.
I know, right? You show up in the eleventh hour and there's, like, a culture already there or something! And it's about damn time everyone changed to make you feel more comfortable!
Then you can bring in all your friends, change all the rules, and evict everyone who was there beforehand--just like the SJWs do!
The two things are unrelated. Nice try. I see you're making the same kind of assumptions SJWs do though. You can keep telling your antiquated fairy tales, but you're going to hear my disrespect of them just as much.
You can respect or disrespect at your own eternal risk. But don't bitch because we don't change our beliefs or culture to please you, especially as you've shown up late to the Right Wing party.
I'm not sure what you're saying but religion has always been a big part of this movement. I don't believe in any of it but respect the values and social integrity that Christians strive towards.
I think my sarcasm comes from frustration these days; folks think you can have a building without its foundation. We grow ideas from assumptions, and societies grow from those ideas. You can have people who dissent from the assumptions and still work fine as a whole, but once you dispense with the assumptions on the whole, your foundations crumble and the next thing you know your house is falling down around your ears.
Whether you believe in it or don't, ultimately you can't have America without certain fundamental theistic values as part of the culture, and you can't really get the "values and social integrity" without the religion--and enough people adhering to it to make it the norm.
And I wish more atheists would be aware that the more you push your belief that God is a made-up fairytale bearded spaghetti skyfairydaddy, and demand to suppress anyone expressing any other opinion, the more you undermine that foundation. Why else do you think the Left has been taking a jackhammer to the entire First Amendment with such enthusiasm?
Look, you can check my post history for the years I've been here, the ONLY time I ever mock religion is when a religious person needs to a reality check. There is a particular attitude and it's rare, but it's the "I've been given a divine understand of things you mere mortal could never hope to obtain. Religion is perfect, never errs, and if you cant see that you're simply lost, my child."
It's times like these I cant help but point out the ridiculousness of it all. Now, state your opinion, keep the condescending holier than thou bullshit to a minimum, and practice your values far more than you preach them, and we're never having words about it. In fact I'll die to defend your right to believe and practice your faith because that's what I believe in as an American, and I know who I'd want to spend the rest of my life with... it ain't lefty atheists.
Yep. The word "science" literally means "knowledge," by which is understood knowledge of the material world. And nothing IN science can prove that there is nothing BUT science, which is to say, all the material means in the world to measure all the material things of the world are unsuited to ascertain spiritual verities, which only God (Himself a spirit, whom must be worshipped likewise) is able to reveal. There is a wonderful quote by a Canadian canon, a cleric named Dyson Hague, if memory serves, that we expect good musicians to be musically inclined, therefore, by analogy, Scripture (which speaks of spiritual things) may be understood only by spiritually-minded persons.
"There is a wonderful quote by a Canadian canon, a cleric named Dyson Hague, if memory serves, that we expect good musicians to be musically inclined, therefore, by analogy, Scripture (which speaks of spiritual things) may be understood only by spiritually-minded persons."
Lol uh huh. "It's not the glaring contradictions, lies, and falsehoods pushed as dogmatic fact, you're just not spiritually inclined enough!"
Well, this is America, and you are entitled to your opinion, and this is not the place to disprove your position, but I will say only this: Not a single spoon of dirt of material evidence ever discovered has ever refuted the truth of Scripture. Religions are what men have made by pervertering it.
This is simply not true lol. Good god a simple Google search of "times science proved the bible wrong" will show you more than I ever could. Saying things doesn't make them true.
I think this is a point that makes for some bad advice, but I know it comes from a good place. There IS certainty in life, it's just not abundant. It's often attributed to things that it doesn't have.
When I want to be reminded of certainty I go to the ocean and look out.
Not to mention scientist are literal whores worse than hollywood. Their need for funding has brought nothing chip away at the progress we've made in society.
The shit they say about Christianity delaying the progress of science, guess what? They're right. Critical race theory, trannies, genital mutilation as a cure, sugar is healthier than fat, climate change treaty that gives the worse polluters absolute power to pollute the world even more, all just for the sake of science and progress.
Remember that Curie chick? Remember that gay dude John Wayne? The atom bomb? How many are we willing to sacrifice to discover a microscopic percentage of the nature of god
"Critical race theory, trannies, genital mutilation as a cure, sugar is healthier than fat, climate change treaty that gives the worse polluters absolute power to pollute the world even more, all just for the sake of science and progress."
None of this is science. Science has been co opted by radical leftists like most things in western culture.
Condescending tone, empty rhetoric, pretending to have a higher grasp than my mere mortal self, yep, I'm talking to person who believes in giant cloud people who rule over us. I'll stick to testable "models" over "zero evidence at all." Thanks.
Science provided enough answers to create the cell phone that you're displaying your ignorance through.
I'll stick to testable "models" over "zero evidence at all."
Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. Actually quote me to avoid strawman arguments.
I also like testable models. But those testable models are the hard limits of science. Science has no mechanism to provide actual answers.
These answers, if they exist at all, reside on a different level of cognition than those we can review with the scientific method.
If we are going to discuss that level, we will venture in to philosophy, theology and metaphysics. All of which were the historical precursors to what we know as science, by the way.
It is called the Hard Problem for a good reason. The big questions remain unanswered for reasons related directly to this topic. Even top neurobiologist are turning around on the reductive materialist worldview.
It is actually a really interesting subject and if you can bear to have it with me, I’ll gladly take the time.
Sorry, you're right. Your post got me thinking and it made me recall a type of person i can't stand. That wasn't explained well and it seems like I was saying you were behaving that way. Either way you slice it, my bad.
As for the topic, how about.... how plants use sunlight to create energy. That's an answer science gave us. It is one of millions I thought of. There are literally so many I don't know where to even start. How about this. You pick a topic. I will give an example of how science answered a question relating to that topic.
Appreciate the reply. However we still seem hung up on "science provides answers" fallacy. I'll do my best but this is not exactly easy to explain, nor is it even my original idea. This is a topic with a lot of history and it is probably best to start there, namely with Greek philosophy (a rather large undertaking in and of itself).
But to be specific with your examples:
how plants use sunlight to create energy. That's an answer science gave us.
Science gave us no such answer. Consider what your question even is. "How do plants convert sunlight into energy?" At no point does science produce an answer to your question. What science produces, is a series of reproducible models. We then take a look at those models, and form an interpretation. We observe a compound we call chlorophyl, and the biochemical processes related to its mechanism, and can then show a model that describes the various stages of the process.
At no point did science provide an answer. Because answers involve cognition, and interpretation, all of which reside entirely outside of the scientific mechanism.
At no point does science take the model it produced, and then derive higher meaning from it. That, is something that you do, entirely within your mind, outside of the scientific process itself.
Are you following?
You pick a topic. I will give an example of how science answered a question relating to that topic.
It would be more fair for you to pick the topic, because I am going to pick topics that science has continually failed to provide answers for, well, for millennia now.
What is the meaning of life
What is consciousness
Is the reductive materialist model an accurate representation of relality
I could go on and on, but the point should hopefully be clear. The practice of science in no way provides actual answers to questions. All science can ever hope to do is to produce a model. That model may or may not be useful, the determination of which is an entirely separate level of cognition that science itself lacks the ability to affect.
At best, science can inform the individual who seeks answers. But ultimately those answers are derived outside of science itself.
Ummm name one thing that can offer certainty? I'll wait. Science has issues sure (mainly it's complete and utter hijacking by politically motivated lefties and it's reliance on research grants to even exist) but this? This is rhetorical masturbation at its finest.
Science never proves anything; it only disproves things.
But the biggest problem with science is that it's carried out and funded by people.
Some scientists are hard-working and honest people who really want to learn the way things work. Others are lazy, liars, or cheats who will say whatever they are paid to. And all scientists have preconceived notions and biases.
Governments and large corporations which fund scientific research won't pay for studies that make them look bad or cost them money.
Fashions, trends, money, and politics also influence the gatekeepers of science: the journals who chose which studies get published and the media who chooses which studies get disseminated to the public.
The treatment of HCQ last year is a prime example of politicized science. And as we now know, politicizing HCQ research cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the US alone.
Everyone is so quick to discount studies funded by groups that have an interest in the outcome, like environmental studies conducted by oil companies, but they never extend that same disbelief when the interested party funding the research is the government, even when it has consistently self-serving results.
HCQ? We never forget Michigan Governor Whitmer threatening Michigan doctors for using HCQ at a time that the world-renowned U of Michigan Hospital had it at the top of their publicly available CV treatment protocols.
Part of the problem is it seems people aren’t taught what fascism is. It’s a leftist authoritarian collectivist progressive ideology based on Logical Positivism (just like communism) which claims ethical claims are meaningless because they have no scientific basis. The only difference between communism and fascism is which variety of pseudoscience they embrace.
There’s nothing “right wing” (traditionalist) about this, but the kids get taught that it’s “right wing” so “muh Trump is a fascist” and stuff like that.
Fascism and communism have surface level similarities but they're fundamentally ideologically opposed imo.
Check out this interview with Tom Holland and Jonathan Pageau about the influence of Christianity on 20th century politics https://youtu.be/-qGfkFlZKgA?t=834
American leftism and communism is a sort of "counterfeit" Christianity where they take the principle of concern for the weak, concern for the victim, the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and give the state absolute power to bring that result about - often to disastrous effect - instead of leaving it in God's hands.
That's really the fundamental animating principle of all leftism and communism. They think all hierarchies are unjust and don't just want to flatten them, but want to invert them for revenge. (since they're Christian-influenced atheists they don't believe "vengeance is God's alone" they trust the state to take vengeance)
Fascism was a kind of autistic reading of Nietzsche's rejection of Christian morals. They said screw the weak, screw the victims, "the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must". The world is a power struggle and might makes right. It's natural for those on the top of the hierarchy to oppress those on the bottom.
Fascism was a knee jerk reaction to the excesses of communist egalitarianism so in a sense it was right-wing and anti-progressive. I'd say it was a modern distortion of traditional right-wing thought. For example monarchists were the original right wing and they were very Christian and accepted the Christian ethic of concern for the weak. They also believed in natural hierarchy but tempered with noblesse oblige and Christian charity. They opposed the communists for wanting to abolish or invert hierarchies but they didn't really like Hitler either because he went too far in the other direction and justified abusing the weak.
Anyway that's why the Liberal Allies and Communist USSR were able to unite so easily against the Fascists. Both were operating on the counterfeit-Christian-leftism ideology and recognized Fascism as the knee-jerk reactionary opposite of it.
One of Hitler's strongest points in Mein Kampf was his advocacy of educational aid for the gifted but loyal and lowborn. He even praised the American system for being more meritocratic than that in Europe. He seemed to recognize that nepotism was a problem with the traditional bourgeois conservatives, and this huge moral defect was driving otherwise loyal German workers to Marxism. Hitler was a leveler of the hierarchy of family connections that was leading to Germany's destruction in the context of universal suffrage and democracy in which Marxism was an option. No one can read Mein Kampf without remembering his very frequent condemnations of the useless bourgeois political parties who did absolutely nothing to stop the growth of Marxism in Europe.
As someone of Slav descent who has benefitted from the American system of somewhat meritocratic college admissions and financial aid, I have some sympathy for his concern for the lowborn Germans. But even here in the US we have people looking down their nose at the lowborn among us, calling us "white trash" openly and unapologetically in public and in front of children. You have to be a real piece of filth to make me sympathize with the famous Slav-hater Hitler, yet there you have it. I got the impression that he didn't want to abuse the weak, as long as they were loyal. But he had zero sympathy for the disloyal, the baselessly arrogant, and those who lacked all community spirit.
Yeah I was just talking in general trends. You're right National Socialism was egalitarian-ish for the in-group but hierarchies between nations and ethnicities.
Except even within the ingroup they had no problem getting rid of the weakest members like the disabled and very low IQ.
In Tom Holland's book Dominion he had an except from Hitler's writings (I don't remember which) where he was talking about how it's madness that Christian charities are helping the dregs of society breed and it's weakening the German race.
Thanks for the civil reply! I really have no problem with his criticism of the charities doing more harm than good as they virtue signal and collect precious donations from the people. Reproduction is a serious matter that far too many people do not take seriously enough, IMHO. We should not be helping anyone to have children that they cannot afford to raise, because we have intelligent but lowborn strivers that need those resources to get them to a position that they belong, in a profession or other high place. This world needs fewer people, and better ones, IMHO.
No I didn’t just get this from Jonah Goldberg or something, and I’m also talking about absolute left vs right rather than local relative terms.
Left vs right comes from the estates general in revolutionary France where the left wing was anti-traditional, anti-monarchy, and anti-aristocracy, but the core element there is anti-traditional. So in absolute terms, fascism isn’t as anti-traditional as communism, but there’s still tons of anti-traditional stuff in there so it’s still left wing just not as left wing as communism.
Traditional in the US at this point is liberal individualism and stuff like the bill of rights. (Around 1776 it would have been left wing but that term wasn’t in use outside of France.) Fascism in the US was definitely left wing relative to that because they’d burn all that traditional individualist stuff for the sake of totalitarian authoritarian collectivist Utopianism. That’s what Brave New World by Aldos Huxley was based on.
It's also a revolt against Western degeneracy. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and modern Islamist movement Sayd Qutb(?) formed his views after spending time in America and being horrified at the hedonism and materialism of Americans.
I don't particularly like Islam, I think Christianity is an all around superior religion but I kind of get where they're coming from.
Islamofascists are here to destroy freedom. They only want their law - Sharia law. What they are horrified at is LEFTIST hedonism, yet they are just as evil in their political beliefs. Islamofascism is a LEFTIST ideology. FFS, Hitler had regiments of islamofascists.
Islamofascists are against Christianity. They are nothing but deceivers and worshippers of the greatest deceiver, Satan.
"Science is supposed to be challenged, questioned, tested, and scrutinized. That's the entire point. If that is not permissible and basic lines of inquiry are censored or taboo, then it's not science, but secular dogma."
Are you Gordon Freeman? But I agree. As a veterinarian I use science to make diagnoses and prepare treatment plans and make prognoses for my clients' beloved pets. But science cannot address the clients' moral decisions in terms of quality of life and financial resources and other competing values. Those are questions of the human will and heart, for lack of better terms.
Science has been around a long time. So which science? The science of 1821 was different than the science of 2051 will be. Science is only our best guess, today.
Right, science is the continual quest for knowledge. Quest being the key term here because part of the scientific method is to continue to test any and all hypotheses. It’s an acknowledgment that we don’t know, but we are striving to know more.
The left doesn't want to debate, because they alone want to decide what is "scientific fact" - and they always make their decisions from a purely political standpoint.
Changes on that scale are to be expected. We make advancements in what we can observe and measure and experiment with, and with those advancements come changes in our understanding of the universe. What makes it ridiculous is that science is changing day-to-day on political and social whims, rather than changes in our understanding.
That's a feature not a bug. We learn more. Achieve better technology. Then we update the current best understanding to the new data. That's how it works.
I keep pointing this out to my brother, who drank the "trust the science" koolaid.
I'm not a religious person, and from my perspective, the sheep that keep trusting in "authoritative" "science" voices on TV are literally no different than religious people that have faith that what their religious leaders or religious texts tell them is true.
It's literally faith...
Back during the renaissance, scientists argued with each other all the time! They'd write entire essays just to talk shit about how another scientist's experiment was a bunch of bull shit.
Science was and always has been about experiments that could be reproduced and get the same result.
So, if there are a lot of studies showing that hydroxychloroquine works, and a few "high dollar" studies (with obvious conflict of interest) that show that HQC doesn't work, then obviously someones lying or has bad data.....
When did we as a people or a scientific community forget this?! I think it has to do with the indoctrination that happens in public schools and universities nowadays. The establishment started indoctrinating people to be obedient little sheep, that have faith in their overlords.
My biggest issue with "trusting The Science" is that the science I'm supposed to trust changes constantly. And not just what is being said but who is saying it. Do masks help or not? The CDC and WHO have said both and I'm supposed to blindly trust whatever they say because they're experts and it's "The Science". Is Fauci a reliable expert or not? Because whether his words were "The Science" or not seemed to be dependent on if he agreed with something Trump said or not.
How can I blindly trust "The Science" if no one can definitively say who is an expert on "The Science" or what exactly "The Science" is at any given time?
You shouldn't trust in "science". You should trust in the evidence presented to you. Science is just a method for using the evidence to reach the most accurate conclusion.
Yes. But the MSM will have you believe that a mere assertion uttered by a scientist is itself "Science". But in reality the assertion is just an assertion and nothing more, and it may be based on a model, a model that may be deeply flawed. Modelers...pffffft.
It's a battle. Science and NASA tells you one thing from endless space, walking on the moon and going to mars and that we must comply with covid laws and wearing 3 masks. The bible tells us the earth was made on the first day, the sun, moon and stars were made on the 3rd day. So let me ask you, who do you believe? Science or God almighty in heaven?
May look that way but that's because of the years of programming, you have no discernment of truth, which the bible tells of. It's the living word of God. If you do not know God, how would you ever understand? Only then would you see science is good, right up until it is used to explain all of satans lies. The question is, without God on your side, will you know the difference.
I was raised in the church, im well aware of how that programming works. The most annoying part being your self righteous attitude that your belief system is the only way.
A very real error is seen in the wording "The Science" which is used like its describing a being or an oracle. There is also the South Park observation of people "believing in Science' or 'Trust Science' where Science is a Person, a sentient being. "Science says..." is insanity.
It ought to be only describing a 'process' or we usually said 'method'. You can say 'the' but you're describing 'the scientific method' not "The Science".
and of course she has the only correct answer because the method IS questioning everything, always, forever, testing, reproving, criticizing, always attempting to disprove. Which is not 'disprove The Science' but IS science, that IS the method.
Anyway, yes of course its a cult, its Sciencism and Gnosticism and of course they only bother pretending to like science because they know traditional, conservative and Christian types of people have a high respect for science. If not for that they don't give a fuccccck about science. They do love Sophism though, so there's that.
It is a religion. People need a belief system. If people abandoned the belief systems of the last several millennia, they will have to adopt new belief systems. Enter the new churches of fake "science" (the main tenet of which appears to be "consensus"), global warming (with it's new large denomination "climate change"), political correctness, environmentalism, and identity politics.
Warning! Do not experiment.
Do not examine evidence and logic.
Do not debate any interpretation of facts other than the official one.
Then you will be scientist.
*"What is it that makes science special such that governments are now so careful to point out its importance in decision making? I could think of a few reasons. For one, a lay view of science is that it is objective and apolitical; that it is concerned with the facts and not with values. On that view, an appeal to science would empty policy decisions of subjectivity and party values. An appeal to science also has the political benefit of delegating responsibility to the science community, thus freeing government officials (they hope!) of accountability (ie, “it is not our fault, the science was bad”). Unfortunately, such views overlook the subjective and political nature of science (and facts).
When governments claim they are “following the science” it should be made clear how they are doing so and what are the limitations. A failure to do so can potentially lead to an erosion of trust in science, in particular when the science is portrayed (intentionally or unintentionally) by officials as objective or definitive."*
"Trust the science"....except when we look at the numbers on election night, then, dont trust the science of it being COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for resident xiden winning the election, JUST TRUST US....even though there are mountains of evidence proving otherwise
Scientism is the new religion of the atheist, humanist left, who themselves never actually studied science. Science is too hard--"I'm not a math person."
As soon as you lie to the public, you are no longer a scientist, no matter what you know. I praise my formulas for allowing my quantitative analysis of things, but these people have to ruin one of my favorite things because of course they do.
Science makes a wonderful servant and a terrible master. The problem is that science can only ever offer probability never certainty. Something may be very probable and yet completely untrue. Conversely something may be very improbable and yet completely true. Science is terrible at dealing with paradox and is easily co-opted.
Nothing can offer certainty. People hate living in a world like that but put your bigboy/biggirl pants on because that’s life.
Nothing outside of God can offer certainty.
I mean, sure I guess. But god doesn’t seem to even do that at least with most people, hence the thousands or religions people believe with “absolute certainty” that theirs is the one true religion.
Not "god", God. You're right, there is no certainty in god. There is only certainty to be found in God.
If you are saying that “if there is a God than that God is certain”, than sure, I agree, I’d hope that God could be certain because they would in most religions be the creator and knower of all.
Jeb! can.
In Guac We Trust.
Especially the strychnine-flavored variety.
But which one? There are so many to choose from.
Every other poster being a religious nut is getting a bit old.
Sabe me Jebus! Trust in thy lord and everything will be fine. You might kill me, but I'll have the moral highground in the afterlife
It's becoming increasingly common isn't it? along with labeling "conservatism" a cure all? I've been around _TheDonald for 5 years and this is one of the more irritating developments. I'm not sure what to make of it yet.
I know, right? You show up in the eleventh hour and there's, like, a culture already there or something! And it's about damn time everyone changed to make you feel more comfortable!
Then you can bring in all your friends, change all the rules, and evict everyone who was there beforehand--just like the SJWs do!
The two things are unrelated. Nice try. I see you're making the same kind of assumptions SJWs do though. You can keep telling your antiquated fairy tales, but you're going to hear my disrespect of them just as much.
You can respect or disrespect at your own eternal risk. But don't bitch because we don't change our beliefs or culture to please you, especially as you've shown up late to the Right Wing party.
I'm not sure what you're saying but religion has always been a big part of this movement. I don't believe in any of it but respect the values and social integrity that Christians strive towards.
That's what I'm saying.
I think my sarcasm comes from frustration these days; folks think you can have a building without its foundation. We grow ideas from assumptions, and societies grow from those ideas. You can have people who dissent from the assumptions and still work fine as a whole, but once you dispense with the assumptions on the whole, your foundations crumble and the next thing you know your house is falling down around your ears.
Whether you believe in it or don't, ultimately you can't have America without certain fundamental theistic values as part of the culture, and you can't really get the "values and social integrity" without the religion--and enough people adhering to it to make it the norm.
And I wish more atheists would be aware that the more you push your belief that God is a made-up fairytale bearded spaghetti skyfairydaddy, and demand to suppress anyone expressing any other opinion, the more you undermine that foundation. Why else do you think the Left has been taking a jackhammer to the entire First Amendment with such enthusiasm?
Look, you can check my post history for the years I've been here, the ONLY time I ever mock religion is when a religious person needs to a reality check. There is a particular attitude and it's rare, but it's the "I've been given a divine understand of things you mere mortal could never hope to obtain. Religion is perfect, never errs, and if you cant see that you're simply lost, my child." It's times like these I cant help but point out the ridiculousness of it all. Now, state your opinion, keep the condescending holier than thou bullshit to a minimum, and practice your values far more than you preach them, and we're never having words about it. In fact I'll die to defend your right to believe and practice your faith because that's what I believe in as an American, and I know who I'd want to spend the rest of my life with... it ain't lefty atheists.
Yep. The word "science" literally means "knowledge," by which is understood knowledge of the material world. And nothing IN science can prove that there is nothing BUT science, which is to say, all the material means in the world to measure all the material things of the world are unsuited to ascertain spiritual verities, which only God (Himself a spirit, whom must be worshipped likewise) is able to reveal. There is a wonderful quote by a Canadian canon, a cleric named Dyson Hague, if memory serves, that we expect good musicians to be musically inclined, therefore, by analogy, Scripture (which speaks of spiritual things) may be understood only by spiritually-minded persons.
"There is a wonderful quote by a Canadian canon, a cleric named Dyson Hague, if memory serves, that we expect good musicians to be musically inclined, therefore, by analogy, Scripture (which speaks of spiritual things) may be understood only by spiritually-minded persons."
Lol uh huh. "It's not the glaring contradictions, lies, and falsehoods pushed as dogmatic fact, you're just not spiritually inclined enough!"
Well, this is America, and you are entitled to your opinion, and this is not the place to disprove your position, but I will say only this: Not a single spoon of dirt of material evidence ever discovered has ever refuted the truth of Scripture. Religions are what men have made by pervertering it.
This is simply not true lol. Good god a simple Google search of "times science proved the bible wrong" will show you more than I ever could. Saying things doesn't make them true.
"Saying things doesn't make them true." LOL. Got mirror?
Certainty of starvation under communism seems a safe one to me.
Scientific inquiry does reveal that your hypothesis seems to be correct. As of now, communism significantly increases the odds of starvation.
I think this is a point that makes for some bad advice, but I know it comes from a good place. There IS certainty in life, it's just not abundant. It's often attributed to things that it doesn't have.
When I want to be reminded of certainty I go to the ocean and look out.
Not to mention scientist are literal whores worse than hollywood. Their need for funding has brought nothing chip away at the progress we've made in society.
The shit they say about Christianity delaying the progress of science, guess what? They're right. Critical race theory, trannies, genital mutilation as a cure, sugar is healthier than fat, climate change treaty that gives the worse polluters absolute power to pollute the world even more, all just for the sake of science and progress.
Remember that Curie chick? Remember that gay dude John Wayne? The atom bomb? How many are we willing to sacrifice to discover a microscopic percentage of the nature of god
"Critical race theory, trannies, genital mutilation as a cure, sugar is healthier than fat, climate change treaty that gives the worse polluters absolute power to pollute the world even more, all just for the sake of science and progress."
None of this is science. Science has been co opted by radical leftists like most things in western culture.
Science produces models, not answers.
This is an arbitrary distinction
Not sure whether to laugh or cry at your reply.
There can be no greater distinction.
Any confusion to this fact belies fundamental ignorance.
Science can not provide answers, full stop.
Condescending tone, empty rhetoric, pretending to have a higher grasp than my mere mortal self, yep, I'm talking to person who believes in giant cloud people who rule over us. I'll stick to testable "models" over "zero evidence at all." Thanks.
Science provided enough answers to create the cell phone that you're displaying your ignorance through.
Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. Actually quote me to avoid strawman arguments.
I also like testable models. But those testable models are the hard limits of science. Science has no mechanism to provide actual answers.
These answers, if they exist at all, reside on a different level of cognition than those we can review with the scientific method.
If we are going to discuss that level, we will venture in to philosophy, theology and metaphysics. All of which were the historical precursors to what we know as science, by the way.
It is called the Hard Problem for a good reason. The big questions remain unanswered for reasons related directly to this topic. Even top neurobiologist are turning around on the reductive materialist worldview.
It is actually a really interesting subject and if you can bear to have it with me, I’ll gladly take the time.
Sorry, you're right. Your post got me thinking and it made me recall a type of person i can't stand. That wasn't explained well and it seems like I was saying you were behaving that way. Either way you slice it, my bad.
As for the topic, how about.... how plants use sunlight to create energy. That's an answer science gave us. It is one of millions I thought of. There are literally so many I don't know where to even start. How about this. You pick a topic. I will give an example of how science answered a question relating to that topic.
Appreciate the reply. However we still seem hung up on "science provides answers" fallacy. I'll do my best but this is not exactly easy to explain, nor is it even my original idea. This is a topic with a lot of history and it is probably best to start there, namely with Greek philosophy (a rather large undertaking in and of itself).
But to be specific with your examples:
Science gave us no such answer. Consider what your question even is. "How do plants convert sunlight into energy?" At no point does science produce an answer to your question. What science produces, is a series of reproducible models. We then take a look at those models, and form an interpretation. We observe a compound we call chlorophyl, and the biochemical processes related to its mechanism, and can then show a model that describes the various stages of the process.
At no point did science provide an answer. Because answers involve cognition, and interpretation, all of which reside entirely outside of the scientific mechanism.
At no point does science take the model it produced, and then derive higher meaning from it. That, is something that you do, entirely within your mind, outside of the scientific process itself.
Are you following?
It would be more fair for you to pick the topic, because I am going to pick topics that science has continually failed to provide answers for, well, for millennia now.
I could go on and on, but the point should hopefully be clear. The practice of science in no way provides actual answers to questions. All science can ever hope to do is to produce a model. That model may or may not be useful, the determination of which is an entirely separate level of cognition that science itself lacks the ability to affect.
At best, science can inform the individual who seeks answers. But ultimately those answers are derived outside of science itself.
87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Ummm name one thing that can offer certainty? I'll wait. Science has issues sure (mainly it's complete and utter hijacking by politically motivated lefties and it's reliance on research grants to even exist) but this? This is rhetorical masturbation at its finest.
Science never proves anything; it only disproves things.
But the biggest problem with science is that it's carried out and funded by people.
Some scientists are hard-working and honest people who really want to learn the way things work. Others are lazy, liars, or cheats who will say whatever they are paid to. And all scientists have preconceived notions and biases.
Governments and large corporations which fund scientific research won't pay for studies that make them look bad or cost them money.
Fashions, trends, money, and politics also influence the gatekeepers of science: the journals who chose which studies get published and the media who chooses which studies get disseminated to the public.
The treatment of HCQ last year is a prime example of politicized science. And as we now know, politicizing HCQ research cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the US alone.
Everyone is so quick to discount studies funded by groups that have an interest in the outcome, like environmental studies conducted by oil companies, but they never extend that same disbelief when the interested party funding the research is the government, even when it has consistently self-serving results.
Excellent point.
https://patriots.win/p/HEuZkvEi/x/c/16biTubXQl
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
https://patriots.win/p/HENoTkTU/81-scientists-back-biden-after-h/c/
The Ugly Truth About Social Justice | Michael Rectenwald and Stefan Molyneux
Science's Replication Crisis | Peter Ridd and Stefan Molyneux
"DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race" - Rebutted
Male/Female Differences Science Cover-Up Controversy!
Even more corruption...
The Case Against Climate Change | True News
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Psychology of Climate Change Hysteria
Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
Criticism: Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
...
The Death of Science | Scientific Corruption and You
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
HCQ? We never forget Michigan Governor Whitmer threatening Michigan doctors for using HCQ at a time that the world-renowned U of Michigan Hospital had it at the top of their publicly available CV treatment protocols.
THIS!
Not all science is bad. After all, science gave us HCQ.
Politicizing of science and medicine is bad. Why is it that HCQ is still not made readily available in the US?
Sounds a lot like the Vatican pre-reformation.
You can question religion (except islam because they will kill you)....but if you can't question it then it is fascism......not science....
Part of the problem is it seems people aren’t taught what fascism is. It’s a leftist authoritarian collectivist progressive ideology based on Logical Positivism (just like communism) which claims ethical claims are meaningless because they have no scientific basis. The only difference between communism and fascism is which variety of pseudoscience they embrace.
There’s nothing “right wing” (traditionalist) about this, but the kids get taught that it’s “right wing” so “muh Trump is a fascist” and stuff like that.
Are you getting that that from Jonah Goldberg?
Fascism and communism have surface level similarities but they're fundamentally ideologically opposed imo.
Check out this interview with Tom Holland and Jonathan Pageau about the influence of Christianity on 20th century politics https://youtu.be/-qGfkFlZKgA?t=834
American leftism and communism is a sort of "counterfeit" Christianity where they take the principle of concern for the weak, concern for the victim, the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and give the state absolute power to bring that result about - often to disastrous effect - instead of leaving it in God's hands.
That's really the fundamental animating principle of all leftism and communism. They think all hierarchies are unjust and don't just want to flatten them, but want to invert them for revenge. (since they're Christian-influenced atheists they don't believe "vengeance is God's alone" they trust the state to take vengeance)
Fascism was a kind of autistic reading of Nietzsche's rejection of Christian morals. They said screw the weak, screw the victims, "the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must". The world is a power struggle and might makes right. It's natural for those on the top of the hierarchy to oppress those on the bottom.
Fascism was a knee jerk reaction to the excesses of communist egalitarianism so in a sense it was right-wing and anti-progressive. I'd say it was a modern distortion of traditional right-wing thought. For example monarchists were the original right wing and they were very Christian and accepted the Christian ethic of concern for the weak. They also believed in natural hierarchy but tempered with noblesse oblige and Christian charity. They opposed the communists for wanting to abolish or invert hierarchies but they didn't really like Hitler either because he went too far in the other direction and justified abusing the weak.
Anyway that's why the Liberal Allies and Communist USSR were able to unite so easily against the Fascists. Both were operating on the counterfeit-Christian-leftism ideology and recognized Fascism as the knee-jerk reactionary opposite of it.
One of Hitler's strongest points in Mein Kampf was his advocacy of educational aid for the gifted but loyal and lowborn. He even praised the American system for being more meritocratic than that in Europe. He seemed to recognize that nepotism was a problem with the traditional bourgeois conservatives, and this huge moral defect was driving otherwise loyal German workers to Marxism. Hitler was a leveler of the hierarchy of family connections that was leading to Germany's destruction in the context of universal suffrage and democracy in which Marxism was an option. No one can read Mein Kampf without remembering his very frequent condemnations of the useless bourgeois political parties who did absolutely nothing to stop the growth of Marxism in Europe.
As someone of Slav descent who has benefitted from the American system of somewhat meritocratic college admissions and financial aid, I have some sympathy for his concern for the lowborn Germans. But even here in the US we have people looking down their nose at the lowborn among us, calling us "white trash" openly and unapologetically in public and in front of children. You have to be a real piece of filth to make me sympathize with the famous Slav-hater Hitler, yet there you have it. I got the impression that he didn't want to abuse the weak, as long as they were loyal. But he had zero sympathy for the disloyal, the baselessly arrogant, and those who lacked all community spirit.
Yeah I was just talking in general trends. You're right National Socialism was egalitarian-ish for the in-group but hierarchies between nations and ethnicities.
Except even within the ingroup they had no problem getting rid of the weakest members like the disabled and very low IQ.
In Tom Holland's book Dominion he had an except from Hitler's writings (I don't remember which) where he was talking about how it's madness that Christian charities are helping the dregs of society breed and it's weakening the German race.
Thanks for the civil reply! I really have no problem with his criticism of the charities doing more harm than good as they virtue signal and collect precious donations from the people. Reproduction is a serious matter that far too many people do not take seriously enough, IMHO. We should not be helping anyone to have children that they cannot afford to raise, because we have intelligent but lowborn strivers that need those resources to get them to a position that they belong, in a profession or other high place. This world needs fewer people, and better ones, IMHO.
not enabling the "underserving poor" is one thing, actively culling them is another
No I didn’t just get this from Jonah Goldberg or something, and I’m also talking about absolute left vs right rather than local relative terms.
Left vs right comes from the estates general in revolutionary France where the left wing was anti-traditional, anti-monarchy, and anti-aristocracy, but the core element there is anti-traditional. So in absolute terms, fascism isn’t as anti-traditional as communism, but there’s still tons of anti-traditional stuff in there so it’s still left wing just not as left wing as communism.
Traditional in the US at this point is liberal individualism and stuff like the bill of rights. (Around 1776 it would have been left wing but that term wasn’t in use outside of France.) Fascism in the US was definitely left wing relative to that because they’d burn all that traditional individualist stuff for the sake of totalitarian authoritarian collectivist Utopianism. That’s what Brave New World by Aldos Huxley was based on.
Good reply. Yeah individualism and liberty would be considered left wing by French revolution standards.
Check out this video on the "political triangle" if you're interested.
It posits there's an "absolutist right" (like the monarchists) a "libertarian right" and "leftism/communism".
The absolutist right and libertarian right don't have much in common except their opposition to leftism.
And it's kinda funny that libertarians and absolutists are constantly accusing each other of being leftists.
To me it makes a lot more sense than the 2 dimensional left/right sliding scale.
oops forgot to include the link
https://youtu.be/Twi_6NgsJWU
All this pseudo babble. Its just another system of control through Pride invented by, well,, we all know who.. literally every time.
Then Islam is not a religion?
Islamofascism is a political ideology disguised as a religion.
It's also a revolt against Western degeneracy. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and modern Islamist movement Sayd Qutb(?) formed his views after spending time in America and being horrified at the hedonism and materialism of Americans.
I don't particularly like Islam, I think Christianity is an all around superior religion but I kind of get where they're coming from.
Islamofascists are here to destroy freedom. They only want their law - Sharia law. What they are horrified at is LEFTIST hedonism, yet they are just as evil in their political beliefs. Islamofascism is a LEFTIST ideology. FFS, Hitler had regiments of islamofascists.
Islamofascists are against Christianity. They are nothing but deceivers and worshippers of the greatest deceiver, Satan.
I told you I don't like Islam but if I had to choose between Sharia or intersectional feminism..........
Neither is an option. No fucking way will I give up my God given rights to be a servant on my knees to either of these abominations.
If some based Christians get together and btfo leftists and Muslims I'll support them. Not holding my breath though.
Repeating the same cue words over and over is a clumsy way to condition people
"Science is supposed to be challenged, questioned, tested, and scrutinized. That's the entire point. If that is not permissible and basic lines of inquiry are censored or taboo, then it's not science, but secular dogma."
Stolen from a fren much smarter than I am.
Their idea of science is something to be worshipped because it brings with it the all powerful hand of the state.
Any scientific theory can be disproven at any time. New evidence can be discovered at any time.
I believe it's pronounced Science ™.
Close: scientism.
I thought certainty was racist, now?
I have my PhD in theoretical physics--I'm a professional scientist--and I wholeheartedly agree with this.
Are you Gordon Freeman? But I agree. As a veterinarian I use science to make diagnoses and prepare treatment plans and make prognoses for my clients' beloved pets. But science cannot address the clients' moral decisions in terms of quality of life and financial resources and other competing values. Those are questions of the human will and heart, for lack of better terms.
Haha--had to look up Gordon Freeman. I'm just a concerned scientist, much like yourself apparently.
https://patriots.win/p/HEuZkvEi/x/c/16biTubXQl
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
https://patriots.win/p/HENoTkTU/81-scientists-back-biden-after-h/c/
The Ugly Truth About Social Justice | Michael Rectenwald and Stefan Molyneux
Science's Replication Crisis | Peter Ridd and Stefan Molyneux
"DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race" - Rebutted
Male/Female Differences Science Cover-Up Controversy!
Even more corruption...
The Case Against Climate Change | True News
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Psychology of Climate Change Hysteria
Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
Criticism: Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
...
The Death of Science | Scientific Corruption and You
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
Science has been around a long time. So which science? The science of 1821 was different than the science of 2051 will be. Science is only our best guess, today.
Right, science is the continual quest for knowledge. Quest being the key term here because part of the scientific method is to continue to test any and all hypotheses. It’s an acknowledgment that we don’t know, but we are striving to know more.
Correct, science without debate isn't science.
The left doesn't want to debate, because they alone want to decide what is "scientific fact" - and they always make their decisions from a purely political standpoint.
Exactly that science. The one were nothing is final and everything is up for being disproven. That was the exact same in 1821 and will be in 2051.
Changes on that scale are to be expected. We make advancements in what we can observe and measure and experiment with, and with those advancements come changes in our understanding of the universe. What makes it ridiculous is that science is changing day-to-day on political and social whims, rather than changes in our understanding.
That's a feature not a bug. We learn more. Achieve better technology. Then we update the current best understanding to the new data. That's how it works.
That's the point they are making. If you say "don't question it" you are obviously not paying attention because of exactly that, shit changes.
I know but ITT people keep using the word science as if it's a thing. Science is a verb. It's something you do, not something you believe in.
"Science" really has become the latest fundamentalist religion, complete with never ending doomsday fear mongering.
Fucking EXACTLY!!!!
I keep pointing this out to my brother, who drank the "trust the science" koolaid.
I'm not a religious person, and from my perspective, the sheep that keep trusting in "authoritative" "science" voices on TV are literally no different than religious people that have faith that what their religious leaders or religious texts tell them is true.
It's literally faith...
Back during the renaissance, scientists argued with each other all the time! They'd write entire essays just to talk shit about how another scientist's experiment was a bunch of bull shit.
Science was and always has been about experiments that could be reproduced and get the same result.
So, if there are a lot of studies showing that hydroxychloroquine works, and a few "high dollar" studies (with obvious conflict of interest) that show that HQC doesn't work, then obviously someones lying or has bad data.....
When did we as a people or a scientific community forget this?! I think it has to do with the indoctrination that happens in public schools and universities nowadays. The establishment started indoctrinating people to be obedient little sheep, that have faith in their overlords.
My biggest issue with "trusting The Science" is that the science I'm supposed to trust changes constantly. And not just what is being said but who is saying it. Do masks help or not? The CDC and WHO have said both and I'm supposed to blindly trust whatever they say because they're experts and it's "The Science". Is Fauci a reliable expert or not? Because whether his words were "The Science" or not seemed to be dependent on if he agreed with something Trump said or not.
How can I blindly trust "The Science" if no one can definitively say who is an expert on "The Science" or what exactly "The Science" is at any given time?
You shouldn't trust in "science". You should trust in the evidence presented to you. Science is just a method for using the evidence to reach the most accurate conclusion.
Yes. But the MSM will have you believe that a mere assertion uttered by a scientist is itself "Science". But in reality the assertion is just an assertion and nothing more, and it may be based on a model, a model that may be deeply flawed. Modelers...pffffft.
She’s figured it out.
SEPARATION OF LAB AND STATE NOW.
Scientism > Science unfortunately
It has a name: scientism
It's a battle. Science and NASA tells you one thing from endless space, walking on the moon and going to mars and that we must comply with covid laws and wearing 3 masks. The bible tells us the earth was made on the first day, the sun, moon and stars were made on the 3rd day. So let me ask you, who do you believe? Science or God almighty in heaven?
Thats easy. The bible is not science. They are trying to make politics into science these days.
Ever notice how religious zealots kind of use the same tactics as climate change zealots?
May look that way but that's because of the years of programming, you have no discernment of truth, which the bible tells of. It's the living word of God. If you do not know God, how would you ever understand? Only then would you see science is good, right up until it is used to explain all of satans lies. The question is, without God on your side, will you know the difference.
I was raised in the church, im well aware of how that programming works. The most annoying part being your self righteous attitude that your belief system is the only way.
Its not.
Dumb people you all sorts of tactics, and they are all obvious. All the Godless trash in the world..
Hey, you forgot to delete your comment and leave just three dots.
I believe in the evidence.
DON'T CONFUSE SCIENTISTS WITH SCIENCE! Scientists are human and a lot of them are assholes pushing their own interests like Fauci.
Too many people use “the science” or “science” as an answer to a question. It isn’t an answer. It’s a word. That’s it.
Careful there, Talia. That sounds like heresy.
A very real error is seen in the wording "The Science" which is used like its describing a being or an oracle. There is also the South Park observation of people "believing in Science' or 'Trust Science' where Science is a Person, a sentient being. "Science says..." is insanity.
It ought to be only describing a 'process' or we usually said 'method'. You can say 'the' but you're describing 'the scientific method' not "The Science".
and of course she has the only correct answer because the method IS questioning everything, always, forever, testing, reproving, criticizing, always attempting to disprove. Which is not 'disprove The Science' but IS science, that IS the method.
Anyway, yes of course its a cult, its Sciencism and Gnosticism and of course they only bother pretending to like science because they know traditional, conservative and Christian types of people have a high respect for science. If not for that they don't give a fuccccck about science. They do love Sophism though, so there's that.
It is a religion. People need a belief system. If people abandoned the belief systems of the last several millennia, they will have to adopt new belief systems. Enter the new churches of fake "science" (the main tenet of which appears to be "consensus"), global warming (with it's new large denomination "climate change"), political correctness, environmentalism, and identity politics.
Warning! Do not experiment.
Do not examine evidence and logic.
Do not debate any interpretation of facts other than the official one.
Then you will be scientist.
You forgot empirical data that's observable, reliable and repeatable in order to be considered real science.
That's not very scientific of her now is it.
https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-cult-and-the-10-stages-of-genocide/
What if I question the moon landing or the shape of the earth?
Can confirm
Cargo Cult Science
This is the part where they accuse you of being a Qanon NAZI anti-vaxxer and masker.
1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Sci-fience
https://www.takimag.com/article/follow-the-science-off-a-cliff/
*"What is it that makes science special such that governments are now so careful to point out its importance in decision making? I could think of a few reasons. For one, a lay view of science is that it is objective and apolitical; that it is concerned with the facts and not with values. On that view, an appeal to science would empty policy decisions of subjectivity and party values. An appeal to science also has the political benefit of delegating responsibility to the science community, thus freeing government officials (they hope!) of accountability (ie, “it is not our fault, the science was bad”). Unfortunately, such views overlook the subjective and political nature of science (and facts).
When governments claim they are “following the science” it should be made clear how they are doing so and what are the limitations. A failure to do so can potentially lead to an erosion of trust in science, in particular when the science is portrayed (intentionally or unintentionally) by officials as objective or definitive."*
Who is this dbag?
Science can only present theories.
"Trust the science"....except when we look at the numbers on election night, then, dont trust the science of it being COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for resident xiden winning the election, JUST TRUST US....even though there are mountains of evidence proving otherwise
this
But this is “settled” science!!!
https://patriots.win/p/HEuZkvEi/x/c/16biTubXQl
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
https://patriots.win/p/HENoTkTU/81-scientists-back-biden-after-h/c/
The Ugly Truth About Social Justice | Michael Rectenwald and Stefan Molyneux
Science's Replication Crisis | Peter Ridd and Stefan Molyneux
"DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race" - Rebutted
Male/Female Differences Science Cover-Up Controversy!
Even more corruption...
The Case Against Climate Change | True News
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Psychology of Climate Change Hysteria
Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
Criticism: Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
...
The Death of Science | Scientific Corruption and You
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
You can question Christianity it's actually a norm. Islam on the otherhand.
Lol it’s like how they twisted liberalism to mean socialism
Awoman
Nobody is a more useful slave than the Karens with a phone and twitter
Scientism is the new religion of the atheist, humanist left, who themselves never actually studied science. Science is too hard--"I'm not a math person."
It is a politicized bastardization of science.
Nailed it!
As soon as you lie to the public, you are no longer a scientist, no matter what you know. I praise my formulas for allowing my quantitative analysis of things, but these people have to ruin one of my favorite things because of course they do.