Scientism is the false belief that science provides answers to all things. It has become a religion due to evangelists (false prophets) like deGrasse Tyson and Nye, among others.
Thank you for posting this! I cannot believe something so fundamental as the scientific method is controversial now. It's amazing how skewed reality becomes when the narrative is controlled by the left.
B. For there to BE answers, there must eventually reach an endpoint where everything is solved and there are no more questions.
C. Until that point is reached science, for all its massive investment of talent, money, time, and for all its claims about not being a religion truly has no better answers than a religion can provide.
D. That truth: that science is really just a secular religion, is a heretical truth to science soooooooo....
E. It needs to start saying that the science is solved to have any basis as something that has answers and is definitely not religion
"scientist A" claims that the earth will reach conditions that will be devastating to humanity in 10 years. No solution offered, just a 10 year coundown.
Scientist B claims from observations and models that the Earth will reach conditions that will be devastating to humanity in 20 years if we don't make changes.
Scientist C observes that the course of the climate could reach a devastating capacity for parts of the world in 30 years if certain changes are not taken globally or at least locally to the areas where the worst could occur.
All three statements are made around the same time. 10 years pass. Little has changed, but the course of change can be quadratic where it's a slow ramp up at first before a sharp spike.
"scientist A" has been shown to be wrong entirely and just blowing more hot air than actually can be found. Instead of admitting defeat, "scientist A" jumps onto Scientist B's statement and just parrots blindly as if it was what was always been said. Either way, this diminishes the value of Scientist B and C's statements. Conditions around the Earth have gotten worse in some areas though, just not local to where Scientist A, B, and C operate. However, the worsening conditions are due to certain areas accelerating the practices that can induce negative local change.
10 more years pass. Conditions are now starting to be noticeable globally, a trend that could be due to natural patterns, but anecdotally attributed to activities of the various populations of the world. "scientist A" is now blue in the face thinking it's all over and nothing can be done. All the while claiming still that in 10 years it's all over. Scientist B has to put up with "scientist A" because trying to correct A will just get B blacklisted by everyone that's followed "scientist A" from the start. Even so, Scientist B has some solutions and has come to see what Scientist C has observed, but cannot get the message out to areas where changes need to be made because said areas openly refuse to make the changes.
Scientist C has pioneered solutions and at least found ways to fix a number of areas and diminish the devastation foreseen 20 years ago, with 10 years to spare. Scientist C is more quiet though because at this point, "In 10 years the world will end" is the message of "scientist A," and Scientist B. Scientist C knows it won't be as bad as A and B make it out to be on a global scale, but knows that some areas are in for a very rough ride if they don't straighten up in 10 years. All offered solutions are ignored and Scientist C has lost hope of those areas listening.
10 more years pass. Most of the globe is in alright condition, either due the efforts of B and C, or due to natural activity of the planet settling down from what was happening over the course of the decade. Some areas are getting gutted ecologically due both to natural trends of climate and due to human activity actively raising a finger to all offered solutions that could have slowed or prevented issues. "scientist A" is now pointing to those areas as proof of what will happen to the world in "10 more years" while not considering that a 50 mile drive would reveal a climate that's in it's best conditions in a whole century thanks to humanity listening to B and C. B has grown disillusioned with trying to correct the movement and has given up on saying anything that doesn't parrot "scientist A"
Scientist C feels mostly accomplished, and goes on to at least fortify improvements in regions still vulnerable while checking in on parts of the world that have improved but could slip due to apathy or blindness. Improvements in communication, as well as data collection have allowed Scientist C to offer a strong model of climate change, but Scientist C is often drowned out by general denialists and detractors who are tired of hearing "10 more years". Scientist C just feels happy that most detractors and denialists happen to also care for their surroundings and keep the local conditions favorable.
TL;DR: "scientist A" cries wolf till blue in the face. Scientist B says there might be a wolf in the hills so keep watching the sheep when a wolf call goes out. Scientist C knows the wolf won't come if people watch the flock, but only A is left in charge of watching the Flock.
This. What a stupid thing to say anyways. We are still learning about earth even though we settled long ago that it is round (flat earthers can f-off!).
Tell the "The science is settled!" crowd that the same could well be said against virology, microbiology, etc because there was a time that we had no way of observing, let alone proving the existence of anything smaller than the naked eye can see.
Hell, some of the greatest advances in science over the past two centuries came from technology that we didn't have until said recent time. For most of humanity, the idea of an atom was a thought experiment at best.
Democrats think that their response to science is the science itself so if you don't agree with their response to science then you are ignoring science.
The reality is that we absolutely accept the actual science happening but completely disagree with the response they are suggesting.
Science was always meant to be questioned, that is literally how science has evolved since the start of humanity. If no one ever questioned science and we just took it to be absolute, we would think the earth is the center of the solar system and that bleeding someone to near death is a good way to make them healthy again by getting rid of tainted blood.
Maybe I have bias because I went to school for chemical engineering so I have a strong appreciation for science, but these people are retarded when they claim science is absolute and this is what is fact. Science always changes, and sometimes even our most basic concepts are challenged. Humans do not and will never know absolutes. All we know is what we experimented on and understand so far.
These aren’t just basic concepts that evolve, look at Ptolemys law of refraction. This was proven mathematically and was accepted as fact for 1,500 years before Snell’s law disproved it. 1,500 years, that is FIFTY GENERATIONS.
Telling someone that some scientific theory or law is not up for discussion because it is a proven fact, is one of the most ignorant things one man can say to another. And if you do claim it as fact, you should be prepared to defend it against even the most wild accusations, because that’s how science works.
The way science works is that you have experiments to verify hypothesis. When many experiments can reproduce the results to back the idea, it's becomes a theory. Theories can be wrong. For example, Newton's interpretation of gravity was flawed - but it had worked as much as it was testable for years.
That's the whole point of science. They've turned it into a cult.
Scientism.
Scient....ology?
Scientism is the false belief that science provides answers to all things. It has become a religion due to evangelists (false prophets) like deGrasse Tyson and Nye, among others.
In reality, science gives us models, not answers.
yep thats why my favorite phrase from libshits is "believe in science" lmfao
Even though 0% of our predictions have come true, the science is settled!
Just give it two more weeks, bigot. Or 12 years.
Thank you for posting this! I cannot believe something so fundamental as the scientific method is controversial now. It's amazing how skewed reality becomes when the narrative is controlled by the left.
It is considered racist now
Science is white supremacy though.
See it's like this:
A. Science wants to tell you it has the answers
B. For there to BE answers, there must eventually reach an endpoint where everything is solved and there are no more questions.
C. Until that point is reached science, for all its massive investment of talent, money, time, and for all its claims about not being a religion truly has no better answers than a religion can provide.
D. That truth: that science is really just a secular religion, is a heretical truth to science soooooooo....
E. It needs to start saying that the science is solved to have any basis as something that has answers and is definitely not religion
That's why they call the scientific method rayciss. They want to settle science to fit a narrative.
My main issue with the climate doomsayers.
"scientist A" claims that the earth will reach conditions that will be devastating to humanity in 10 years. No solution offered, just a 10 year coundown. Scientist B claims from observations and models that the Earth will reach conditions that will be devastating to humanity in 20 years if we don't make changes. Scientist C observes that the course of the climate could reach a devastating capacity for parts of the world in 30 years if certain changes are not taken globally or at least locally to the areas where the worst could occur.
All three statements are made around the same time. 10 years pass. Little has changed, but the course of change can be quadratic where it's a slow ramp up at first before a sharp spike.
"scientist A" has been shown to be wrong entirely and just blowing more hot air than actually can be found. Instead of admitting defeat, "scientist A" jumps onto Scientist B's statement and just parrots blindly as if it was what was always been said. Either way, this diminishes the value of Scientist B and C's statements. Conditions around the Earth have gotten worse in some areas though, just not local to where Scientist A, B, and C operate. However, the worsening conditions are due to certain areas accelerating the practices that can induce negative local change.
10 more years pass. Conditions are now starting to be noticeable globally, a trend that could be due to natural patterns, but anecdotally attributed to activities of the various populations of the world. "scientist A" is now blue in the face thinking it's all over and nothing can be done. All the while claiming still that in 10 years it's all over. Scientist B has to put up with "scientist A" because trying to correct A will just get B blacklisted by everyone that's followed "scientist A" from the start. Even so, Scientist B has some solutions and has come to see what Scientist C has observed, but cannot get the message out to areas where changes need to be made because said areas openly refuse to make the changes.
Scientist C has pioneered solutions and at least found ways to fix a number of areas and diminish the devastation foreseen 20 years ago, with 10 years to spare. Scientist C is more quiet though because at this point, "In 10 years the world will end" is the message of "scientist A," and Scientist B. Scientist C knows it won't be as bad as A and B make it out to be on a global scale, but knows that some areas are in for a very rough ride if they don't straighten up in 10 years. All offered solutions are ignored and Scientist C has lost hope of those areas listening.
10 more years pass. Most of the globe is in alright condition, either due the efforts of B and C, or due to natural activity of the planet settling down from what was happening over the course of the decade. Some areas are getting gutted ecologically due both to natural trends of climate and due to human activity actively raising a finger to all offered solutions that could have slowed or prevented issues. "scientist A" is now pointing to those areas as proof of what will happen to the world in "10 more years" while not considering that a 50 mile drive would reveal a climate that's in it's best conditions in a whole century thanks to humanity listening to B and C. B has grown disillusioned with trying to correct the movement and has given up on saying anything that doesn't parrot "scientist A"
Scientist C feels mostly accomplished, and goes on to at least fortify improvements in regions still vulnerable while checking in on parts of the world that have improved but could slip due to apathy or blindness. Improvements in communication, as well as data collection have allowed Scientist C to offer a strong model of climate change, but Scientist C is often drowned out by general denialists and detractors who are tired of hearing "10 more years". Scientist C just feels happy that most detractors and denialists happen to also care for their surroundings and keep the local conditions favorable.
TL;DR: "scientist A" cries wolf till blue in the face. Scientist B says there might be a wolf in the hills so keep watching the sheep when a wolf call goes out. Scientist C knows the wolf won't come if people watch the flock, but only A is left in charge of watching the Flock.
It's pseudo science. Run with it.
This. What a stupid thing to say anyways. We are still learning about earth even though we settled long ago that it is round (flat earthers can f-off!).
Can't apply this to evolution in any way. It's just a hypothesis based on an infinitesimal amount of evidence.
It isn't scientific at all.
It's just the religion of science's creation myth. Just a story made up to try to fit the extremely limited information we actually have.
Science has been used to try to replace religion since at least 1859
Tell the "The science is settled!" crowd that the same could well be said against virology, microbiology, etc because there was a time that we had no way of observing, let alone proving the existence of anything smaller than the naked eye can see.
Hell, some of the greatest advances in science over the past two centuries came from technology that we didn't have until said recent time. For most of humanity, the idea of an atom was a thought experiment at best.
Even gravity is just a theory.
Democrats think that their response to science is the science itself so if you don't agree with their response to science then you are ignoring science.
The reality is that we absolutely accept the actual science happening but completely disagree with the response they are suggesting.
"Religion is a culture of faith ; Science is a culture of doubt."
"If you thought science was certain - well, that is a just an error on your part."
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"
I think its been modified for leftism:
Conclusion
Hypothesis that supports it
Peer Review
Published
Settled Science.
Science was always meant to be questioned, that is literally how science has evolved since the start of humanity. If no one ever questioned science and we just took it to be absolute, we would think the earth is the center of the solar system and that bleeding someone to near death is a good way to make them healthy again by getting rid of tainted blood.
Maybe I have bias because I went to school for chemical engineering so I have a strong appreciation for science, but these people are retarded when they claim science is absolute and this is what is fact. Science always changes, and sometimes even our most basic concepts are challenged. Humans do not and will never know absolutes. All we know is what we experimented on and understand so far.
These aren’t just basic concepts that evolve, look at Ptolemys law of refraction. This was proven mathematically and was accepted as fact for 1,500 years before Snell’s law disproved it. 1,500 years, that is FIFTY GENERATIONS.
Telling someone that some scientific theory or law is not up for discussion because it is a proven fact, is one of the most ignorant things one man can say to another. And if you do claim it as fact, you should be prepared to defend it against even the most wild accusations, because that’s how science works.
Everything will be proven wrong eventually. That is the real goal of science: invalidation of everything previously known. That is not a bad thing.
Edit: This is why I cringe, when people accept science as fact. the whole goal of science should be to disprove science.
It's a play on words. They're colonizing the field of science with their people.
They're gonna use the same logic with biologi you know
Drinking game every time a Democrat says "science" then que up the Inigo Montoya meme.
You dont say? Geocentric universe. Static continents. Static universe. Aether. Even Newton was an alchemist.
You're being overly dramatic.
The way science works is that you have experiments to verify hypothesis. When many experiments can reproduce the results to back the idea, it's becomes a theory. Theories can be wrong. For example, Newton's interpretation of gravity was flawed - but it had worked as much as it was testable for years.