1267
Comments (43)
sorted by:
41
deleted 41 points ago +41 / -0
12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
34
deleted 34 points ago +34 / -0
13
BirchTBarlow 13 points ago +13 / -0

Science is a method of forming and testing hypotheses. Scientists make arguments using objective facts. The process of arguing over what the facts mean is just as political as any other argument, subject to the same human biases and fallacies.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
27
thunderpussy 27 points ago +27 / -0

I've got news for him. The New Dark Age is HERE!

19
TedCruzAteABoogaloo 19 points ago +19 / -0

Let's not let a good opportunity go to waste. Needs to be called the "Deepstate Dark Age" so that nobody forgets who caused it.

7
thunderpussy 7 points ago +7 / -0

Good point.

3
residue69 3 points ago +3 / -0

ThAt'S rAcIsT!

15
Kerra_Holt 15 points ago +15 / -0

I seem to recall they do the same thing to another group of people whose claims don't align with consensus. What do they call them? Oh yeah, "Climate Deniers". This all seems so familiar for some reason.

5
jgardner 5 points ago +7 / -2

It's been happening for quite some time to the so called evolution-deniers too!

10
TedCruzAteABoogaloo 10 points ago +10 / -0

'The science is settled!" is one of the propagandists' phrases that pisses me off the most.

6
thunderpussy 6 points ago +6 / -0

Me, as well. It is the very antithesis of science and the scientific method.

4
knightofday 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly! That saying makes me rage

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
wiombims 1 point ago +1 / -0

I almost enjoy that argument because the peer review process has limitations and practical examples can be found readily. The peer review process is so pupular that there's data as opposed to anecdotes to show where it can excel and how it can fail in spectacular fashion.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
jgardner 2 points ago +2 / -0

Aristotle said....

8
Kerra_Holt 8 points ago +8 / -0

My point is that Science shouldn't silence dissent. If anything, Science Community should embrace weird and radical ideas. If their ideas are bad, they can be dissuaded or debunked using Facts and Evidence.

Evolution Deniers? Well, provide evidence for Evolution and the so-called "denier" can provide their evidence and arguments. That's how it should work!

But instead, what the Science Community is doing is DEPLATFORMING and silencing dissent! That isn't how it's supposed to be!

Are you a Flat Earther? Well, the Science Community should invite you to state your case and provide your arguments. Then they can crush you with Facts and Evidence.

It seems to me that the current Scientific Community has become polluted with progressives who are more content to silence opposition to the established CONSENSUS.

1
progressives4Trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

earth do be flat tho

1
stonetears4fears 1 point ago +2 / -1

Heliocentrists?

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
9
unique_string 9 points ago +10 / -1

Some profiteering academic douchnozzle who never spoke up earlier when other dissenters were shut down and canceled and is now finding out that there are no dissenters left to speak up for him when he diverges from the academic dogma. Let the soyence superstar go complain to Reddit, there no sympathy for the rootless international globalist academic community in this quarter.

b-b-but muh nobel prize

yeah lol u & obama. did they give one to gretchen thunderburp yet? honk honk

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Bouldabassed 1 point ago +1 / -0

Worth noting that Nobel prizes for STEM fields like the chemistry one this man won are still quite prestigious. They aren't yet infected by clown world. As a chemist I always tend to think of the winner as deserving after looking through their work. A far cry from Obama's "I won because I'm black" peacr prize.

6
Democrit 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'll be honest fellas, it seems the time is ever drawing nigh that we stand and repel the darkness.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
5
VetforTrump 5 points ago +5 / -0

Liberal Scientist are the witch doctors of the 21st century. Some of the stupidest people I've ever heard speak.

5
GodSaveTheWest 5 points ago +5 / -0

right is "anti-science" btw

5
Forty_Five 5 points ago +5 / -0

Modern science needs to produce results that don't contradict leftist dogma.

Seems legit.

4
MagaGal 4 points ago +4 / -0

When you cannot debate 'em, you ban 'em. Simple logic from simpletons.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
BoughtByBloomberg2 2 points ago +2 / -0

The pioneers are looking back on the retards that now invest their faculties and shaking their head in every scientific field.

2
DeplorableWeWin 2 points ago +2 / -0

True leaders would have called the others out in their threat and told them to cancel and they will find someone else. Those hacks would have walked back their statements real fast

2
BuckOfama 2 points ago +2 / -0

"...too many calls by other speakers threatening to quit if you were there."

Oh. Well, can't have that, now can we?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
residue69 1 point ago +1 / -0

I feel like I'm shilling this book, but the story of how actual nutritional science and scientists were cancelled to push a false narrative and demonize saturated fat is like a prelude to what were seeing here.

When Ronald M Krauss decided, in 2000, to review all the evidence purporting to show that saturated fats cause heart disease, he knew that he was putting his professional career at risk. Krauss is one of the top nutrition experts in the United States, director of atherosclerosis research at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute and adjunct professor of nutritional studies at the University of San Francisco at Berkley. But challenging one of his field’s most sacrosanct beliefs – that the fats in meat, cheese and butter are bad for health – was a near-heretical act.

A few years earlier, when a colleague of Krauss’s had merely tried to speak about his positive findings regarding the high-fat Atkins diet, he was met with jeers and derision. One member of the audience yelled “I am absolutely disgusted that the [government] would waste my money on a study on the Atkins diet” – to the applause of many.

For those who would point out that Atkins died of a heart attack:

Three years ago I carefully researched the details of the death of Robert Atkins and wrote about it on this blog. I was motivated by the grossly inaccurate portrayal of him promulgated on vegan and plant-based websites. Elsewhere on this website I have described in detail the death of Nathan Pritikin whose ultra-low fat diet stands in stark contrast to Atkins’ ultra-low carb diet.

Atkins suffered a completely random event slipping and falling on ice and suffering an epidural hematoma. Pritikin developed leukemia and died after committing suicide.

2
Salt-N-Pepe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Uglikin diet - vegan

1
Kek_Priest_Wunderbar 1 point ago +1 / -0

... and we are the science deniers?

1
Hexagon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Cause science.