1
45

[–] vaeax 1 point 45 points (+46|-1) ago 

this is why the concept "settled science" is absolute bullshit

1
6

[–] Deplorablepoetry 1 point 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

“You may be right..., but you may be wroooong”

0
1

[–] theysayso 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I may be crazy....

0
2

[–] coucou 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Agreed! Settled, my ass!

0
1

[–] LaundryDryerPerson 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Just like in the 1870's the established scientific community thought washing your hands before delivering a baby was absurd. It took decades for them to adapt that. Science authorities are great huh? Give your 1-year old 40+ vaccines now!

0
1

[–] Dortex 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Evolutionary biology is settled. It will never be disproven.

1
0

[–] Tubesbestnoob 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Even if it weren't, niggers would still be a type of ape.

4
-1

[–] redstarkachina 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

actually there are dimensions of existence that you cannot perceive because you are unaware of them... darwinism is trendy but what about kropotkin?

3
-2

[–] DarkCandy 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago  (edited ago)

I was going to say "settled science" is an oxymoron. Bullshit works.

Since I can't post anything yet, I think this song / video is either trying to tell us something (note the words, the visuals -- maybe I am too drunk and reading into things), or brainwash us: 10000 Maniacs -- Candy Everybody Wants

... One image in the video was "We gain our innocence by taking yours."

0
21

[–] Sheeitpost 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

They clearly suppress evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology because it rattles the researchers and societies paradigms.

0
13

[–] coucou 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Which means that consensus is bullshit! Michael Crichton said it, consensus is not science and science is not consensus.

1
0

[–] GapingAnus 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Consensus is bullshit if the consensus itself is the argument. It usually isn't. Consensus is fairly settled on the number of biological sexes in humans. The fact that there's a consensus is not why it's settled.

The irony of that statement is particularly rich when you consider why Galileo was censured and not the reddit tier explanation for it.

0
0

[–] coucou ago 

We could put up a list of consensus which have been debunked over the past centuries. Fla t earthers would go apoplectic!

3
-2

[–] ardvarcus 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

Consensus is bullshit, period. It is the lowing of a herd of cows in a field.

3
-2

[–] phillyjoe 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

And when everyone agrees we call that religion.

0
1

[–] coucou 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yes, so 1 + 1 = 2 is a religion. I am a mathematiste.

0
0

[–] ardvarcus ago 

And when everyone agrees we call that religion.

There has never been a more hotly debated field of human endeavor than religion.

0
10

[–] oneinchterror 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

I've got a guy on reddit right now arguing with me about how "race realism" is pseudoscience, and to be honest I'm not sure I'm well versed enough on the minutiae and hard data to make a compelling argument for it. (Plus I'm lazy when it comes to internet arguments.) He won't engage at all with any sources I've provided since they're all from "racist cranks". I know I should probably just let it go and study up, but it's a little frustrating. I'm trying to convey that while it's true most biologists/geneticists/psychometricians won't outright state that race realism is legit, a significant portion of them do support all sorts of evidence in its favor, and the conclusion becomes obvious in light of that.

0
9

[–] Acerphoon 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

All these links are helpful. It's: Existence of Race; Racial Diversity; Race and IQ and Race and Crime.
Read these, whenever you need them. On facts and evidence alone, a race denier will never win. Never.

The best a race denier can do is get emotional and cry about you being a racist or whatever. But the facts are 100% on your side, and he won't be able to refute a single one of them. In the links above, the common counter-arguments like "More variation within than between"; "Stereotype threat", etc. are all addressed aswell.

0
7

[–] ItGoesOnAnonAnonAnon 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There was a recent post here on Voat about the founder(derp) discoverer of DNA getting his scientific awards pulled for the usual leftist BS reasons.

Otherwise, another angle of attack is via IQ, like how Koko the Gorilla had mid-80 IQ but the average Somalian is in the 60s.

Or just how silly it seems that evolution created all these physically different versions of humanity, and yet somehow all of our brains are exactly the same? Similarly, comparing skull shape vs. brain size and its' parts is an interesting one to point out, for example some African tribes (and even some old civs like the Aztecs) have flat foreheads, but if their brain were normal-sized then the flat area is where the (pre?)frontal cortex would be, which controls speech and emotion (iirc).

There's a few angles for you, sorry I don't have sources on hand but those might be helpful to look into.

Edit: derpy crossthrough, didn't think that one through.

2nd edit: conveniently on the front page of /all is this post demonstrating my skull comparison point.

0
5

[–] european 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Iq although highly heritable is not simply genetic potential of intelligence. It is actual intelligence and can be influenced by nutrition and developing environment too.

0
2

[–] CallASpadeASpade 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If he’s saying race doesn’t exist, give him this link...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128221025.htm

Surely he doesn’t think Stanford University are racist cranks.

“The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent.

‘This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background,’ Risch said.”*

0
1

[–] 16419378? [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I saw this on youtube and thought it was great so I'll copy it for you here:

Race realists claim: Height gives an advantage in the sport of basketball, so naturally there will be fewer Asians in the NBA because they are genetically predisposed to being shorter, on average, than other races. Blacks will be over-represented because they are genetically predisposed to being taller on average. For this reason, you will never see an African Pygmy professional basketball player.

Marxists claim: there's no such thing as race, race is a social construct, therefore the NBA is a racist organization because it hires a disproportionate number of blacks compared to other races, especially Asians.

Race realists claim: On average, West Africans make better sprinters, East Africans make better long-distance runners, and Europeans make better swimmers, based on data from Olympic medalists. Also, the sherpas in Nepal fare better in high-altitude compared to the tourists they take up Mt. Everest, and Asians out-perform whites on IQ tests.

Marxists claim: Race-realists are white supremacists who believe whites are superior in every way. Also if certain races do better in certain sports or tests that's just down to individual differences or how they were raised.

Race realists claim: Human skull sizes and shapes differ according to race. Crime scene investigators / forensics experts can determine the race (of the three major categories: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid), gender, and age of human remains based on a skull, or even just a fragment of a skull or other important bones (like the femur).

Marxists claim: CSI and forensics and anthropology is racist, as any two individuals of the same race can have very different skull size and shape. There is more difference within the races than between races! Believing in that is akin to believing in phrenology!

Race realists claim: Asians score higher on all kinds of cognitive tests. That is why they are over-represented in Silicon Valley like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, and Yahoo!. In fact, at Yahoo! Asians make up more than 50% of the employees despite being such a tiny demographic of the US population because they are genetically predisposed to being intelligent. Since latinos and blacks don't make great programmers, they are under-represented.

Marxists claim: These companies are clearly racist, despite the pressure from social justice advocates and their own diversity chiefs trying desperately to increase the numbers of minorities working there. There should be equal numbers of all races at these companies because everyone has the same average intelligence. This is inexcusable.

Race realists claim: there's more to racial differences than athletic and cognitive abilities. Behavioral differences have also been shown to exist. Blacks tend to be the most promiscuous, while Asians tend to be the least promiscuous. This explains the CDC's findings of higher rates of all STDs in the black community, as well as the higher rates of virginity in countries like Japan.

Marxists claim: any differences in STDs is because of racism, the notion that the Japanese are less likely to engage in casual unprotected sex than Africans is racist.

0
4

[–] ichlibejuice 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

rhetoric is not science.

1
2

[–] 16403636? 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I like the Electric Universe theory. Sure it some holes but so does cosmology.

5
2

[–] SaveTheChildren 5 points 2 points (+7|-5) ago 

Liking things doesnt make them true. Outer space is fake and gay. Kike fairy tale for the goy. We live under the firmament.

1
1

[–] chuckletrousers 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

But that's,exactly why you believe in the jew lies including the firmament, because you like them, no matter how much evidence to the contrary.

3
2

[–] geekpuk2 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

Evolution is not settled science. Gravity is not settled science.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] ThirteenthZodiac ago 

I'll take the bait

It's... I'd hope it's not bait, because he's correct.

Science isn't some done deal, and it (almost assuredly) never will be. Science is making observations, making models and predictions that try to explain those observations, then seeing if those models and predictions hold up in new, previously-unobserved situations.

Along with that, you have to be willing to accept that you're wrong. That one counterexample can bring the entire edifice of your understanding of the universe to-date come tumbling down, that at any moment you could have to start again from base principles.

The issue is that today, lots of people don't seem to get this. The whole "climate science" deal is the exemplar of this problem: if you question the "accepted" model, you're ostracized from the community. This means that only people who believe - and "believe" is the right fucking terminology, here - in the model get to be part of that community, and thus will do everything in their power to twist data, ignore evidence, and otherwise anything that would prove them wrong.

Part of the problem, too, is scientific literacy in the general population, and journalists especially. Look at all the hullabaloo over the Higgs Boson, often referred to as "the god particle:" most people can't tell you what the fucking thing does, much less the context for the joke name (the guy in question was calling it "that goddamn particle," because it would be a bitch to find if it even existed, but quite a bit was riding on whether or not it did). Most journalists have no idea what the fuck a p-value is or its significance, or why the fact that outside of physics a p-value of .05 is considered sufficient should absolutely be a major concern.

Gravity isn't science at all, it's a phenomenon.

I feel like you're being a little pedantic, here. No, gravity isn't "science," but it is within the purview of scientific endeavor and, as a natural phenomenon, it falls to science to investigate it. It's not "settled" in the sense that while we've got pretty good models of how gravity works, that work for most cases we're likely to run into in our daily lives, there are some aspects of gravity that are really fucking bizarre, and we're not quite sure why it works the way it does in the edge-cases.

0
0

[–] 16419319? [S] ago 

I was thinking more along the lines of Boasian anthropology or Climate science.

4
0

[–] SaveTheChildren 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

Gravity doesnt exist. Only density and bouyancy.

0
1

[–] chuckletrousers 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

And what's responsible for bouyancy? Gravity, duh.

0
1

[–] stonewallphysics 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

He would know he was almost burned alive for some of his... and yet the scientific method triumphs unitils its scientists of today find that they take scientific positions on climate or biological gender that crosses the dogma of the LEFT they will loose their jobs and teaching positions and in some cases have been recommended for jail or even death.

And I say that's the only way to get a clear and unbiased answer to life's scientific mysteries...

We need the Knights in Python's Comedy to reason with mob on matters of weights and wood to see if it just that our witches be burned for it is only the nobility that can truly speak for science.

Ah scientific discovery has not seen such political interest since the Dark Ages... no doubt the methods of the Catholic Jesuits could be used as a deterrent and should be considered necessary in order to protect the feelings of those that would be offended by such facts or discoveries.

"The true purpose of science is to further the beliefs of the institutions that support the political reasoning's and beliefs of the intellectually smart people of a society and not to forward ideas that would chaff those members."

Reeeeeeeeeeeeee!

load more comments ▼ (15 remaining)