[–] HighEnergyLife 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That science march was fucking stupid. This author is part of the problem. They use science to justify their own nonsense ideology. Last year's march was an extension of the perceived notion that President Trump was anti-science, and Obama was essentially neil Tyson. They only care about certain people like Nye because he's full blown SJW. Ask them about James Fucking Watson, the Nobel prize winner for discovering DNA. Oh ya, he's not liberal so fuck him

[–] voltronsdicks 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

Yeah the real problem is all these faggots slapping the label of 'science' onto everything and creating authority fallacies left and right and then expecting the public to assign more credibility to anyone wearing a white lab coat.

CNN already proved how fucking this stupid approach was by creating the authority fallacy label of the media and thinking the public would believe the MSM forever. Sorry, but we're not that fucking stupid. We understand when people are lying to us because we know liars don't want their critics making rebuttals. That's why they censor dissenting views on their sites.

If scientists or any group wants credibility they then need to stop handing their conclusions with kid gloves. You know, like the scientific method already demands. This must mean that scientists are relying on their own emotional conclusions instead of following their own advice and let the motherfucking FACTS do the talking.

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

I always get James Watson and Richard Dawkins mixed up when it comes to "people who may not have the nicest personality, but are very brilliant". One of them said something derisive about towelheads, causing SJW bluehairs to flip the fuck out. The other made a pass at a woman in an elevator, causing SJW bluehairs to flip the fuck out. Not sure who did what.

[–] avgwhtguy1 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Dawkins is shit. gives atheist and scientists a bad name by trying to be a poster boy and resorting to name calling when its unnecessary

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

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

Liberals don't like DNA because it goes against the concept of forced "equality"

[–] ardvarcus 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

I'm sorry to have to tell you, but scientists are the ones who are contributing to decision-making based on ideology. The fraud that is man-made global warming is the primary example, but there are many, many others. Science cannot be trusted today to be ideologically impartial. We've lost that impartiality in the West. The rest of the world never had it to begin with, but we had it for a while and we've lost it.

[–] avgwhtguy1 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

science is impartial, scientists are not.

global warming is not science. Science requires operational definitions, methods, and results. Science is not facts or phrases

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

so they are wrong because it conflicts with your beliefs, eh?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 


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

Oh goody, scientists on their high horse. When scientists accuse others of acting on ideology I am reminded of, among other things,

Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis- known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the "saviour of mothers", Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.

In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia, after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.

Scientists are not immune to ideology - in fact I would suggest that ideology drives much more 'science' than many would have us believe or want to know. If I believed that the center of the moon is made of cheese I could commission a study to "prove" it and since I am paying the bills the report had better meet my expectations.

I suspect you're shocked and horrified that I would suggest such a thing and I'll wager all the scientists you know are totally objective and committed to the scientific method regardless of outcome.

Science is fluid. The 'facts' of today are tomorrow's discredited quackery. When you couple that with the reality of scientists bending 'science' to support their preconceived notions or predetermined outcomes (AKA ideology) the arrogance of this PR piece for 'American Association for the Advancement of Science' and it's promotion of a politically based march masquerading as a noble ideal is downright comical.

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

"Science" is a process, with reproducibility at its core. The final result of science should always be a statement like this: If you take x and do y in an environment including z, then the following happens.

Then other people can take x,y, and z, and do the same. If it isn't reproducible, it isn't science.

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

Lots of things labelled as science these days really aren't. Apparently science is hard.


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

Experiments are almost never reproduced.

[–] Maddmartigan 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Evolution is not reproducible, in that fact that one kind has never reproduced the kind of another.... Theories upon theories...

[–] saprian 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Ironic to have this named after Semmelweis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex

The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.

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

I don't think the issue is "science" itself as a philosophy or a process. It's human binary modes of thinking. New vs old, entrenched and established vs. paradigm shifts. Humans like to be comfortable. A scientist who works most of a young life and makes broad achievements (his own paradigm shift perhaps) wants something to hang his hat on. People have a general idea about the picture of a lifetime, and we change as we age. We lose vigor and tenacity. We lose energy.

Nobody likes the thought of their life's work being cast aside, or the thought of having to fight for a whole lifetime against the changing tides of discovery and reality.

So the establishment battles the boat rockers.

It isn't science that is the problem. It's the scientists who change the game and then want to sit back on their heels for decades to soak in the comforts of owning that particular paradigm. It becomes POLITICAL. They don't want to see new data or evidence that refutes the existing paradigm. They want constancy in an ironic way, given that the philosophy of science ultimately demands constant change over time.

Politicized science is the problem. The problems we are seeing today have to do with propaganda. Not science. Entire institutions being politically purchased. This gets at the heart of human fear and weakness in the face of political and financial pressures. None of the SJW shit in science has anything to do with science at all. It's propaganda masquerading as science.

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

The world is in trouble when PC trumps logic and facts. For instance, they wouldn't want science to prove that the transexuals are mentaly ill.

[–] Kannibal [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It depends on their definition of mental illness, vs the variation available that should or could be considered "normal"

Your mileage will vary of course.

[–] Inconceivable2 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

science as central to improving the human condition

Ha. Not the way we're doing it in this day and age:

research effort is rising substantially while research productivity is declining sharply

the “number of researchers required today to achieve the famous doubling every two years of the density of computer chips is more than 18 times larger than the number required in the early 1970s.” The researchers found similar trends in research related to agriculture and medicine. More and more research on cancer and other illnesses has produced fewer and fewer lives saved.

From the same website. Is Science Hitting A Wall?

[–] 3TrillionPotatoes 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

research effort is rising substantially while research productivity is declining sharply

Is this like that statistic about women attempting suicide more often than men succeeding at suicide?

[–] SpecialtyPizza 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Perhaps women are more prone to doing it for attention.

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

ok for chips its because we have to switch to a new technology silcon transistors can only get so small before you hit a wall. as for cancer and other illnesses why cure it? you make way more money selling a treatment than a cure so not exactly the best choices

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

You're sort of right. I think that we might still be ok on this one though because:

Consider some typical, bright young 4channer type dude like Martin Skreli. This dude has no love for TPTB and enjoys a good trolling almost as much as he enjoys money.

That dude knows that if HE is the one to come out with a bigass cure for something like cancer, then he'll get:

1) lots of money

2) fame and the pussy that comes with it

3) the satisfaction of trolling faggots like GlaxoSmithKline who can no longer make money with their symptom-treating products.

In fact, I kinda hope that Skreli himself is stewing over this in jail and figuring out how he's gonna put it into place when he gets out.

Not saying that this is gonna happen, you understand. What I am saying is that the money 1) is not as much as a big company could make by stringing ppl along without curing anything. But that money IS a lot to a disruptive newcomer.

[–] Inconceivable2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

More money in treating symptoms than finding a cure.

Truer words have never been written. Sadly.

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

I'm disgusted by any use of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit in public speech. It errodes the common good of Trust and imparts a paracitical cost on me to verify claims and debunk falsehoods. If we encouraged and enforced an operational standard procedure of due diligence to confirm your beliefs before you spread them, we might make some headway towards a coherent society.

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

Thats funny because Scientist often base their theories and reject others based on their fee fees. We have people like DutchSense who has innovated plate tectonic movement and earthquake perditions with high accuracy and "scientists" attack him. Same goes for any archaeologist who goes against their predetermined history.

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

Easy FIX, it called OPEN SCIENCE.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)