[–] acheron2012 1 points 45 points (+46|-1) ago 

Coming from a perspective of modest understanding of physics I find it mostly unbelievable.

By which I mean the real world seldom works the way “I” think it should.

Take the scientific fact of a falling object accelerating at 32 ft/sec per sec (on earth of course). That all sounds fine. But when you see that video from the moon of a hammer and a feather falling at the same rate - it just looks WRONG.

I believe more mandatory science education in school would help people resist the emotional arguments of socialism. Because if there is one thing physics teaches us it is that the universe gives Fuck All about your feels.

[–] The_Cat [S] 1 points 30 points (+31|-1) ago 

Because if there is one thing physics teaches us it is that the universe gives Fuck All about your feels.

Now there's some absolute truth.

[–] Dalai_Llama 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Your comment sums up this whole thread:

"Real science is too rigorous for us so we're just going to throw around anecdotes about how we're smarter than everyone and if they don't believe us we'll tell them they're using emotional arguments. Our own arguments should never have to stand up to criticism and we'll create a false premise that any dissent whatsoever is coming from baseless incredulity."

[–] cantaloupe6 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yes it's a fallacy generally; however you don't have to understand string theory to know it doesn't account for dark energy hence it appears incorret.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181009102431.htm

Essentially if there are incentives to support dogama then be skeptical. Whether or not one has a full understanding.

If you can't convince them with facts baffle them with bullshit.

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

That would work with whites but sadly beaners and niggers will never understand

[–] theoldguy 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

Are you saying the flattards and "we haven't been to the moon" idiots are all niggers and beaners? I've been thinking of them as white trailer park trash with meth labs.

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

[Deleted]

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

Ummm reality has a liberal bias sooooooooo

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

I loved physics class in college for all of the demos where prof would ask what we thought was going to happen, and then he'd show ud how outside of common sense much of physics is.

Like creating a vacuum and watching water freeze and then boil at seemingly room temperature. Fucking weird. I could NOT make my brain understand that one for a while.

[–] fluffyunbound 2 points 28 points (+30|-2) ago  (edited ago)

As a counterargument I would say that the incremental nature of science makes it very likely that scientists will choose to elaborate an existing theory in order to explain discrepancies in observations rather than devise a new theory, and that beyond a certain point those continual elaborations will start to seem absurd to outsiders who have less investment in protecting and preserving the theory.

The classic example is, of course, the Ptolemaic cosmology, which was a generally accepted theory for centuries - but which gradually became more and more complex and baroque as additional observations had to be accounted for. The modern "Standard Model" approach of just adding another postulated particle whenever an observation is off has more than a little of the air of "Ptolemaic epicycles" about it. And the fact that literally immense observational problems with our current cosmology have led theorists to say "We're not going to reconsider our theory, we're just going to assume we can't see 80% of the matter and energy needed to make it work" seems pretty sketchy at first glance also.

[–] chrimony 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

To be fair, alternatives have been considered. It's just that they've generally been found lacking in different respects.

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

The current model has its holes, but they are well rationalized holes. But the shape of the Earth is not one of them (the holes).

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

What if the people that decide what makes the most sense are purposely misleading us?

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

And lacking in pudding.

[–] lanre 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

A good explanation for this that I heard was that in academia you had to wait for the old guard, who developed the advanced the previous generation of theories, to die off before anyone could make significant progress in advancing science further, and then you'd see a spurt of innovation as the new generation took over. Then they'd become deadwood as they become protective of their pet theories and become established professors, etc.. Unless someone comes up with something so sensational or undeniable it has to be acknowledged, it seems this is the way science currently progresses.

But I've still noticed that science is progressing incrementally, just with brief pauses, in a lot of cases. So the ptolemaic model might get you 80% correct in your estimations for most things, the Newtonian model might get you 98% accuracy in 99% of cases, and the standard model might get you 99% correct calculations in 99% of cases. That's what it seems to me in terms of progress in these fields. I think it's very rare to completely turn something upside down.

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

Don't forget where there is money and status to be had we already have plenty of outright frauds, hoaxes, and junk science to point out.

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

Don't forget where there is money and status to be had we already have plenty of outright frauds, hoaxes, and junk science to point out.

Just because you got ripped off by an employer is reason to run off to the mountains to become a hermit?

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

Those added particles are not just arbitrarily added after the fact. The Higgs for example was predicted 50 years before being observed. It doesn't mean everything is correct about the standard model. Most physicists acknowledge there are huge gaps in our understanding

[–] Seventh_Jim 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

I would add the caveat tht this rule drops off proportionally with reproductability of the theory, or "softness" of the field of study.

If you don't understand a concept in sociology, psychology, or economics there is a good chance the idea is nonsense put forth by someone dishonest.

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

Even then, there are often good arguments for why the theory is widely accepted. Note that I'm talking about "established" theories, not speculative fringe ideas. Even if these theories turn out to be wrong, it's often instructive to try to understand their underpinnings. Because there's usually more sense there than you'd expect.

[–] Seventh_Jim 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago  (edited ago)

The problem is that some fields have been corrupted long enough that the well-established theories are nonsense themselves. The only value in understanding them is knowing the enemy. Sociology especially falls into this, as Durkheim abandonned objectivity from the start.

[–] neogag 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago  (edited ago)

  1. Intimate knowledge of the theory is not required if your argument is that it conflicts with something else that is established (or can be established by logic), and you can argue your support for that something else that rules it out.

  2. Things that you consider established to your satisfaction might not be established to my satisfaction. Experience in science humbles a person as to how often entire paradigms shift and defy ideas that we were once very confident about. Conversely, the Scientism-ist does not seem to have this humility.

  3. Not everything you read is an argument. I might say some theory is not real. That is an opinion, for which I probably have an argument, but did not present one at that particular time. Assume such comments are prefixed with "In my opinion..." To not give this benefit of the doubt is pedantic and equivalent to "a-ha! You didn't start your sentence with I think."

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

This. Saying a theory does not make sense is not a fallacy FFS. If you think the logic of the theory doesn't follow, or if the conclusions are counter factual regardless of the argument, it's perfectly valid to say it doesn't make sense. People obsess over fallacies so much they can't see the forest for the trees.

And yes, having to intimately learn everything before you can criticize it is a retarded rule. What if I write 100 completely bullshit, time cube-tier theories that are deliberately convoluted and incomprehensible, are you then not allowed to say I'm full of shit unless you spend 40 years becoming a professor of my bullshit? As the person asserting a theory, you have as much responsibility to make it concise and easy to understand as the audience has to consider it objectively and with an open mind. In real science, incomprehensible theories usually come up in two ways:

  • Political corruption turns theory to dogma and its content becomes irrelevant in favor of whether you publicly pay lip service to it.
  • The field is too new and everyone in it sucks at explaining things.

Even for a valid theory, "this is too complicated, I don't understand it" is a perfectly valid criticism. Few things in accepted, established science are hopelessly complex. So why should your theory get away with it?

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

"An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid." ~ The person being quoted and the quote itself is up for debate. But it makes sense.

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

That's why I'm talking about established theories. Not some word salad any tard throws together and calls a "theory".

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

Intimate knowledge of the theory is not required if your argument is that it conflicts with something else that is established (or can be established by logic), and you can argue your support for that something else that rules it out.

What if the same applies to the established theory, that they can argue support for it and it rules your theory out? We are fallible, so this can happen. If you don't understand the support for the established theory, you can't recognize situations like this. Every crackpot with their own theory believes they are correct since they think they have a good argument for it and it rules out others' theories.

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

What if the same applies to the established theory, that they can argue support for it and it rules your theory out?

That's fine. But the OP seems to be calling out a specific scenario where the people criticizing the theory are dumb. He seems to notice it a lot. It does happen, but I would also be wary of the OP giving an uncharitable reading (supporting a confirmation bias) to ideas that criticize the status quo.

[–] SLM123 5 points 13 points (+18|-5) ago 

Ten years in college and graduate level science courses studying theories like primordial soup, Big Bang, evolution, etc. Never questioned because couldn’t completely wrap my mind around them. Now they’re falling apart. Don’t even get me started on history theory that I didn’t question. So pro tip: question everything those so called scientists tell you.

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

"Now they’re falling apart"

how are those theories you mentioned falling apart?

[–] SLM123 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Where to start? How about that Lucy the ape-human bullshit that was crammed down our throats? debunked.

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

Primordial soup is discredited by the discovery of magnetosomes in Mars rocks.

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

Now they’re falling apart.

Just because we have a disproportionate number of tards here on Voat is no reason to fall victim to their shilling.

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

We dont have a disproportionate number of tards most of the worlds population are just tards.

[–] theHare 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

You reek of boomer retardation. Disporportionate number of tards on voat? I agree, but you are one of them? Right? Because you dont know everything you fart sniffing retard?

[–] Goys-R-Us 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That self awareness.

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

Isnt that just common sense debating 101?

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

Common sense is sadly uncommon.

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

That's why it has to be spelled out.

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

I was doing remote tech support for a manager the other day. I usually refuse to do tech support, but just the baseline data gathering was going to save us many hours with an onsite tech.

Long story short we had to buy a new router and I had to help her configure it manually.

When we got to the point where she was connected to the new router wirelessly, I had her open a browser to use to configure it.

No fewer than 3 times did she argue with me and say "that' not going to work because I don't have Internet".

2 of the three times led down distracting and wasteful paths. I was trying to keep her on task, but also to keep it friendly as I will need to support her in the future.

Another problem when someone like that argues with you, even when she was wrong, she will be looking for things to corroborate her belief. So if the connection didn't work right away, she'd think "see I was right he's an idiot wasting my time".

People who question experts without a basic knowledge of the subject matter are fucking idiots who waste everyone's time.

You earn your right to question by asking intelligent, informed questions.

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

No fewer than 3 times did she argue with me and say "that' not going to work because I don't have Internet".

Every. Fucking. Time. when I help a couple of people solve a computer issue. "Why don't you shut the fuck up and just do what I say and when we're done see if it works? If you really know what you're doing, why are you asking me to help you?"

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

You earn your right to question by asking intelligent, informed questions.

Indeed. Or by saying "I don't understand how opening a browser will work when I'm not ocnnected to the internet, why are you asking this?" Which shows the same misconception from ignorance, but allows for someone with more expertise to actually teach you something.

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

You forget you were dealing with a woman?

[–] Dalai_Llama 6 points 5 points (+11|-6) ago 

Arguments of authority are now your go-to?

[–] chrimony 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Arguments of authority are now your go-to?

That's not what he said. He said your criticism should come from a place of understanding, not mere incredulity.

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

Often times, arguments to the contrary that come from a place of understanding are met with incredulity themselves. Then the counter-argument that did come from a place of understanding is underestimated and alleged to be that of incredulity. I understand where the OP is coming from with his statement, but the way I see it is that accusing someone of incredulity can be an act of incredulity itself if it is not done with care. Constantly being questioned on our arguments is a good way to keep yourself well practiced anyways so OP's argument really does not resonate with me. The OP should take those opportunities to refine his ability to convey the concepts, not articulate any appeals to authority.

[–] slumbermachine 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

That's all i see here. Appeal to authority with stuff like “well established theory” without questioning that theory is not science, it’s religion.

[–] phoenix883 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Still, "x does not make sense" is not an argument and it means a lack of understanding for the concept. It may be that the concept is complete baloney and "understanding" it is really impossible, but it still requires a deeper counterargument than that.

"X is wrong because of A, B and C" is the proper answer.

[–] Dalai_Llama 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago 

Hey bud, "it's settled science." No need to question it. And if you do, you'll be accused of not understanding it.

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

This sub is the worst thing on voat. Nasa bullshit day in day out. Science is reproducible! Almost nothing that today is 'well established ' is reproducible. Its all appeal to authority.

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

Nasa bullshit day in day out.

NASA isn't as old as I am, but the world has been known to be roughly spherical for thousands of years. You're using exactly the "feels ahead of reals" arguments that are so despicable.

load more comments ▼ (47 remaining)