OT - All Da Sciences

[the halleJOKEL]

yes, and after science is tested thousands and thousands of times, we can just deny it because it hurts our feeligns/wallets

lookin at u climate scienctists

 

[MinJaBen]

Disclaimer: I kind of like them various anti-scientific hot taeks, because they give the true science and the scientific method an opportunity and also a necessity to show its true worth and value in a "show me" kind of deal. The intelligent design folks for example may be the best thing to ensure that the theory on evolution is the real deal and to purge any possible fluffy make believe frills that there might have tagged along.

The goddamn science needs to be tested, that's the whole point of science.

Yes and no. Yes, of course science needs to be tested and refreshed and challenged all the time. But it is counter productive to do that in the public form where people who couldn't tell you the scientific method read and believe what they've seen just because it is in print or their favorite TV anchor or politician has said it, thus ensuring it is "true".

 

[RodTheBawd]

I like where this is headed.

 

[Lempo]

Yes and no. Yes, of course science needs to be tested and refreshed and challenged all the time. But it is counter productive to do that in the public form where people who couldn't tell you the scientific method read and believe what they've seen just because it is in print or their favorite TV anchor or politician has said it, thus ensuring it is "true".

Well the problem is that people are morons.

 

[MinJaBen]

Well the problem is that people are morons.

Duh.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Well the problem is that people are morons.

No. The problem is that some people are morons, and too often those people are given the same intellectual credence as people who are definitively not morons.

Our politics have come to a point at which people believe that they can simply choose the "science" that suits them. (True on the left and right, btw: climate change deniers and antivaxxers are equally stupid.) But that's not how science works.

Yes, science only works when people challenge it -- but the caveat is that they have to challenge it with other *actual* science. Not "shit they read on the internet."

 

[Lempo]

Yes and no. Yes, of course science needs to be tested and refreshed and challenged all the time. But it is counter productive to do that in the public form where people who couldn't tell you the scientific method read and believe what they've seen just because it is in print or their favorite TV anchor or politician has said it, thus ensuring it is "true".

Yes, science only works when people challenge it -- but the caveat is that they have to challenge it with other *actual* science. Not "**** they read on the internet."

What I actually tried to mean by "challenging" the science is to make science earn it's merit every day, as the method of producing actual knowledge, void of biases and ideologies. I'm not expecting the message and the results to go through to the idiots who just say "na-a", because it obviously won't no way no how, but hopefully the bigger part of the rest of the audience will benefit if the scientific community in face of this anti-scientific challenge has to streamline and try put its main message into two-syllable words understandable to the common man, and steer out from making any easy own goals in vein of the feminist glaciology debacle.

 

[MinJaBen]

...feminist glaciology debacle.

 

[Lempo]

I'm failing to get the point of the pic, @MinJaBen

 

[RodTheBawd]

Thats hot.