Fight all you want Sup Forumstards, science is real weather you like it or not!

Fight all you want Sup Forumstards, science is real weather you like it or not!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mtBz1roiQR8
youtube.com/watch?v=hCA8HofWsxc
nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ClA5f5uu0&t=142s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Science is real. But Neil "Smoke" DeGrasse Tyson teaches "science".

>Niggers doing epistemology
Ridiculous

>believe in my lies goy, trust me

Uh, that's right.

There can still be bad/wrong science passed of as "correct", though.

>Cites DeGrasse.

>Doesn't know DeGrasse is a paid shill by the NWO elites to keep people in the dark about the Flat Earth, and the existance of God.

The Earth is flat, faggot.

Yeah.......

Research it.

It's all been a lie all along.

The EARTH IS FLAT!

...

Science is real.

Social justice isn't science.

>weather

sub 80 iq detected

leftards into science until you mention girls don't have a penis

Atheicucks BTFO

youtube.com/watch?v=mtBz1roiQR8

Just like how there are only two genders

>tfw you're genetically superior to this nigger, even if he doesn't believe it

youtube.com/watch?v=hCA8HofWsxc

That's where you're wrong nigga

not an argument

you should really educate you're self

because you went to harvard, continue with your delusions dumbfag

>Science turns out to be mostly bullshit

nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

I agree. According to science we should be straight up executing black people

lol like God

Gender is the purview of "social 'sciences.'" Actually, it's the purview of grammar and semantics. Sex is related biological term.

>science is true whether or not you believe in it

then why is science's main goal right now to teach rednecks evolution and crucifying people who disagree with global warming instead of something actually worthwhile. Why the fuck does it matter if your average joe believes in evolution or "climate change." seems to me that science depends on belief, why else would they be so dogmatic?

SJW culture is a social construct.. and fucking retarded.

...

Science is real until it isn't, making it the exact same as everything else.

He's only popular because he's a token black in the scientific community

>Argentina

Why would you want your race killed off?

Close descended of yakub. has to be

>confusing science with education
If you had the latter you might understand the former.

Sage this shit.

It's true for awhile before it becomes outdated and there is new data on the subject

>trust some but not all of it
>let jesus be you compass

>go to harvard

>get good genetics

Fuck, don't tell the manlets. It'll devalue my superior 6'2 height

No it's not you fucktard

Like the scientific fact that there are distinguishable and quantifiable differences between the races that account for the average 70 IQ of blacks in Africa, and 80 IQ of blacks in the United States.

Like the scientific fact that price floors like the minimum wage decrease the quantity sold--resulting, incontrovertably, in a reduction in employment from an unregulated curve.

Like the scientific fact that despite an increase in carbon dioxide output of over 800% since 1998, the rate of average global temperature increase has not changed since the 1980s.

Like the scientific fact that Neil DeGrasse Tyson flunked out of Texas University and got a pity degree from another university on a dissertation that he didn't contribute to, and is now a tour guide with a TV show.

Like the scientific fact that "science" isn't a thing or a field of ideas or a set of data but a process for analyzing data to form hypothesis to explain phenomenon, meaning that the statement that "science is true" is actually by definition false because a process cannot be true--only a fact.

Oh wait, I guess I just blew Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the nigger failure with an affirmative action degree, the fuck out. And you OP. Now you and Tyson both have something in common besides being wrong, you've both had your teeth removed by me.

Science is only a method based on the philosophy of empirical reason. They want you to believe that "science" is whatever "scientists" say is true, which is in direct conflict with the principles of science and the scientific method.

Says the guy who thinks there was only one moon landing:

youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ClA5f5uu0&t=142s [0:50]

the moment they start meming him as le black EDUCATION man or when Bill Nye the EDUCATION guy debates some stupid creationist I'll concede to you, but its been obvious for a while that real science is dead and everything now is "education," or more accurately some sort of agenda pushing propaganda. You are most likely mentally retarded if you actually believe real science has anything to do with this discussion, or has anything to do with the public's understanding of science. When Tyson says "science is real whether you believe it or not" he isn't trying to make some profound point about objective truth, he is trying to trick you into thinking everything he says is automatically right because "it's science," allowing them to push bullshit like open borders and this current gender insanity by tangentially relating it back to some study.

Reality is true whether you believe it or not, or can even conceive of it or not.

Science is just a way to try to measure and understand reality.

I know this guy is a semi-fraud but you think if even a faggot like me can get that down then he would be able to.

>educate you're self
>you're self

NOU.

not an argument

*pssst* this is Sup Forums, they mistake shilling dumbass ideas for being "redpilled".

Science is just an approximation of reality. Constantly shifting and changing its goalposts as more data emerges.

It's no closer to objective truth than the bible

>implying official scientists don't get more official and less scientific as time goes on
lololololololololol

Telling people to educate themselves when you lack a basic knowledge of the English language and basic grammar and spelling is laughable and completely shits all over your credibility. If you can't grasp:

"weather vs. whether"
and
"your vs. you're"

You certainly can't grasp any kind of complex scientific thought. So either go read a book and get off the internet and educate YOURSELF, or do the right thing and just an hero, you pathetic 12 year old pedantic fuckwit.

Phrenology was considered science at one time
Etherspace was considered science at one time
Hollow earth was considered science at one time
Spontaneous generation was considered science at one time
Terra Australis was considered science at one time
Numerology was considered science at one time


I could go on but you get the point.

>inb4 bombed by Israel

your writing style sounds very reddity. I would know because I frequent that site quite often.

>actually write out onomatopoeia noise
>identify group you are about to make negative comment about like "This is x"
>make ridiculous general strawman statement with no real argument:
>"they x for y"

you see that same format on reddit constantly.
If you can't learn to at least leave your redditisms at the door then you should not be using this website.

>Numerology was considered science at one time

Fucking triggers me so hard and rustles literally 7/8s of my jimmies. One of my wife's friends believes in this shit. Has her number tattooed on her. I tell everyone it's the number of cocks she'd sucked up through when she got it and she was too stupid to realize that that number would undoubtedly go up.

Science is as real as Pluto is a planet. Wait, is Pluto a planet this week or nah?

Yes, humans tend to get things wrong at first.
Doesn't mean we don't learn from our mistakes.

Exactly. Now to the science of skull size and nigger brains

I agree wholeheartedly. By the way, do you happen to know about human biodiversity and The Bell Curve?

I can't wait actually, my country is a shithole.

You first world internet people are weird as hell.

Actual "science" is all about producing the results that the guy who finances your sorry ass wants to hear and being a bitter cunt.

but to say something is truthful because its 'science' is moronic and idiotic.

>I tell everyone it's the number of cocks she'd sucked up through when she got it and she was too stupid to realize that that number would undoubtedly go up.

ironically checking em

>it's true

The first truth you learn about science is that it's all hypotheses piling up on each other with occasional empirical applications proving the validity of those theories... and even then there are limits to them.

Science popularization doesn't allow you to
spread bullshit because you want to settle the score with religion. Saying inaccurate things to defend science will ultimately have for result to discredit science.

First of all, Nye doesn't present himself as a scientist any more than Ronald McDonald presents himself as the CEO of McDonalds. Actual scientists can barely articulate their ideas to fellow scientists, much less the public, which is why most people think QM says matter is a particle and a wave existing in a multiverse and time travel is possible because of E=mc^2. People like Nye and Tyson are the only interaction most of the general public has with actual scientific research, and play an important role of, if not educating the public, disseminating information and concepts that most people would otherwise never see.
As far as the actual OP is concerned, while I wouldn't characterize "science" as "true" it gets us as close as we can be to the truth. If you have a choice between the trusting a lawyer, a businessman, and a scientist, you're best going with the scientist because the other two deceive people as part of their profession. You shouldn't blindly trust anything, but since you invariably will throughout your life, then it's best to trust the guy whose job it is to find the truth.

I have no idea why you brought your obsession with gender and foreigners into this, but it's irrelevant.

>libshits don't know the difference between hard and soft science the thread

>science is true
what exactly does this even fucking mean
is this idiot an intellectual of the 21st century? nuke us please

So what is truthful? What your politicians and news source of choice tell you? What is a trustworthy source of information that you approve of?

>hypothesis and theory are the same thing
You haven't learned the first thing about science.

>pick some faggot activist "scientist"
>have them endorse some hare-braned solution to a problem that doesn't even exist
>claim your way is the "scientific" one
>profit
no, not any more son

Do you not see how jumping to defend science and scientists shows how wrong the quote is? why does it matter if some user on a number worshiping Japanese image board trusts science? is it not true regardless of belief? yet you are spending your spare time, on a Sunday, defending it because it is your faith, and scientists are your priests. It matters whether I believe or not because you have ideals and an agenda that you wish to push on me, and you need me to be open to them.

I don't know why you brought up lawyers or businessmen, being better than them in a hypothetical situation doesn't actually support your argument, because you aren't trying to prove your point using logic or facts, you are trying to persuade me. I can use the same naive outlook to defend lawyers and businessmen that you used to prop up scientists.

>you shouldn't blindly trust anything, but since you invariably will throughout your life, then it's best to trust the guy whose job it is to study law and chase justice


>you shouldn't blindly trust anything, but since you invariably will throughout your life, then it's best to trust the businessman whose ideas would have bankrupt him if they weren't correct

Says the black guy that stole my bike.

The purpose of science is to fucking question it and test its mettle

Reddit Science Man 3000 may be good at a job he has, but fucked if I could care for what few personal philosophies he carries with him.

Even browns can be cucks, friends.

Under other circumstances I'd assume you were playing dumb pretending not to understand how this is relevant, but because this is Sup Forums I'll assume your stupidity is genuine. Let's look at an example from 20th century America:
Businessman says "Smoking is good for you. Tobacco industry needs less regulations so more people buy cigarettes."
Lawyer for businessman says "Smoking isn't bad for you. Congress should not pass any regulations further restricting the sale of tobacco products to minors."
Scientist says "Smoking kills. Our studies have shown there is a direct correlation between tobacco use and various cancers, heart disease, and birth defects. Experimentation supports the theory that tobacco is a cofactor of these diseases."
These are the arguments presented to the House, and your congressmen have to decide whether to regulate the tobacco industry, whether it's in the interest of his constitutes to do so. Since your representatives are ultimately beholden to the people of his district (at least, that's how it's suppose to be) it comes down to YOU. Do you believe the two well spoken hansom men in expensive suits, or do you trust the gangly dude who uses big scary words and looks like a communist? Do you trust the two guys who present themselves as men of the world, or the guy they tell you spends all his time writing papers and adding numbers? Who is more trustworthy: the devil you know, or the devil you don't? Your choice to accept or reject the science doesn't change the fact that smoking causes cancer, but it does effect how many people die from it.

that's what everybody says regarding their belief system.

think about it.

>pick some faggot politician
>promise solutions that (((((feel))))) right
>claim your way is the "rational/moral/American" way
>die in poverty

there are much better cases that would have helped your argument than cigarettes, but it still doesn't prove anything, only that in one specific scenario a scientist was more trustworthy than a lawyer or businessman.

what of the lawyers that sued the tobacco industry, are they not just as trustworthy as the scientist. and what of the scientists for the businessman, the ones who faked research to show that smoking was healthy like in pic related.

It is exactly like the scientists that pushed global warming so that the government would start taxing carbon, all at the behest of people who stood to gain a fortune from carbon credits. Scientists aren't inherently better.

Getting to the main argument of whether belief in science matters or not, your point is based on massive misconceptions about our political system. We do not live in a democracy, the representatives are beholden to us, yes, but that is not the same as following our will all of the time. the representative would not go back to his district and ask them to choose, he would weight the consequences presented by both sides, asking whether the health problems were worth the hit to the economy, not which side his constituents believed.

>science is real

>science proves we are living in a simulation, and are not observing or experiencing reality

science BTFO

Did I once say it worked for all cases? Did I say you should always put your faith in a scientist? I specifically said you should not blindly trust anything.
>Getting to the main argument of whether belief in science matters or not, your point is based on massive misconceptions about our political system. We do not live in a democracy, the representatives are beholden to us, yes, but that is not the same as following our will all of the time. the representative would not go back to his district and ask them to choose, he would weight the consequences presented by both sides, asking whether the health problems were worth the hit to the economy, not which side his constituents believed.
First of all, we do, in fact, live in a democracy. It's not a great democracy, but it's a democracy nonetheless. Second of all, I am well aware of how the system works. That was a simplified example to illustrate how public awareness of science is important. That should have been obvious. Do you have autism or a learning disability or something? Is English your second language? I'm legitimately curious, because I'm having to explain some pretty basic stuff here.
>It is exactly like the scientists that pushed global warming so that the government would start taxing carbon, all at the behest of people who stood to gain a fortune from carbon credits. Scientists aren't inherently better.
Like this. Did you not think this thread was about global warming implicitly? Did you not pick up on that? Is this really something you just "happened to think of"?

As for your actual statement, it's tantamount to a conspiracy theory. Who do you think makes "a fortune" from carbon compliance? There's a small industry because those credits make it financially feasible now, but that industry didn't exist before those credits. Where did they get the money to buy off all the scientists if they made all their money because of the legislation that was "pushed" by said scientists?

and now we get to the point where you have run out of arguments and examples and just call me names and claim any problems in your previous statements were somehow my fault.

I was not arguing that you think scientists are infallible, I only disputed your claim that it is better to trust a scientist than businessmen or lawyers.

furthermore why are you trying to label me a conspiracy theorist for pointing out examples of when bad science has been used politically. I am using these to show you how science can be used regardless of truth, I am trying to provide evidence for my claims. You are being intellectually dishonest right now and have been reduced to using fallacies instead of logic. seeing as how you have reached the bottom of your barrel, I don't really see a point in responding to you further. have a good night, try not to get so mad when people insult science in the future, because in the end, if science is true regardless, it shouldn't matter what they think.

...

I'm not calling you names. You are requiring me to explain some very basic stuff in very basic terms which is a phenomenon I tend to arise in arguments with people with some sort of cognitive impairment or abnormality, and that's not an exchange that does anything for me. Perhaps you were just being intellectually careful---now that I think about it, considering how long it took you to reply you could have put a great deal of thought into your post; if that's the case, I sincerely apologize. If I'd known you'd respond only to a logically rigorous thesis I would have put in more effort, but it would be a waste of time for most posters here.
But for future reference, in case you actually come back to this thread, you did not provide any evidence for your claims. While the case of pro-tobacco science is a good example of "bad science," there nothing to back up the claim that scientists pushed climate change "at the behest of people who stood to gain a fortune from carbon credits." If you were trying to make an equivalency between the tobacco science case and the climate science case, then it is you who is being intellectually dishonest. The scope, supporting evidence, and amount of data are in no way comparable. And as far as trusting scientists over businessmen and lawyers, that was a general statement based on the access and ability to comprehend relevant data, the number of possible reasons each party could have to manipulate this data, and environmental reinforcement of deceptive behavior based on what we might assume from this general case. Of course there are many, many counterexamples, but again, it was not intended to be a rigorous model for all cases. Critical thought is required based on available data to make any good choice, but if all that's known is the professional background of the individuals, then it is best the trust the scientist over the others for the reasons already stated. It won't always be right, but generally it holds.

Explain the EM drive.