Why is Pol anti science

Do you want to live in the dark ages again?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
youtube.com/watch?v=_peUxE_BKcU
youtube.com/results?search_query=flat earth science
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

A real intellectual

How the fuck is Sup Forums anti-science?

At best, it hates fake fucks like nigger science guy

>thinking science in all its modern understanding isnt a smoke screen used to pace in bit by bit the future technology given to us by ets

>Sup Forums
>anti-science

hmm, tell me again who's against studies of race

anti-(fake climate science) is not the same as anti-science

i've never seen anyone on Sup Forums try to discredit the theory of gravity

...

You mean when he was paid to be a GMO shill?

You deny climate change and facts

You obviously havent visited a flat earth thread mate.

Today's weather will be cloudy with a chance of poo. Man made global warming is bullshit.

Sup Forums is pro-science, that's why it decries television personalities and planetarium directors from having any authority to speak on serious science issues.

you say that now, but when the poo comes for you then what

I'm an engineer, and you are blue pilled if you think we are anti science.

We just question politically charged science.

Flat-earth threads are for RP

Bill Nye is an urbanite, pseudointellectual who has an extremely poor understanding of social history and human nature while constantly forcing himself into the field. He was essentially a pre-YouTube Vsauce who now bides his time sucking leftist social media cock, tugging his bow ties, and proudly debating evangelicals about the virtues of atheism while not actually giving a damn about trying to teach anyone at all. But sure, "BILL, BILL, BILL, BILL".

there's plenty of supporting scientific evidence for a flat earth that round earthers have not been able to refute

Your statements are incompatible. There were no dark ages, that was a renaissance misrepresentation of the previous age. There was a great deal of advancement during that time period in spite of, or perhaps because of, their religiosity. How can you advocate empiricism while repeating old lies?

I have never lived in the dark ages.

You watch your nip mouth bill nye is a god

Like what?

Bill Nye's science knowledge is as fake as the house they're in.

Some facts for Pol

How can you even compete

Marxism, Frankfurt School and Critical Theory are anti-science.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

POO IN LOO

youtube.com/watch?v=_peUxE_BKcU

you can watch any one of the many scientific documentaries on youtube about it... the info isn't hard to find

youtube.com/results?search_query=flat earth science

flatearthers really aren't responsible for educating roundearthers

Indian doctors are as dumb as hammers. They're just as bad as your stack exchange copy pasting programmers. Poo doctors just memorise and follow algorithms.

Wow I am really surprised. 4 doctors from Haiti. Now i can have traditional chicken medicine

>immovable object meets unstoppable force
Can India into science to solve toilet witch and finally POO IN LOO?

Appealing to ignorance doesn't work lad. There are a trillion things from a bunch of random youtube videos that can be discredited and you could search for hours and not find something that's not easily disprovable. Give a specific example of a point that flat-earthers make that hasn't been refuted yet or you're full of shit.

How nice of you to separate climate change from facts.

No mate. You have the burdon of proof here. Dont try and shift it and use dodgy youtube """documentaries"""

We're not anti science.

We're anti social science. You know, the science that, without proof, tells us that you, an 87 average iq monkey, are not only our equal in everything, but that you can seamlessly enter our ~98 iq society and instantly become a fully productive, well adapted member of it.

Do not lament. You will.

Nope. I just believe that the real rate of warming is what's actually supported by the data, ~0.9-1 degree Celsius per doubling of CO2. Meaning that we could support somewhere around 8 times current CO2 in the atmosphere, and it would be, by and large, a net benefit for human society. Not to mention the obvious superiority of oil as an energy source vs the other options.

Your Gaia worship isn't welcome here. Deal in actual science.

Only Americans some Canadians and oil producers deny climate change. Wonder why?

>(((science)))

I met Bill Nye once. He is an ass.

>Not to mention the obvious superiority of oil as an energy source vs the other options.
Whether you support or deny climate change, oil is not the superior energy source.

>myth 1 is a made up myth
skip
>myth 2 is not disprovable
skip
>myth 3 is a turn of phrase that is both right and wrong depending on what actual phenomena you're relating it to
skip
>myth 4 is a combination of myth 1 & 3 problems
skip
>myth 5
well now we're talking. not bad but it's all data to prove your hypothesis. you can just as easily find data to disprove of it and i can think of a reasonable counter argument no problem... "the school and testing system was designed with whites in mind favoring them" this argument relies on their being real mental/social differences between races (so not discounting your data) but not that one race is somehow magically more intelligent than others.
>myth 6 depends entirely on the definitions of "significant" and "races"
africans are a "race" apparently but only the africans of thousand year old tribes in south central africa have "significant" genetic difference... because they're the oldest lineage of people on earth and their genetic diversity far exceeds every other human on earth that went through genetic migration crunches.
>myth 7 is once again not a myth
skip
>myth 8
that data looks sketchy as fuck, it's only testing african ancestry so it implies its only getting data about "blacks" when in reality african genetic ancestry is not exclusive to blacks.... which in itself kinda fucks up all your genetic-race theorizing.

>Bill nye
>Scientist

The dark ages was never a thing to begin with.

11th post best post

/thread

I hate the lie that the dark ages were dark and ignorant. That is simply not true. Sure some Roman techniques were forgotten, but the dark ages were actually not dark. There were several "renaissances" before the Italian renaissance and many progresses in technology were made during these periods.

>climate change
>facts

Pick one.

>snow will soon be a thing of the past
more like pronouncements by """scientists"""

>you didn't get to grow up watching Mr Rogers

why even live?

>more like pronouncements by """scientists"""
Pic related

(((science))))
((((sage)))))

what exactly is supposed to be this political agenda that Billy is implicitly distorting reality to promote?
he's a science presenter not a scientist.

One man's dark age is another man's renaissance.

are we living in Sup Forums's renaissance?

>skip
I don't counter-argument the parts I don't like or find difficult to comment in a witty way.

> "the school and testing system was designed with whites in mind favoring them" this argument relies on their being real mental/social differences between races (so not discounting your data) but not that one race is somehow magically more intelligent than others.
Races don't exist. If you think they do you're a racist.
We're all the same. But also different. But still same.
The white race created objective mathematical problem that favor their race over other races.
Therefore the white race is working against other races.
But races don't exist. If you think they do you're a racist.

Post Renaissance, I don't know a good name for the current Sup Forums epoch, but the renaissance peaked when a gag president was elected, although the DNC is definitely still in its dark ages.

...there's actually someone out there dumber than abos. Do they even qualify as sapient beings?

Bill Nye is actually a huge asshole in person.

Science, is the study of natural reality. Applied science is engineering. There's a clear and distinct difference. Neither of the two provide metaphysical outlooks on life that ultimately all humans intimately search for. Science will tell me HOW I was born, but not WHY I was born for example. What it really boils down to is that almost every person has a dogma of his own that he chooses to share with others or not. Even atheists contrive ethics in the exact same manner as the religious do. While atheists reject the existence of gods and the practice of contemporary mainstream religions, they still have no problems respecting human life, but having rejected religious outlooks, they're forced to search for metaphysical value to life elsewhere. That is why the many different moral systems adopted by atheists are in reality not much different than religions. In fact, Max Stirner, a famous atheist philosopher, saw secular morality as nothing more than a new religion.

Tl;dr if you're atheist and believe in morals you're a hypocrite

>libcucks use this to try to convince you climate change is real
>the don't even see he irony and think they could be wrong

I believe in climate changes.
Only reason Trump and cuckservatives deny it it's because they want to continue making shekels out of oil as long as possible.
Also because libcucks has kidnapped ecology so being a climate change denier is a good way of triggering them. Even if they are right on that issue.