Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you study science personally you are basically following a religion right?
I mean you can see things everyone else can see but you don't know why and the why is where the religion comes in to make sense of it all.
Right?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
pastebin.com
twitter.com
No, not really.
Literature, history or languages are not exactly religions.
no, as long as you maintain a skeptical mind on thise things not proven to your satisfaction
like fucking climate change, vaccines, no such thing as races etc
True. And that's quite normal, if something is neither your job nor your passion, odds are that you'll be clueless about it. So we pay people to define what is true, what is right, what is moral etc. for us while we earn our income, raise our children and do the things we like.
People are not more rational or free than they used to be before the secularization of the West. They just gave leadership to different people.
Science is more accessible than people think, especially biology which is the main science that contradicts peoples religious views.
If you're going to spout out about science then you should really do your research before, you usually find that everything adds up pretty well and seems logical.
Certainly more logical than an acient book about a magician that came back to life, turns water into booze and fed 5000 people with a single fish.
You don't have to be religious, you can just say you don't know why it's that way, but it is that way.
>biology
>everything adds up pretty well and seems logical
Doesn't tho, and biology involves an insane amount of speculation and dart-throwing
Alright, give me some contradictions in biology that discredit the field entirely.
>Vaccines
if vaccines worked we wouldn't need them
Empiricism is for the simpleminded. It appeals to those who want to have a process or set of directions they can follow, but don't think about what underpins the process they're using. >99% of all scientists today are really mere technicians who learn how to properly use the equipment and run the tests and record results.
That's pretty dumb desu sempai.
I agree with OP. The amount of times I've seen people defer to "scientists" when making a point while being unable to cite a single paper they've read on the subject. Scientists have become a priest class who can never be doubted and any scientist that doesn't go along with whatever idea the person is shilling is either on somebodies payroll or lying.
I saw that actor josh gad on bill Maher say "97% of climate scientists agree with ME!" on some gotcha tone while neglecting that he agrees with them rather than the other way around and he hasn't actually read any of the papers those scientists he loves wrote. It's the political equivalent of bringing st. Augustine into a debate without being a Christian and expecting the other party to abandon their position because Augustine said so.
Scientists are partly to blame for this as well. To get grant money and exposure, results are often exaggerated or presented in a misleading fashion.
t. PhD in geophysics who left academia for private industry because of this scientist worship nonsense
If Obama were Muslim my student loans would be interest free
how does the disease spread to new hosts if they are all protected?
why vaccinate if the disease has died out?
you wot m8? I'll hook you right int hte gabber disgusting xenophile
kinda. a lot of science today is as dogmatic as any religion, and if you try to do research which would disproof a cornerstone of it you most likely will be ridiculed and discredited and not taken seriously ever again. there are some exeptions, but much of the science is just there to further an agenda.
its good to know about, but unless you can verify something for yourself always assume that it could be faked
The thing is this, you ask people "How do you know X?" and they'll probably reply by saying something like "Well, because it's in my science books." or "Well, because it's been peer-reviewed." or "Well, because it's been agreed upon by a majority of scientists.", but these are flimsy defences, because unless YOU can verify for yourself whether something is true or not either by OBSERVATION or by doing an experiment about it BY YOURSELF, you are relying essentially on external sources for your information and it is naïve to think that those sources don't have agendas.
What people call 'mainstream science' has been hijacked by politics, religion and corporations. So-called 'peer review' these days is usually nothing more than a circle-jerk. Just as people support the separation of church and state (and RIGHTFULLY so), I support the separation of SCIENCE and state. We owe it to our innate intelligence to QUESTION EVERYTHING.
>how does the disease spread to new hosts if they are all protected?
Because not everyone is protected. Some people have weak immune systems or are allergic to vaccines. Also because vaccines don't protect you 100%, why the fuck would it? But it reduces your chances of catching it.
You'd rather have 100? chance of catching it vs 20%?
>why vaccinate if the disease has died out?
Because it mutates, duh.
t. engicuck working for the oil industry
true, many such cases
why do you want to shoot people up with mercury?
why should I trust the science behind vaccines when there is a profit motive?
>separate science from state
>science mostly gets funded by private enterprises
Do you think this is better?
>you can see things everyone else can
No.
It seems we atheists lack faith, therefore atheists can't see gods.
So atheists can't see things everyone else can.
To be honest, if your god happened to place in your hands the work of making atheists have faith, you're doing a pretty shitty job if you're saving the miracles for yourselves.
excellent post
>why do you want to shoot up people with mercury?
Inflammatory garbage, I never said that, completely irrelevant to the fact your first question was retarded.
I didn't even said you should be vaccinated.
>why should I trust the science behind vaccines when there is a profit motive?
Non sequitur.
>why do you want to shoot people up with Mercury?
You know apples have cyanide in them, right? And that the two atoms that make up tablesalt would kill you if you ingested them separately? They don't just straight up inject mercury into people because that would be absurd and counterproductive to the entire purpose of vaccines. There are trace amounts of mercury within compounds in some vaccines, but it's safe.
>why should I trust the science behind vaccines when there is a profit motive?
There's a profit motive in everything. That's what capitalism is. Everything you eat has a profit motive unless you grow it yourself, and even then the seeds you buy have a profit motive in their production. Do you just avoid all medicine in general? That has a profit motive too.
I'm curious what you think the purpose of vaccines is.
Just ask the person if they've ever heard the term "philosophical doubt" before. If they haven't, you can rest assured that they are most likely getting their beliefs dictated to them by John Oliver or Rush Limbaugh, and aren't worth "debating".
IT ALL SUMS DOWN TO MEME MAGIC
DELET
>unless you study science
>study science
Science isn't something you study. It's a tool used for studying anything at all
I do study it personally, but there are some things I cannot prove myself, so I have to look at other's studies and see if I understand it. Which is what you do in high school and college.
Besides I follow a religion too, with things I can understand and some others I need faith for.
No, because like I said in that post, corporations have hijacked 'mainstream science'. We need a grassroots revolution related to science.
>Non sequitur.
so you think all vaccine production companies are 100% honest? any proof for that?
many vaccines do contain mercury, which is a poison. true/false?
>but it's safe
how do you know?
>I'm curious what you think the purpose of vaccines is.
to make money
>so you think all vaccine production companies are 100% honest? any proof for that?
Straw man
>many vaccines do contain mercury, which is a poison. true/false
Misleading.
>Implying science isn't the new-age religion.
I work in a university and science is fast becoming as corrupt and meaningless as I imagine the catholic church did around the time of the reformations.
it's a strawman because you don't think vaccine companies are trustworthy?
Apples contain cyanide, which is a poison. True or false?
>how do you know?
With my own observations. I have been vaccinated, everyone I know has been vaccinated, and none of them have autism or any other of the purported side effects of vaccines. None of them have caught whooping cough, measles, polio, smallpox or rinderpest either.
>to make money
Obviously there's a profit incentive. Everything produced has a profit incentive. I'm not seeing that as a downside. Surely it would be cheaper to just inject people with saline than to intentionally harm them, yes?
Do you deny that rinderpest and smallpox have been eradicated? How do you suppose this was done?
Not entirely, no. They are there to make money. The question isn't whether or not they are moral, of course they aren't, the question is whether or not they can escape legal repercussion of being unethical.
In that case, you have to provide evidence.
I still have no explanation of how the universe or life came to be, personally. I'm not religious, but it's not like science explains it any better. The big bang is a decent theory to explain how the universe came to be as we know it today, but I am highly unimpressed still not having an explanation on how all this matter came to be, matter than turned into something as complicated as life.
This, pretty cool we have successfully driven two plagues to extinction.
>Apples contain cyanide, which is a poison. True or false?
I believe that to be true
>With my own observations
aah, anecdotal
what do you think is causing the massive spike in autism diagnoses? I'm not saying it's definitely vaccines, but surely something is causing it?
how many vaccines did you get as a kid? how many do modern kids get?
>Obviously there's a profit incentive. Everything produced has a profit incentive. I'm not seeing that as a downside
so there is no incentive for a new vaccine to be certified and demanded for all children? got it
yes, there may be other nefarious reasons other than profit, e.g. dumbing down the population like using dangerous mining waste products such as flouride in everyones water
>Do you deny that rinderpest and smallpox have been eradicated? How do you suppose this was done?
no, do we still need vaccines for them?
>the question is whether or not they can escape legal repercussion of being unethical
presumably with all that cash they could pay substantial bribes to the FDAA etc
>In that case, you have to provide evidence.
I see, it's trustworthy by default, even though they make a ton of money off it, even doubting must have cast iron support? even though you admit the companies are amoral
interesting
The fuck? No, you claim they do immoral shit, prove it, obviously.
Nobody can prove a negative.
>Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you study science personally you are basically following a religion right?
Fuck off, Scott Adams.
I would just have a look at Snapchat .Y. ME to share local sluts nudes.
everything is trustworthy until proven not?
I have some injections that will make you a better human, you must take them, and give them to your kids, unless you can prove I am untrustworthy
hehehe, muh shekels, silly goyim
also, you tyupe like a newfag. don't forget, your here forever
Presumption of innocence.
Their drugs are approved by the FDA.
You're such a retarded faggot.
>what do you think is causing the massive spike in autism diagnoses? I'm not saying it's definitely vaccines, but surely something is causing it?
I'm sure it's got a lot to do with a decreasing stigma on mental illness and a greater understanding of the signs of autism than existed in the past. There is a corresponding drop of mental retardation diagnoses to the rise of autism diagnoses. The definition of autism is also more broad than it was in the past.
Autism was only defined as a medical condition in the late 1930s.
I guess Edward Jenner was at the centre of a global Jewish conspiracy when he invented the smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century.
The scientific method never proves any theory. It's just a way of viewing the world. It's philosophically as arbitrary as faith in religion. We have no reason to believe sense data is fact. If you look at the history of science you'll see that the frameworks we use to describe phenomena perceived by our senses change fairly regularly. Thomas Kuhn refers to these changes as "paradigm shifts".
There is nothing objective separating the scientific method from other schools of belief.
>skeptical mind prevents from brainless worship
/thread
During the science revolution era they formed small communities, wrote to each other 24/7, started journals. Not unlike here (thats the revolutionary aspect). It's more diffficult right now I guess but with the Internet, 3d printing things could be done.
Thomas Kuhn talked about all this.
Not everything is approved by the FDA.
Thinking everything is is very dangerous
Its like those old ladies that went blind after getting stem cell injections in their eyes, because the cells came from their own body and weren't modified, no FDA approval was needed
Depends on the (((((Science)))))
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)
QM
youtube.com
Electricity8
youtube.com
"Gravity" Black Holes
youtube.com
Trump knew Truth on 911
youtube.com
youtube.com
Global Hoaxing
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
pastebin.com
>We have no reason to believe sense data is fact.
Nonsense.
You just don't know what you mean when you say "fact".
>speculation and dart-throwing
Why and how does acetaminophen work? and why do we hiccup? seems like a pretty widely used medicine for us to just take it for granted and not have a clue how it works, and the other is a basic body function...science BTFO about why
>Their drugs are approved by the FDA
you trust the governement? why?
>I'm sure it's got a lot to do with a decreasing stigma
you being sure of something doesn't make it more likely to be true
>I guess Edward Jenner was at the centre of a global Jewish conspiracy when he invented the smallpox vaccine
I see, all vaccines are kosher, because one worked?
>There is nothing objective separating the scientific method from other schools of belief
except replicability, and logic
we should always be ready for parts of our beliefs to be proved wrong by conculsive data
>Not everything is approved by the FDA
FDA is as corruptable as any other insitution
I never said everything was, strawman again.
Their vaccines are approved. If some of them aren't you'd have to be a retarded faggot to buy them anyway.
Stem cell treatment is highly experimental.
Try again faggot.
>in the late 18th century.
And about 100 years later the feds were infecting black communities with syphilis disguised as a vaccine.
If you are right, then this argument even applies for scientists most of the time, because typically they have narrow specializations and don't have an expertise in all of fucking science.
all modes of thought, including science, are based on unproven axioms, taken on by faith. You can use science as a tool to solidify what you know but you need something greater to address what you don't know.
Biology is also the main science that is constantly disproving itself.
Things like the fossil record are such a shakey foundation to rest theory upon that they are constantly changing their narrative about human evolution.
How often do you hear about scientists "discovering" some new species of protohuman? Most of the time they aren't digging up a preserved skeleton, they are finding things like jawbones, or femurs and just inventing the rest of the form based on conjecture.
Then 20 years later another scientist revisits that jawbone and discovers it was actually a totally different species we alread knew about but that only gets published in the scientific journals and the public never hears about it.
Education in biology also has the least involvement with the scientific method. You take a bio class and you memorize approved "facts" that other scientists discovered only to be told 5 years later that they actually were wrong about how that cellular pathway worked or how that ecological survey's projections would turn out.
STWAAAMAN, STWAAAMAN
god I hate reatrded lefties(is there any other kind) misusing fallacy claims
That's why we no longer take the smallpox vaccine
Because you need evidence of the FDA regularly approving shitty treatments that result in handicap or death.
The risk of dying from some shitty disease is higher than that of alleged corruption.
Very true. Most people educated in the sciences don't even get that far. They are simply memorizing and regurgitating facts that others told them to believe. No different than bible study.
Ad hom
Me to, but in this case I was right.
You can't just keep claiming someone is misusing fallacy claims just because you're a retarded faggot who can't make a coherent and sensible argument to save his fucking life.
And I know you're a retard, because of your first comment claiming that a disease not being wiped out is proof vaccines don't work. I know I am conversing with someone with single digit IQ.
so my point stands, effective vaccines are not as profitable as ineffective ones
I see, I have to trust everything unless I have reason to doubt?
also, you didn't answer the question
not at all, lefties do misuse stwaaman claims
>science and religion are mutually exclusive
Kys, moron
OMG AD HOM!!!
please answer why you trust the governemnt and the FDA
that pic is me related to guns.
but then i get up and start bringing them out.
DO YOU SEE.
DO YOU SEE THE FORWARD ASSIST? IT IS THE MAKE THE JAM WORSE BUTTON.
DO YOU SEE.
>replicability
Why is this an objective measure of truth?
>logic
Yoh haven't heard of the problem of induction yet have you? You are an intellectual infant. Go read some books on this subject before attempting to debate further.
Yeah that part really gets the scientismists when I ask them
>where'd everything come from
They go "the big bang of course!"
>but where did all the matter come from
"well your minute intelligence can't comprehend it, so this conversation is over you creationist moron"
Thats where the whole belief in God becomes necessary because we've never seen anything be created in the world. All we've done is play with the big tub of mixed up legos we've been lent by the plastic moulder.
so if i m born to this world, i m instantly following religion? doesnt add up kid
Your point was that we wouldn't take vaccines if they work. We took the Smallpox vaccine and eradicated it. Now we don't take the small pox vaccine. So they work.
How can your autist not get this, you can't prove a negative. Wha the fuck am I suppose to do? Source report of the FDA "not" approving shit unlawfully? Show diagrams of money "not" being received out of nowhere? I could, except necessary do prove a negative id have to build a complete model of EVERYTHING going on at the FDA, and prove every single email and prove every single transaction is "not" fraudulent.
Showing reports from third parties in corruption at FDA coming clean would still not satisfy you, because you'd say that third party is corrupted, so id have to make a complete model of that organization too, until I make a model of the entire planet.
You, only have to show a instances of corruption.
I already did, several times.
My comment was devoid of ad hominem, try again.
Calm down Mac
>Why is this an objective measure of truth?
I see, so I can just make a claim regarding science and the fact that you(or others) can't replicate my finding isn't grounds to dismiss it?
>bla bla intellectual infant
OMG AD HOMMM!!!
give me some examples of induction that are incorrect
>Now we don't take the small pox vaccine. So they work
one worked, so all work?
the question is "why do you trust the governement and the FDA?"
>Showing reports from third parties in corruption at FDA coming clean would still not satisfy you
evidence of corruption indicates no corruption? what?
>Wha the fuck am I suppose to do? Source report of the FDA "not" approving shit unlawfully? Show diagrams of money "not" being received out of nowhere? I could, except necessary do prove a negative id have to build a complete model of EVERYTHING going on at the FDA, and prove every single email and prove every single transaction is "not" fraudulent.
Which is why you should not trust the FDA... Because you couldn't reasonably know if they were lying to you.
clean, as in nothing
I do admit that was a bit ambiguous the way it was written, coming clean can mean spilling the beans.
You could extend that to absolutely everything.
Including your very eyes, that why it's retarded.
If you want to live in your fantasy world of "u cant no nuffin" be my guest.
>the question is "why do you trust the governement and the FDA?"
if you don't answer this time, I'll assume that you have no logical reason
>coming clean
means something bad was exposed
The inherent difference is that science is repeatable by anyone. Religion is all about "Trust me, this happened" while science will show proof of it's claims. That said, there's some shit like Global Warming/Climate change which ends up more like a religion in which it's claims are more "Trust us this is happening" rather than providing concrete evidence.
>means something bad was exposed
I already acknowledged that in my previous comment, learn to read.
I already answered your question, there's no evidence they are dishonest, and reaching your retarded standards for truth id require a model of the entire planet.
>I'll assume that you have no logical reason
Of course, you're a retard. Breaking News.
>there's no evidence they are dishonest
there has never been an immoral or unethical act carried out by any government?
I guess the US gov didn't infect a ton of niggers with syphilis, or expose GI's to pathogens, drugs or radiation to see the effects?
Mostly CIA, not FDA.
And boy that took you a while. Shitty attempt but an attempt none the less, better than "counter prove it :DDDDD"
I'm cooking
so part of government IS corrupt, but the rest is fine? what do you base this on?
The lack of evidence of the FDA being corrupt.
>prove they are honest
Again, my Earth model is taking a while to build desu sempai
>I'm cooking
I was talking about the lack evidence in your post before that, not response times.
are politicians trustworthy? in general?
you said I took a long time, I explaioned why
>Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you study science personally you are basically following a religion right?
Any scientist who claims to know everything about the world, or even about their own field, is a colossal, gigantic, moron that nobody should take seriously ever.
>I mean you can see things everyone else can see but you don't know why
Nobody knows why. All we have are models that are 99% accurate, so we use them to explain things. However, we find holes in them all the time, and this scares the shit out of the head academics who do indeed treat these models as an orthodoxy and follow them religiously.
No, but that has little to do with whether or not the FDA as an organization is trustworthy.
Baffles me how a strong proponent of this idea that the FDA is corrupt can't come up with a single example, let alone enough of them to prove it's systematic.
>you said I took a long time, I explaioned why
Re read what I said about that, you must have failed reading comprehension in HS.
thalidomide, DDT
mistakes or corruption? who knows
it seems your default is to trust everything, whilst mine is the opposite
no thats a lefty argument
your mind is well capable to know reality
and see bullshit
which is what democrats spew
taxation is theft
do you agree that Whites are being replaced in all of our countries?
Why do you trust your eyes?
DDT danger were overblown, and it was mostly due to environmental effects. Plunging an egg in DDT does not prove much.
The FDA refused to approve the marketing and distribution of thalidomide.
nop
mass immigration of non-Whites is a myth?
the USA is not projected to become majority non-White in 2040?
Tesla was a strictly empirical scientist. He derived absolutely every one of this discoveries from physical experiements. Which is great, however he was also very weak at creating mathematical models of the physical phenomena which he empirically showed to exist.
Unfortunately it took other people to give his discovering a comprehensive mathematical model and ultimately prove Tesla wrong on a number of things which he theorized about. These were ultimately shown to be impossible which Tesla refused to accept due to his overwhelming dependence on intuition for finding solutions.
So what I'm saying is, it's good to have empirical thinking but without mathematical models you are condemned to inefficient solutions, our brains do not have to processing power and capacity to solve complex physical problems without mathematics.
That has fucking nothing to do with our discussion.
Whites aren't being replaced.
>prove they aren't
Oh wait a minute that retarded right? You wouldn't ask a retarded question like that. Instead, you could just post demographic trends, videos and quotes of powerful people supporting white extinction, post images of what happened to Rhodesian farmers when their population dropped low enough, or, you know, EVIDENCE.
That said, of course (((they))) are replacing whites for a cattle class.
>That said, of course (((they))) are replacing whites for a cattle class.
and are the governments involved?
Yeah because you can prove it by posting articles of sanctuary cities, childcare benefits for non whites, and vaccines that sterilize whites.
Wait no not that last one.
so the government as a whole is intent on wiping us out, but that's not a reason to be suspicious of the entire thing, including the FDA?