What scientific consensus do you find hard to believe or implausible?

what scientific consensus do you find hard to believe or implausible?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/jZwiJe4vt4s
youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_physics
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The "scientific consensus" that "gender is a social construct and there are more than 2 genders"

That Strong AI is just around the corner.

Fuckwad, that's not a consensus that is a fringe theory

this reminds me of that robot that drowned itself in DC

Why is that hard to accept?

The DNA jew

>oy vey goyim, we tested your DNA and found out that you're the father
>that'll be $20,000 in child support, goy
>the "DNA test" doesn't lie

Never understood the "consensus" regarding spacetime, blackholes, string theory, quantum physics, and just about all the other theoretical popculture fanfiction taught in schools and on TV.

youtu.be/jZwiJe4vt4s

>Phlogiston
>Aether theory
>Catastrophism
If you don't believe in these, you are Anti-Science.

anthropomorphoric globalist warming

Shit happens when you are lookin at it, but it don't happen when you not lookin at it.

The Copenhagen interpretation

And yet sex reassignment surgery is seen as a legitimate treatment for being a nutter. Though it may just be eugenics by the back door.

>I don't believe the earth is warming solely due to anthropological reasons, and sometimes scientific consensus is not correct

>SCIENCE CAN'T EVER BE WRONG BECAUSE IT'S THE CURRENT FUCKING YEAR

nice arguments

That there is such a thing as "scientific consensus".

I'm an amateur physicists and can try to answer any questions. I was just going to shitpost about gender politics otherwisw.

wtf is string theory

That "theoretical popculture fanfiction" is responsible for most of the modern technology.

I could punch that phaggot in the op for calling Aristotle a bitch.

One of the greatest tragedies of mankind is most of his works being lost.

Name one invention derivived theoreethical physics surrounding spacetime, blackholes, string theory, or quantum physics.

Muh ((((Climate change)))))
Muh gender dysphoria
Muh ADHD

Basically all of (((((((PSYCHOLOGY))))))

Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
>Hey our physics doesn't actually work
>Well then lets pretend that there's actually way more matter in the universe but we can't see that matter or detect it in any way so we can put of the inevitable tearing down of the current physics model for the next one.

Flat earth

It posits that the fundamental particles are not zero-dimensional points, but rather one-dimensional strings, and that our observations of particles are actually different vibrations of those strings.

The main drive behind it is that, if most of the formulations of it are correct, it would give us a quantum explanation of gravity, since one of the ways a string vibrates means it would act like a graviton.

It's a really big and complicated set of theory, and even the simplest one requires that the universe has 10 dimensions, rather than 3.

You get to the point of diminishing returns after you've figure most stuff out.

These guys doing this now may lead the ground work for other men that will utilize that information in a practical capacity.

tell me that you're fucking kidding

No one but retards even make this claim.

i don't believe in any science desu

Science is not about "beliefs" but understanding

please explain??

there's no proof, all science is based on a bunch of kikes agreeing to something desu

"Scientific consensus" is a deeply unscientific concept. Every true scientific discovery was first believed by nobody, and second believed by only a single individual. The question should be "does the theory correctly predict the results of experiment?," not "durrr what do most scientomologists say?"

Just Jewish (((phsychology)))

Jungian analysis is on point imo.

Dark energy is still a mystery, but dark matter is fairly well established, user. To quote someone else:

"Dark matter is predicted at every level of astrophysics. It's not just 'hey, galaxies look weird'. The amount of visible matter only accounts for 4% of the cosmic microwave background. The CMB is extremely smooth, but visible matter is highly clumped up. This can only be explained by a huge amount of matter that doesn't clump up ie non-baryonic.

The ratio of deuterium to hydrogen rises based on the density, since there's more pressure from gravity. There's way more deuterium than can be explained by visible matter, so there must be some extra compression happening.

Galaxies have more kinetic energy than they can have given their visible matter and how fast it's moving. This implies a huge amount of invisible mass. Gravitational lensing around the edges of galaxy clusters indicates a halo of invisible mass.

Colliding galactic clusters show their mass splits into two parts: one that clumps up into a bright, dense blob, and another that has much higher inertia and continues past the bright blob as if it didn't interact with it in any way besides gravity.

We can map variations in empty space where there is more mass than is expected, in a way that can't be explained by a self-consistent theory of gravity but can be explained by invisible mass.

Dark matter as a theory hasn't changed for 80 years and every single one of these discrepancies is solved exactly by using the measurements of dark matter that already existed. They all agree with each other perfectly. There is no theory that even competes with dark matter. Nobody has come up with another idea that explains all of those or even most of those problems."

"Retard" means cognitively deficient. "Strong AI" means conscious computers. It is only cognitively deficient people who think computers can be programmed to be conscious. But your question isn't genuine, is it, you spastic faggot?

Strong AI is actual Artificial Intelligence, as in can think like a human and not be restricted to some very specialised task, or at least simulate it well enough to be indistinguishable.

Any actual student of medicine or doctor will tell you that's fucking bullshit.

who claim* not think

there is no concrete proof in any science, you cannot prove anything beyond showing how many kikes have agreed to another kike's theory desu

And lobotomies and electroshock therapy used to be considered good treatments for mental illness in general. Psychiatry has of history of producing monumentally fucked up "treatments".

>It is only cognitively deficient people who think computers can be programmed to be conscious

Based on what evidence, or is this another case of existential horror and cognitive dissonance because it leads to uncomfortable questions about ourselves?

Oh, and what about people who push the idea of parallel dimensions as though it were an almost absolute truth, despite having zero proof beyond a minority consensus.

It's fucking fanfiction where Einstein fanboys argue with Planck fanboys about which mathematical spreadsheet is cannon. They are so invested, they'll tell the whole world that their vision is right and everyone else is wrong.

Except you have no idea if the theoretical "science" of today will produce any useful or tangible outcome in the future.

You are just blindly comparing EMPIRICAL research of the paste that produced outcomes and applying that to THEORETICAL research of today.

Just because scientists produced x before does not mean that modern "scientists" will produce x tomorrow.

If you think the earth is warming SOLELY due to anthropologic reasons then you are a fucking retard.

That if you approach relativistic speed time itself will distort. I trust they're right about it and I think they've even verified it with satellite clocks, but it just doesn't make sense.

Sure. And at the time that was the "scientific consensus".

Transistor
Semiconductor
Laser

i.e. TVs, computers, mobile phones etc, all apply quantum physics.

Only anecdotal evidence. Everyone who makes these claims is stupid, by observation, such as retards like you who resort to ad hominems because they don't have a fucking argument.

None of the components are anywhere near the quantum scale or operate by the principles of QM

Youre a fucktard. Dna testing is a very simple process

they decide what is sufficient evidence and what amount equates to proof, to truth, it could be 2 kikes in a room jerking eachother off and that's a consensus desu

> scientific consensus
> consensus
Science isn't a fucking democracy. Either something is true or its not. The evidence either backs up the claim or it doesn't. It doesn't matter how many "experts" agree or don't agree.

agw--they're not scientists yet tell everyone there's a 97% concensus among agw scientists. they are overtly lying and pretending science is something other than what it is.

If an atom was the size of the solar system, the quantum scale would be the size of a normal atom

"Dark matter" is literally the difference between what the theory predicts and the data observed. It is like saying "well my theory is my wife is faithful to me, so her apparently slutty behavior must be explainable by an unobserved and untested violation of the laws of physics"

I could have used chiefly, but you understand my point.

Still not science tho. Also ((((SOCIOLOGY)))) isn't science either.

It still feels like people taking a hole in the puzzle and calling it a piece to me. Like a modern phlogiston. At the very least I want people to continually be challenging it.

>Common and well documented mental defence mechanisms that lead people into ridiculous knots of logic and outright denial are now a logical fallacy

Your liberal use of the word "retard" is rather ironic.

GPS relies on Einstein's General Relativity.

Those are absolutely valid complaints, it's just that most scientists (and I know popularity doesn't matter, just stating) believe it is more likely the theories are correct and that dark matter exists, and we just need to figure out what it is, rather than all the theories needing fine-tuning.

>Common and well documented mental defence mechanisms that lead people into ridiculous knots of logic and outright denial are now a logical fallacy
No, idiot. Accusing someone of having a condition as substitution for actually having an argument is the fallacy. Please consider suicide.

Anything involving tanshumanism

lol no

GPSs uses relativity, but that's about it.

Well it seems to be the case as your argument against the possibility of AI is "I think the people who believe it are stupid" A.K.A "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP LALALALALALALALA".

I refuse to believe a man 200 years ago calculated the mass of the entire earth using a torsion balance in a shed without modern electricity or lighting.

I never purposely or implicitly made any such claim. That people who make the claim that Strong AI is inevitable are stupid, is the conclusion, not a premise, idiot.

Fuck off with this cuckold fantasy bullshit being played into physics of all things.

user it isn't true that time changes speed , what happens is that length changes distance in the presence of high gravitarional fields, and thats actually what gravity is. Things fall towards where the distances are shortest because that is where the potential energy is lowest. This can be observed from an absolute frame of reference. The 'theory of relativity' is wrong on the most fundamental level; shit isnt relative to other shit, its relative to the aether, to a fixed frame of reference

Do you even know what the scientific method is you uneducated fuck?

>I never purposely or implicitly made any such claim
Seems you have short term memory loss too.
>Only anecdotal evidence. Everyone who makes these claims is stupid, by observation

Do we have a case of an idiot who think's he's hot shit too?

Reproducible results are an essential part of the criterion required for scientific consensus to be reached. You can't seriously think of scientific consensus as "scientizmos" gossiping only about pseudoscience, ignoring the scientific method itself.

That the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit of the universe
You may have to perform some physics shitfuckery to get around it, but I'm convinced that faster-than-light travel will get figured out some day

Computers, touch screens, CD's all use QM.
Nuclear Power, 20% of US power is atomic physics.
Cameras, cell phones, radios is all optical physics.

I have a scientific consensus nobody disagree:

Kekistan is reddit kike faggotry.

youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw

Space-time can "move" faster than the speed of light. That's why bodies in the universe can be "moving" away from each other faster than c, and will disappear visually beyond the red shift.

i mean, doesnt everything in existence operate by the principles of QM?

every thing elon says

>Seems you have short term memory loss too.
So... you're saying you disagree about what I was implying? Are you really that desperate to whine at somebody?
>Do we have a case of an idiot who think's he's hot shit too?
wat. Am I not allowed to make the observation that you and people like you are stupid?

I've quickly drawn up an argument against Strong AI, for funzies, that will go right over your head, likely due to "well-documented mental defence mechanisms that lead people into ridiculous knots of logic and outright denial."

1. Only the mind gives descriptions of the world meaning.
2. Emergent properties are descriptions of the world, i.e. in defining emergent properties, we are describing the world.
3. Therefore, only the mind gives emergent properties meaning.
4. Descriptions of the world that only the mind gives meaning don't objectively exist.
5. Therefore, emergent properties don't objectively exist. (from 2, 3, and 4)

The mind objectively exists. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property. Thus the mind can't be produced by matter. Thus the mind is immaterial. Computers can't produce immaterial things. Thus computers can't produce minds. Thus an electron, or any number of electrons, passing between any number of points, in any permutation, through any combination or permutation of mediums, cannot produce consciousness, because of the simple fact that matter is never objectively more than its parts.

The mind necessarily precedes quantification. Without it, no computation even has any meaning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Sorry, you butthurt faggot atheist, but men are not gods, and your wishful fantasies won't save you.

>large-scale properties of solid materials result from their atomic-scale properties
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_physics

"GPS relies on Einstein's General Relativity"
Some guy who is a major figure in inventing and fine tuning gps says it doesnt, and what relativists think is relativity is acgually clocks going at different speeds in different orbits for classically explainable reasons. Sorry, I dont have a good memory for names

where does your scientific method end? where is the proof? the conclusions reached are circumstantial evidence agreed upon by "scientists", they are nothing more than "informed opinions" desu

People have been claiming that new machines will replace people and will be capable of thought for over a century.

Right, but the institutional and egoic resistance to fundamentally reevaluting theory that has been the basis for so many doctorates and grants is huge

Spacetime expansion doesn't help me get from one solar system to the next in a reasonable amount of time

oh yeah that's a whole other issue, we put a lot of money into people piddling about with theories that don't even make testable predictions.

these kikes cannot prove anything, they can only gather amongst themselves as a consensus and when that fails to sway public opinion, they resort to insulting the public's intelligence, labeling everyone as "uncultured rednecks" or "ignorant" desu

Your pemise is incorrect. It makes the assumption that the mind is some mystical thing that cannot be recreated in a machine, an indeed that we ourself are not esstentially biological machines.

To get around that you have to get into the question of souls at which point you are in the realm of faith, not science and logic. You can believe it if you like, but it cannot be used as the basis of any logical argument as it is itself unproven.

QED.

String theory isn't relevant to any invention; is wholly untestable, residing entirely int he world of maths.

Just trying to make the example humorous, user

So your argument is literally: "things are made of atoms therefore quantum physics"?

Tell us how quantum physics, or anything else I listed in helped create anything.

Are you one of those niglets that doesn't understand algebra? Of course there are things that are faster than light!

Look at quantum physics. Two electrons can be separated at the opposite ends of the universe, but if you change the spin on one, the other will instantly also change its spin. That information traveled 93 billion light years in a planck time.

While the tripfag is well... a tripfag, strong AI is not viable, and is especially not "just around the corner" Our understanding of the brain is primitive at best. It was developed using basically a genetic algorithm running century long simulations over a million years (or if you don't believe that, and God figure of omnipotent wisdom and knowledge). The human brain is estimated to have around 100 billion neurons each with around 1000 connections to other neurons, all running concurrently. Even if we developed a perfect computer system that emulated 100 billion threaded real time and concurrent model, it still needs a large sensory array (sight, sound, touch, balance, etc.) and a full fidelity environment for 20 years to reach the young adult human intelligence.

We can try faking intelligence (tay and other "turing test" parrots), we can't create a new intelligence. Our understanding is far too little, it's complexity is far too great. Our technology is not well suited for it (biology wins with neurons and neural nets, over simulating them on transistors). The singularity is also a silly dream because it presupposes that an AI will know how to build a better AI, then rapid exponential expansion. We as intelligences don't know how to build a smarter human, other than teach and guide them. Our collective knowledge barely grows, because all the things each generation needs to learn, and what we do add to the previous general generation's knowledge is on the logarithmic scale. There's no logical sense that we could suppose a strong AI could understand its own programming, similar to how we don't understand our own brain.

Jung was a student of the depraved Jew pervert, Freud.

...

To have true AI, you need conscience. And science has not uncovered and learned how to control conscience. Doing so would mean we figured out God. In summary, true AI is millions of years off, if we even achieve it

1. No information is transferred by quantum entanglement.
2. That can't be controlled in such a way that enables FTL travel. I'm talking about moving humans from one star system to the next, not marveling at 2 particles with entangled properties.

> Makes crazy claim
> Provides no sources
Citations, or your lying.

Has anyone actually spinned and measured two electrons on opposite ends of the universe?

>where does your scientific method end?

Never, science is always evolving as our coprehension of the universe expands.


>where is the proof?

Tests, simulations, theories based on proven physics/mathematics. If most, if not all point out that the theory is correct, then is considered true.


>the conclusions reached are circumstantial evidence agreed upon by "scientists"

Is not circunstantial if you repeat the same test several times on the same conditions and get the same results. Like I said, it also can be proven mathematically.