Why would Republicans ban the words "science-based" and "evidence-based" for scientists?

Why would Republicans ban the words "science-based" and "evidence-based" for scientists?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Cvy7MWjfVPE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>he thinks government agencies should run on peer review

why do you think

Go on

why would someone shill on Sup Forums for shitty pay?

i'll give you a hint

it starts with a j

Because everything they're reporting should inherently be evidence/science-based.

Because calling something evidence/science-based serves no purpose other than to tilt perceptions of their report.

Good, those words have been abused for far too long.

listen and believe

>Why would Republicans ban the words "science-based" and "evidence-based" for scientists?
'cause my sex junk is so oh oh oh!

Misleading words

because it's (((redundant)))

Because they're redundant buzz-words that get abused by political lobbies to puff up bullshit pseudoscientific studies. Nobody's using phrases like "evidence-based" or "science-based" in actual scientific reports, studies, or papers because it's fucking implicit. You're NASA, you're the CDC, you're the NIH, you're the NSF... every fucking thing you release should be "science-based", it's in your goddamn job description.

When I submit a paper on my research to 'Physics of Plasmas' or 'Transactions on Plasma Science', I don't put a little note in the abstract saying "includes evidence-based arguments", I just PRESENT the evidence and MAKE the arguments IN the paper.

This. It is a redundant phrase at best. At worst it allows you to report anything you want. Adding based on means you can claim anything as long as you started out with some science. Magic happens when we base.

Evidence based: We started with evidence and added some shit and interpreted it to find what we were looking for

I smoke science base: We started with science and tweaked it until the pancake theory happened.

This sentence is pulled out my arse but it is science based so you should take heed.

youtu.be/Cvy7MWjfVPE

Because Republicans are white niggers that don't believe in climate change

Republicans hate science reeeeeeeee

they're vague words that don't mean anything
"scientists say!" what scientist? what data? which institute wrote it? direct me to your sources

You guys will make a fucking excuse for anything put out by this administration. Wake the fuck up you dense cucks.

If anyone bothered to read up, it restricts using these terms when writing the budget. Do you can't use "diversity" or "science-based" to get funding. Why they choose to ban words and make a spectacle out of it instead of ignoring it when they distribute funding is beyond me.

Right? I already do it for free, how do i sign up? i want that sweet jew money.

Many reasons. Evidence can be cherry picked but still be "evidence-based". Where as "science-based" is super fucking loaded, science has basically become a cult at this stage with people just thinking "oh science said so it must be right" without implicating critical thought or scientific theory into it.
The only one that is interesting was FETUS, which means that somewhere they've found that the word has dehumanised abortion. Guess that means they will have to start humanising them by calling them prenatal infants or just refer to the ages. Really interesting in my opinion because I never really noticed how much normal people have dehumanised the concept of a fetus.

Because Jeebus.

>you can't use "diversity" or "science-based" to get funding
They do it all the fucking time.

...

>this movie is based on actual events
means it's got a lot of made-up shit in it

Science is a construct of Satan to undermine to word of God

because it implies that what they're saying has been proven factually accurate when in actuality it means that they found one cherry picked study in biased conditions that agrees with the point they're trying to make

one post soy goy is mad

>anything put out by this administration.
Hahahahaha Nigga, I don't give a fuck about the American administration. I just mislead and manipulate so that stupid burgers get stupid opinions and do stupid shit. Then I laugh about it on /pol, hahaha.
Can't you guys see that your whole country is like an interactive reality show for the rest of the world? I mean the cast is a bit to multicultural in my opinion but that does at a certain flavor.

Because they mean ((((((((science-based)))))))))))

Science based is an attempt to stifle a dialog with MUH SCIENTISTS
Evidence-based is a cop out instead of just printing the actual evidence.
Why do liberals hate an honest discussion?

What is
>>Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
?

In the US every fucking thing is "science-based" or "evidence-based" as soon as you can find 3 crazy people with a PhD. in mauritanian throat singing.

>Why would Republicans ban the words "science-based" and "evidence-based" for scientists?

This is FREEDOM and WINNING for the FREE MARKET of ideas!!!!

because its bullshit when people use evidence and science to contradict my opinions and religious beliefs.

>2018 report wont have any garbage about science-based evidence for transgender entitlement as a vulnerable, evidence-based, naturally occuring diversity response of normal fetal development
Thank you based trump

they are code words for "maybe" and "i feel like"

>Implying you'd even understand the data if it was served to you on rice.

Administration shill.

When you are a big pharma with budget bigger, than such of a european country, science and evidence are nothing but a meme.

Less than 1/3rd of published scientific experiments are repeatable. That is the absolute state of (((scientific publishing))) today.

Apparently science-based is competing with fiction-based speculation and conjecture by right-wing anti-scientists. This is a cancer to the Republican party and must be removed.

>Less than 1/3rd of published scientific experiments are repeatable.
which really pisses me off. might as well roll chicken bones.

>Do you can't use
Neither can you English.

How dare they want to strip all emotions and pseudo-science from a bill.

its because for budgeting purposes' EBM can be as minimal as a local city survey. If this isnt disclosed then why give 15 million dollars for some fake EBM study that only needs a survey?

It is well know in the clinical industry that EBM (evidence based medicine) is a major contributor to biased trials and skewed studies. Most of which are paid for by corporate interists in order to market their crappy nonworking medicines and OTC treatments. It allows them to use "studies show that our product..." and "science agrees that...".

People need to realize that these studies and claims have no real oversight.

I suppose the issue is that EBM can be anywhere from a local area survey all the way up to a series of controlled double blind trials.

See the difference? The legislation forces them to be clear about their intentions with tax payer money.

All hail Trump!

>"Less than 1/3rd of published scientific experiments are repeatable."
in soft "sciences" like sociology or psychology. I don't really think physics or chemistry are thus impacted.

It's for a budget proposal, why can't the CDC use "evidence-based" or "science-based"? And even if it is redundant how does that justify banning words? Free speech means just that, free speech, being able to say what you want whether you subjectively like a word or not. I find it bizarre that this place is unironically defending this.

haha nice argument there pal but i see you made a typo, better luck next time