Scientists politicizing their science, and them acting as if they're authorities on fields of studies in which they have no expertise. For example, global warming or race.
they can spout their personal opinions all they like, but they can fuck off with their 'I'm right because I'm a scientist' bullshit.
>good points get ignored the thread
...
White people getting blamed for black behavior.
THE FILTH AND EVIL OF THE DISGUSTING ARYAN.
-THEY- must be purged by ALL MEANS AVAILABLE.
CRUSH THEM. SMASH THEM, BLEED THEM DEAD.
USE THEIR BONES TO BAKE OUR BREAD.
I'm not sure about bone bread, my man.
Black people lying and making up shit about their past. It used to be fringe, now it seems like it's getting more mainstream.
Niggers
>everything
I feel like an edgy teen but I have lost all hope for this world. Everyone is naive and narcissistic and all anyone cares about is themselfs. It's sad, really wish I could go full blown cypher at this point.
Oh the ironing
Ironing is a pain, especially shirts.
People who say "that being said" like it makes them sound smart.
Niggers, Kikes, Spics, Arabs, Gooks, Faggots...
>Chinks spam lies the thread
"Agree to disagree?"
Uneducated alt-right retards dismissing educated opinions because they don't agree with their edgy opinions.
The Swiss
"Let's touch base later and cross our I's and dot our T's and go over core principles and our mission statement"
>Appeals to authority are reasonable.
Scientists are experts int heir fields, and that is all they can be experts in. The issue is them using the authority from their expertise to talk about what they are not experts in.
What the fuck is that statement.
That's the American comeback, its quite affective.
At one point Magellan and Galileo were edgy alts that bucked consensus. Get over yourself tool. AGW is a fucking scam. Sucker.
Basic office jargon that is regurgitated on a daily basis.
>global warming or race
I wonder who made this post
Are you thinking of Bill Nye?
It pisses me off as well. It's such an obvious logical fallacy.
In relation, I think experts appealing to their own authority to invalidate opinions and observations is fucking stupid as well
>I happen to have a Ph.D. in gender studies, therefore your argument is invalid
And the resulting doublethink when confronted with experts in other fields. Suddenly being an expert is invalidated by your own expertise in a totally unrelated field
Also
>my definition doesn't match yours. This is basically a strawman :^)
muslims apologist
>Let's touch base
I fucking hate that phrase
>camera-anglo
Fucking Jew
Are you serious? That's terrifying.
>there can be no scientist expert on weather
because.....???
>weather is not physics
oh i see
So, summing your comment up, you hate facts because they are against your opinions?
>An understanding of fundamental physics is then translated into a knowledge of everything, the post.
Nobody is an expert in everything, and rarely ever more than one thing. Being a professor especially means a lifelong dedication to one thing. Other people are experts in meteorology, physicists are not.
>I have more incite on these subjects than well educated people
I don't disagree with you on your reasoning. I just find it funny that you get your info from a place that you accept as truth but because these scientists disagree with your position you don't accept it.
What do the scientists in these fields actually say?
Not this.
I hate appeals to authority.
Most television scientists to be honest. They are experts in their own fields, and rightly so, but then feel the need to use that to inflate their ego on other matters.
Myself
I could be better. I could change the world. Everyone here can.
I'm Anglo-Saxon Australian. We don't even have a Jewish church/mosque (what are their places of worship even called?) in the town I live in.
Jews
The latest one making the rounds is "focus on top line growth", which isn't necessarily grating to the ears if you're the CFO or at an accounting department meeting. But every mediocre middle manager with a coffe stain on his shirt is running around blurting out how we need to focus on "top line growth" like it makes him sound smart and office-jargony, when all the motherfucker has to say is "go sell more shit".
Congrats youve just marked your city for death. Minarets going up outside your bathroom window in 12 days.
What is a minaret?
Something that is far more nuanced. I don't get my info from just anywhere. What i think personally isn't really the issue here. What I am trying to say is that these people are pretending to be experts and authorities on matters in which they are not. They are using their television starpower to convey a message which they likely understand just as much or a bit more than most people. That does not mean they can be 'sure' of anything, or even that they're properly understanding it. It is the whole reason why science is divided into schools, and then each school defers and respects the other because they share basic methodology. I do not resent him from agreeing with his colleges, but that does not mean he's an authority. The stunt television meme scientists try to pull is 'schooling' someone using their fame as authority, even when they're likely ignorant to the topic.
Scientists should ONLY speak about their expertise in a non-personal manner. Anything else is personal opinion only.
What I meant to say is that scientists should only speak about things that are NOT their expertise in a non-profession manner.
Ethics in science
There should be no limits, human experiments? Fine, what's the fucking deal
Or researching race specific things, fucking pussies, all of them
>There should be no ethical stance in science, so let me take an ethical stance of consequentialism in science.
I took an ethical stance on scientists and the people responsible for giving money to them, two different subjects.
>Something that is far more nuanced. I don't get my info from just anywhere.
It just magically appears in your head?
>What i think personally isn't really the issue here.
But it is. You are talking as an authority on this issue.
>What I am trying to say is that these people are pretending to be experts and authorities on matters in which they are not. They are using their television starpower to convey a message which they likely understand just as much or a bit more than most people.
Unlike say, just regular TV personalities who do the exact same thing without any knowledge on the subject. Or some user in the internet. That's much better.
>That does not mean they can be 'sure' of anything, or even that they're properly understanding it.
Even experts can't be 100% 'sure' they can just convey data that they extrapolate.
>It is the whole reason why science is divided into schools, and then each school defers and respects the other because they share basic methodology.
This doesn't mean they don't interact. It's not like prisons and gender.
>I do not resent him from agreeing with his colleges, but that does not mean he's an authority.
So it's a certain person you are talking about? So this is a personal vendetta?
>The stunt television meme scientists try to pull is 'schooling' someone using their fame as authority, even when they're likely ignorant to the topic.
I don't think you know how the scientific community works.
>Scientists should ONLY speak about NOT their expertise in a non-personal manner. Anything else is personal opinion only.
If the data backs their opinion, they will just parrot the data won't they?
Didn't seem like it. There is no ethical stance inherent within science. Only the people whom it relates to.
But I'll concede out of politeness.
>spaces
So let me ask you this, can you clone humans? Can you experiment on human embryos past the 14th week?
These are regulations based on ethics.
Can people who research race differences publish?
That is a gorgeous doughnut.
And I know the feeling, I've got so much potential, and I've always managed to fall short because of my own laziness
Pop science in general being mem-tier is annoying.
Endlessly parroted quotes from Tyson or Nye (who I freely admit are smarter than I will ever be) get thrown around and through the magic of memes/the collective these things become facts.
Showing a bunch of research that's been peer reviewed, examined and replicated a dozen times and saying "well here's what I think" is really hard. Grabbing a mic, making a snarky comment and falling back on "I'm a scientist, bitch" when called out is just generally bad science.
nobody loves appeal to authority more than the uneducated alt-rights of Sup Forums
No, it's just a diversion and not relevant.
I'm not. This is obviously an opinion thread. What 'authority' do I have to give? Being OP? More of a problem than anything.
No, not like them. random personalities are OBVIOUSLY not experts, but these scientists PRETEND to be, or at least omit that they are not. Who knows what I am? This isn't about me, again.
Of course not, but this is nitpicking. They are damn well more sure and understanding than anyone else.
Of course. But that doesn't mean they transmit expertise to each other.Going to lunch with an engineer doesn't make you one. Knowledge is assimilated into different disciplines through much effort and time.
I thought I was in another thread. Ignore that, it's just general for the purpose of this thread. Mostly just television scientists.
I don't think you do, either. But this isn't even a point about the inner workings of the scientific community. I was trying to paint a scene of a panel show or something, then the scientist saying something about which he knows little, yet is revered as an expert through his authority.
Parroting data without proper involved context is essentially useless. That way leads manipulation.
>quotes reddit
We'll notch that down to retardation
Just for the record, this is my only form of social media. I actually talk to people face to face. Or phone message.
Depends upon the society.
Give an example.
>It used to be fringe
Hardly, I remember learning in school how da ebil white man hunted the peaceful, black savages in the jungles of Africa and caught them with nets. This was pre-internet, when it took more effort to look shit up. Now, you can google the bullshit like this and easily prove it wrong.
Black people have always made shit up
>Depends upon the society.
Not when the only places those things matter are the only places where science is actually done
journalists that brag everywhere how their career it's the most noble and brave and blah blah blah in the world
>acting as if they're authorities on fields of studies
They don't need to act, they've got the educational background for it. But I guess people should start looking towards Internet hiveminds for expertises.
...
My point was that ethics is not general. If the society in which the science is done has an ethical stance against it, then by all means, do not do it. Knowledge is to advance society, and without a strong, ethical society, any progress is useless and likely damaging.
I really don't care what happens, so long as it's coherent with that society's ethics.
>I, as a meteorologist, am absolutely qualified and an authority on genetics because I have an educational background!
Actual scientist "authorities" in "global warming" and "race", strongly disagree with most of what you (and Sup Forumslacks) think. And the "non authorities" usually just back-up the authorities.
...
What you imply is that scientists aren't well rounded when they get to university. I took bio II and genetics as a computer science student, Does this imply that i'm not well rounded to have an educational opinion on it? also what makes you the authority of whom can speak on the behalf of a certain field?
Nigger detected
>Coleman's mustard gas
kek
>scientists aren't well rounded when they get to university
Absolutely. Professionals do not have the time to dedicate to becoming experts in everything. That is why disciplines exist.
Yes. It means you have a developed but basic knowledge and essentially no nuanced understanding of it. That is for post-graduate study, where you will find that you will narrow down onto one thing, and then not really pay much attention beyond the surface to other disciplines.
You are by no means an authority. They are. But through their irresponsibility to omit that they are not experts, they will use their authority to further their points beyond the knowledge that they have, which they know themselves to be limited. It is not responsible on them.
>Thinking I'm an authority.
Part 1
>No, it's just a diversion and not relevant.
It is relevant. You come with an opinion on a subject, you better have references to back it up.
>I'm not. This is obviously an opinion thread. What 'authority' do I have to give? Being OP? More of a problem than anything.
Just having an opinion on scientists having opinions without first structuring your argument as an opinion. The language you used in OP was of an authority.
>No, not like them. random personalities are OBVIOUSLY not experts,
But they speak as experts. They tell audiences 'a scientist says' like that makes what they say is true.
>but these scientists PRETEND to be, or at least omit that they are not.
They don't. The television network uses them because they don't know the difference. They ask their opinion or ask them to explain technical information.
>Who knows what I am?
Exactly, yet you have an opinion like it's important.
>This isn't about me, again.
But it is. You started the conversation and then want people to just ignore this fact?
>Of course not, but this is nitpicking. They are damn well more sure and understanding than anyone else.
As is a scientist outside of their doctorate over anyone else.
Continued...
Part 2
>Of course. But that doesn't mean they transmit expertise to each other. Going to lunch with an engineer doesn't make you one. Knowledge is assimilated into different disciplines through much effort and time.
But being involved with an engineer would make you more knowledgeable on the subject than learning from another source.
>I thought I was in another thread. Ignore that, it's just general for the purpose of this thread. >Mostly just television scientists.
But if what they are saying is wrong where are the experts on TV coming out telling they are wrong?
>I don't think you do, either. But this isn't even a point about the inner workings of the scientific community. I was trying to paint a scene of a panel show or something, then the scientist saying something about which he knows little, yet is revered as an expert through his authority.
But you are making the assumption they know little. Just because their PhD isn't on the particular subject doesn't mean they don't research that subject.
>Parroting data without proper involved context is essentially useless. That way leads manipulation.
How? It is literally just being the middle man. The general public hate technical talk. Have you tried talking to common people? Having a familiar face dumb down this info helps for people to process it.
I want to point out I don't disagree with you in terms of getting proper experts on to explain the subject, but first you have to find someone relatable enough, and technical talks doesn't get ratings. I think your frustrations are with the wrong people.
>I took a class on this subject once, so that means I'm an authority on the subject
Sure, you can have an educated opinion on it, (if you actually learned anything in and beyond that class) but it does not mean that you an "expert" in that field.
Also, believe it or not, some people in certain discipline of science give absolutely no shits about the other ones, so they really do not know shit about those "other" disciplines. Having a BS, MS, or PhD in a particular field of science does not automatically grant you the ability to be an expert in ALL fields of science.
So what do you use to get your info? Why do you believe what you believe?
Who doesn't enjoy a game of push the ARYAN off the ramparts?
You're a well paid scientist
You only talk in facts
You know you're always right
Cause you know how to prove it
Step by step
A PhD to show you're smart
With textbook formulas
But you're used up
Just like a factory hand
Something is wrong here
You won't find in on a shelf
You're well paid
You're well trained
You're tied to a rack
Company cocktails-gotta go
Say the right thing
Don't fidget, jockey for position
Be polite
In the pyramid you hate
Sip that scotch
Get that raise
This ain't no party at all
Cringe and tense up
Grind your teeth
And wipe your sweaty palms
Close your windows driving past
The low life company bar
They're making fun of you
Even you
You've gotta punch the clock
Too scared to punch your boss
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you open your eyes
Pull up to your sterile home
You're drained
Bite the heads off of your kids
Chew them well, they taste like you
Just slam the door
Assigned here cause your company owns the land
All your colleagues live there too
Private guards in golf carts
Keep you safe at home?
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
The dark shattered underbelly
Of the American dream
Avoid it like the plague
It stares you from your bathroom mirror...
Galileo never stopped being an edgy cunt. The church fucked him up because he didn't have any proof for his claims. Sure, they turned out to be right, but that's just blind luck. They told him he could teach it as a theory, but not as a fact. As a response, he taught it as a fact anyway and insulted the pope.
Galileo was rightly punished.
Almost as much as I love seeing them CAGED.
Its all pseudoscience
I have a friend that says this all the time
I fucking hate it
That guy on the right has quite the nose for an "aryan"
I won't address all your points in detail because frankly this is getting out of hand by spreading over into multiple parts.
If you think the language I used is authoritative, then I'm not sure what to say. I can't comment either way, other than to say that is not my intent. I intended to word it strongly, but not to come across as an authority. Also, I'm not sure what you want from me. I'm a guy with an opinion.
Television personalities are not experts, they are authorities. They admit that by saying 'someone else says'.
They may not say they are an expert, although popular figures have said that before when they are not. But they do omit that they are not by acting as an authority. People in the public sphere have a responsibility to be clear about their area of expertise.
A scientist with a doctorate can be as ignorant, or far more ignorant about another discipline than someone with a passive interest. Having a doctorate means only that they are an expert on one thing. You also assume that they talk to each other in-depth. Being a professor, lecturer, full-time in anything personality takes up a lot of time. It really is likely that they don't do research into what isn't their field. They don't have time to learn the details. Reading some papers ever now and then isn't sufficient. Better than most, maybe, but not sufficient.
If you show someone a graph, and they do not know what it means, you can manipulate them into thinking it means what you say it does. This is specially dangerous when you yourself are not entirely sure.
Our points are similar, I think. I think that scientists should stick to their discipline only, and if they divulge from it, then they should say so. Can't force them, of course, but it's especially important for science--which takes many years of study to fully understand. It's about not diluting the structure of science.
There are a lot of scientists that diverge into different fields while retaining their own, at least from what I have anecdotally experienced. Getting into one discipline doesn't mean necessarily mean you're ignorant of another one. Disciplines don't dictate knowledge, they're a guidance towards specific topics.
>Thinking I'm an authority.
Well, you write as if you think you are.
Those scientists that you believe have the authority also took it once and they usually diverge into a specific field that would either get them to a career or to a certain research department. I'm not saying you should hold my opinion above someone who has a phd in genomics, but their basis also comes from the same foundation that others learn.
Minarets are the towers that mosques have
women
Just stop talking to him. The kangaroo is just trolling.
Cheers man.
I looked it up when old mate didn't answer but I appreciate your help.
Fucking this. In my junior/senior year of getting my B.S. in Physics we would get freshman every semester who looked like nu-males and girls with problem hair going
>omg I wanna be smart and progressive like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye :]
These kids never made it past the 2nd semester because they didn't realize that physics has nothing to do with politics or global warming unless you go into meteorology (which was a Chem concentration at my school).
I've had to explain to so many people that black science man is an astronomer and mostly a celebrity that gets carted out as the voice of the physics community because he's black, and is not an authority on climate change. Same goes for Nye, except he's used because everyone remembers him from their childhood. Both of them are great when they stick to their fields or TV shows, but the second they step into the political spotlight I lose respect for them. Same with Hawking trying to call out Trump, man fuck you you wheelchair bound degenerate, go look at more black holes.
Maybe related, but I hate socialist/communists. They claim they're not the same, and get insulted when you say there's no difference, but practically, there's no fucking difference. It's like the difference between Italy's fascism and Germany's fascism. They're indistinguishable from one another to laymen, and in the long run the difference are immaterial to 90% of the discussion on the subject.
Commies are some of the most dishonest cunts in the world. They have already decided that their shitty, little cult is right, and they just perform mental gymnastics to make it true. And if you don't agree, they turn into the biggest cunts known to man. There was a guy doing an AMA on Reddit about how he escaped from the Soviet Union. So OF FUCKING COURSE communist cunts show up to tell the guy who actually lived in their system is wrong, and how they -latte-sipping champagna socialists- are right.
And in keeping with your complaint, they cited Naom Chomsky as a source. Man, I fucking hate that guy. He's exactly what you say these people are: A specialist in some unrelated field who's acting like it makes him an expert on politics. I'll be glad when that cunt dies.
Didn't black science man work for NASA? Aren't NASA involved in the charting of global climate change? Aren't what these guys are saying closer to the truth than the climate deniers?
Also doesn't politics affect them also? You're allowed to have opinions on these people why can't they have opinions on politics?
Not an argument
I quickly looked at 3 studies on Google scholar. This book seems to be the most recent and in depth book I found on the subject. I did only look at 3 books but the first 3 seem to have the same kind of basis. As I don't really care much about the subject I just copied and pasted this one.
I'm wondering if you have a copy of that book in your clever picture?