I'm a little confused by people sometimes. It's easy to understand why not everyone likes or understands science. Some things can be harder to get by some than others.
But maybe before trying to develop your own ideology, calling bullshit free thought, pretending you know what's up, and going as far as to bash the parents of modern physics from a century ago and calling them elitist ilk, try giving it a shot by at least familiarizing yourself with methods and concepts.
Science is not elitist, the information is out there. You can learn all about it for free! Everyone can. Try bouncing around on Wikepedia at least, it will tell you everything. As a matter of fact, many organizations involved with current research and development, share freely with the public exactly what they are doing, many of them with very detailed reports!
Science is not bullshit either. The whole point of science is to solve problems. Keep in mind that you are reading this on a device brought to you by the internet, which are results of a century of development! It turns out, computers aren't magic sent to us by God! ๐ฑ
And yes, abuse of technology exists. People have known this since before you were born. It doesn't mean that all of it is elitist shit. If that's the way you feel, then get off the goddamn internet and go eat from trees and touch grass for the rest of your life. If you are one of these manipulators who spreads this shit, preying on dumb people to give you a dollar, and are reading this on a screen now, then you are quite literally a hypocrite and an interloper. The rest of us who want to see progress don't need you at all.
And oh yes, things will continue to progress. The next eras are quantum technology, and the colonization of the solar system. Deal with it. ๐
Comments
Displaying 9 of 9 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
xX-Squid-Xx
Any time somebody tries to pull some anti-science shit on me Iโm going to pull out this blog post. Couldnโt have said it better myself.ย
Bill Liam East
So I was told...
Just putting it out there that this post wasn't aimed at one specific person, and not all of it applies to them, so they shouldn't take it personally and think I'm putting words in their mouth. There's been a number on more than just this platform. It's why I didn't call anyone out. I also didn't block anyone over one blog post, I saw some other things as well.
I block anyone and refuse to engage with them anymore when I find out they're into things like conspiracy theories, creationism, the David Icke types, people who see reality as fake and want people to conform to their version of it, things like that, because there's no point in getting a headache over it. I just really don't care to even see it at this point. I could have made this post nicer, but just stay on your side of the fence, lol.
The day I gave up on people with a false rationality, I was talking to an actual flat earther in person about ten years ago, and I finally just suggested that he just go join NASA so he could find out what they're really hiding on the edge.
b3aconator
The issue people have with "science" isn't the process of accumulating knowledge it's mostly in how "science" by large labs is presented as fact and people are asked to turn against their own intuition to believe unproven and poorly vetted "sciences."
You look into the trusted science of our age and you'll see a lot of inconsistency, statistics per capita are presented as raw numbers for instance "population A did blank 100,000 times this year and population B did blank only 50,000. There's seriously a problem with population A, here's a regulation and how we're going to push it into the lives of every day citizens."
-presented by conflict of interest institution 1, in collaboration with conflict of interest group 2
Except population B made up 10% of the surveyed crowd and population A makes up 90%
"Oh you see the exact opposite of what we are cramming down your throat with biased and poorly controlled studies? Well that's your anecdotal experience and you're an idiot" except the methodology is a lie and is misrepresented.ย
I know I'm ranting, but this happens day in and day out, so much "mainstream" science is subject to this and it just turns people off of the whole subject, gives the impression "If someone in a lab-coat tells me something, they're just lying and trying to sell me something" which is typically the case.ย
"This science means we take your taxes and give them here instead of what you know to be true, and this science means we take your kid away because we've abstracted that into psychological abuse, the science we conducted in extreme bias with crazy profit incentive proves it!"
It's a nasty perversion of the research and discovery I always dreamed of participating in as a kid.
The loose constraints around the soft sciences too that make them extremely susceptible to whatever is the modern consensus bias, because it has such a hard time actually adhering to the scientific method,ย resulting in things like Mein Kampf being rewritten inย contemporary academic jargon relating to gender and critical theory,
Hilariously actually passing peer review and getting an entry into a "scientific" journal all on it just sounding modern fingersnaps politic enough to scratch some vocal fry ego itches.ย
by โธธโธธโธธ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐๐ณ๐๐๐๐๐๐โธธโธธโธธ
Site Supporter;
;
Report
Its a hard thing to balance for sure. Because science is basically the most important human endeavor in existence and needs to be respected as such.
But we also have to understand nothing is beyond scrutiny and it is always advisable to avoid both appeals to authority ANDย ad populum fallacies.ย
by โธธโธธโธธ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐๐ณ๐๐๐๐๐๐โธธโธธโธธ
Site Supporter;
;
Report
Thank you for distinguishing between "science" and science. I know what you're talking about and this is one reason why I don't watch the news. I feel as though a lot of them simply make up these social studies, either botched or never existed, as part of their usual BS to try and solidify their political agendas. Yes, there is a lot of bullshit masquerading as science in the media, but I believe we can agree that it isn't science. Unfortunately a lot of people will see these morning talk shows, social media, YouTube, Fox News in general where so many flat out lies are spread and not know the difference, so I kind of get that.
by Bill Liam East; ; Report
we are also talking about inside academia too bill. It cant be forgotten that they are also human, predisposed to bias, and that has never changed. It is why i mentioned the difficult balance between not falling into the appeal to authority fallacy and/or you know, the common mans gut ignorance, like Ad Populum fallacy.ย
Official, peer reviewed and published data is and has been proven to be tampered with or produced under bias, academia itself at any given time is constituted of individuals with aย general consensus bias of the time (hence things like homosexuality being a mental disorder at one time when things were of the opposite swing)ย
and as i mentioned even official, peer reviewed entries have been just a troll!ย
I wasnt making a joke earlier,
someone really did rewrite Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf in modern academic feminist jargon and submit it for peer review and it PUBLISHEDย lolol. -
3 proffessors surface lack of imperical scrutiny in peer review and several fieldsย -
(this is again as i mentioned, a significant issue with the "soft sciences" i mentioned as they have a hard time adhering to the true test of real science, the scientific method, making them VERY susceptible to manipulation and bias in line with the general consensus bias of the time they are written. This matters because then the world takes this crap seriously)
So as it is yes, indeed the case that the public misinterprets or presents science in a way that supports ITS bias.
It can not ever be forgotten that the science ITSELF is always in constant battle with these things internally as well, and we cant be so simplistic as to just always and without scrutiny
"trust the science" particularly the "soft" sciences that dont as often deal with exactly reproducible mathematical absolutes and tangible real materials etc.ย
It needs to be trusted more so than any other institution, because its the only institution doing the work of the "Scientific method"
but it is not some sort of magic last word of truth we should let fester in its own developing bias because we refuse to speculate on it and ask questions and poke and prod at it.ย
There is a real danger, BECAUSE science is so important,ย
of it being corrupted internally because we the public turn an overly worshipful blind eye to it.ย
lest it become a situation of "yes, we at the fbi, have investigated our department for any wrong doing and concluded we are innocent, nothing to see here carry on".ย ย
ย
by โธธโธธโธธ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐๐ณ๐๐๐๐๐๐โธธโธธโธธ
Site Supporter;
;
Report
I was mainly replying to b3aconator earlier, but I haven't forgotten about you. ๐ค
Yeah, people fake things in academia too, and then when they get their asses busted, they fall under loss of reputation and career ending scrutiny. It's only a matter of time. It doesn't make it a "science is bullshit" argument, it just means they created bullshit. It's a real problem in social sciences especially because they move a lot slower, and we have to take modern social science with a grain of salt until it can be backup up with years of review and observation.
The Mein Kampf thing was weird, but I'm glad they did it because it brought to light some serious laziness in publication.
Part of why people fall for it is ignorance of science, which is also a serious problem. A perfect example is how people still believe in Freud's Oedipus complex when it was discredited a long time ago. It's the simplest idea, wrong, and still floating. Then other non-academics come along, make up their own bullshit and try to acquire a cult following that leads to a whole lot of dumbassery while they're making money off of it, which was the real reason why I ranted. Alex Jones for example.
Science is also meant to be questioned, not taken as an authority; the whole point of replication studies. I know you know all this, I'm putting it in the simplest terms for other readers in hopes that maybe someone will try to learn something. I get what you're saying too and public perceptions and misconceptions can be a dangerous propagation.
Let me also point out that the vast majority of "scientific" fraud comes from within the United States, China, and India.
by Bill Liam East; ; Report
๐๐ค
by โธธโธธโธธ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐๐ณ๐๐๐๐๐๐โธธโธธโธธ
Site Supporter;
;
Report