![The left killed science [974x878 - 98KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/VY0Ky5.jpg){kind=link}
Wow, this is a very deep subject.
Many people have beliefs that aren’t scientific but they feel that they know more about Science for believing them.
With the current pandemic scam, it has become clearer than ever that the media isn’t meant to inform people, but to make them feel informed.
Most people just want to be on the winning team, that of consensus. Their religious beliefs, which they credit to themselves as scientific knowledge, rest on one logical fallacy after another, primarily appeal to authority.
I’ve been accused of saying everything is fake, etc and often asked mockingly “is anything real?!!”
Well yeah. The easy answer to that question is direct experience. That’s the only way you can observe.... without observation there is no scientific method.
Someone else’s claims do not suffice as your observation.
They just aren’t employing the scientific method. When capital gets involved in academia in order to push for certain outcomes whether it be the fields of pharmaceuticals or even something like sociology you aren’t properly using the method anymore. You’re selecting for the best cog for the job who is willing to find the data you want him to and to come to the false conclusion based on the biased data that you want him to. This mantra of “we are the side of science” from shitlibs is absolutely mental. No! You are not at all, you don’t even believe in darwinism applied to human beings and you used that same exact tool just 20 years ago to discredit Christianity! As you say it’s social masterbation to be on the “side of science.” What this really is is dogma, it has nothing to do with the method of science to find out truths about the world through empiricism and experiment. Anyone who actually gives two fucks about employing the scientific method is a race realist, sex realist etc. etc.
Agreed, the magical incantation of “peer review” just means mutual masturbation.
Theoretically it would be fine if people were actually at least trying to use the method correctly. In some completely apolitical fields that can’t be commodified are fine. You should be able to “trust the experts” in a “perfect world” and those experts should be actually reviewing and critiquing each other and not just siting them as a source for jerk off points. But yeah, anything to do with sex/race can be completely discarded from modern academia. There’s just no fucking way anyone is going to be honest about shit like that in the west. Maybe Eastern Europe or Asia where they aren’t completely blinded by egalitarianism and universalism.
Not to mention: Many journals refuse to even look at any paper that could be considered controversial.
They say so themselves. - Meaning it will never even GET to peer review, because it's dismissed if it could be considered controversial.
The irony of appealing to authority (of the masses) as justification for science shouldn’t be ignored.
The atheist left believes their metaphysical beliefs are more real than reality itself. Instead of accepting your ignorance, the atheist proudly claims god is a fairy godfather in a book of fairy tales. Dunning Kruger effect at its finest. How can you, a person who has barely lived 40 years, claim to know with certainty that the creator is something so particularly specific? You can't, you have only experienced 40 years of a 100,000 year story, it's insanity to determine so ignorantly that you know what god is.
You forgot they claim to know everything and when it doesn’t calculate out they make up terms like “dark matter” to explain why they’re correct and they just have to find the missing 75% of their “science”
My favorite atheist thing is when they start ranting about how the Bible doesn’t contain any Current Year scientific knowledge so therefore this disproves God.
Then they didn't read Genesis
A catholic priest came up with the big bang theory
That's one way to look at, let's dispense with the notion that science is a noun. Let's instead accept that science is not a thing, but rather an action, a process, a method. If science is a person place or thing, where is this thing called science? Is a person science? No, a person is a scientist, that is, a person DOES science. Directs their energy towards the work of science. Science is something people DO, not some edifice, not some immutable structure. Science evolves because science is a verb, it's not an inanimate object. Without people doing the process of science, there is no science.
I like how you get mocked when you present actual information, then best they can do is an "opinion" piece on the subject.
(post is archived)