Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] • 10 pts

Consensus is anything but science.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Well that’s not necessarily true either. We’ve come to a consensus that cold temperatures will freeze water into ice. That’s fine. Using fake consensus, or building consensus behind a flawed idea, that’s the problem.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

We’ve come to a consensus that cold temperatures will freeze water into ice.

That isn't science. That's just knowledge of the natural world. Science is the PURSUIT OF THE DISCOVERY of that knowledge, not the knowledge itself. The knowledge itself often turns out to be entirely wrong, after all, such as the long time during which Ptolemy's geocentric ephemeris was replaced by a heliocentric one. In no way was the original consensus correct about the nature of the Solar System in comparison to the current understanding. And the current understanding of the Solar System could be overturned at any moment in the system we once knew as "Science."

No, what we have in 2021 is a modern version of Lysenkoism. Fauci is Lysenko.

[–] • 1 pt

No. Concensus has no role within science. Zero.

Water freezing to ice happens with a single person observing it as such or everyone doing so.

[–] • 1 pt

Consensus based of repeated experiments with the same result and survival of peer review is science with consensus. Being a contrarian who thinks that questioning science is science without any experimentation or evidence to the contrary is not science.

[–] • 3 pts

peer review

This kills the science.

Begging your direct competitors to be allowed to publish is a very bad idea. For proper peer review, you need to publish first and then have your peers review your findings. Otherwise you get a situation where anything that goes against the current zeitgeist is automatically shut down. That is, if you can get the funding for it anyways, and somehow get away with asking the questions in the first place without being fired, blacklisted, and having "students" literally hunt you down in the streets.

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts
[–] • 1 pt

Not true at all.

A Scientific theory being successful ultimately is decided by making predictions.

I don't need to make any experiment or provide evidence FOR a theory if the theories predictions observably are absent.

[–] • 4 pts

It probably needs a whole section on computer models. Totally garbage tools that take in garbage data and spit out whatever conclusion the model maker programed into it.

[–] • 1 pt

Example? I'm not sure I follow what you mean by computer models

[–] • 3 pts

Climate models, epidemiological models, power much any model of a complex system over a significant time frame.

Particularly where the complexities of the systems require more detailed analysis than is possible or practical. Resulting in non- physical modelling (i.e. "tuned" parameters and made up factors used in place of the actual phenomena, such as thunderstorms in climate models).

[–] • 1 pt

Oh ok I see what you mean now. I agree modeling is a good tool to have some projective ideas checked but should not be touted as gospel or infallible.

[–] • 3 pts

Scientists need to be bullied again so they regain some humility. They should not govern society, because if their science was worth anything, it would be called engineering. Stop your ivory tower bullshit and go do something useful with your hands, like cleaning chicken shit.

[–] • 3 pts

Scientists no longer practice proper science. It's a political field now.

[–] • 3 pts

The funny thing is that was probably made to attack us

[–] • 3 pts

Nope. It is guide FOR ANYONE. If you have real solid evidence of something use thus guide to call people out. Share it and spread it. And if you feel attacked by this, we'll, if the shoe fits.

[–] • 2 pts

I don't accept slurs against the Law of the Slippery Slope.

[–] • 0 pt

Slippery Slope is a real thing but needs evidence you can't just say if we do x then y will happen with no proof

[–] • 1 pt

I'm saying that the producer of the image was probably motivated by anti-critical-thinking. There is a chance it was made by a non-npc, I'm just saying this is something they would do.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I use it whenever I'm debating things to defend my point and to check myself when debating. I also use it when researching a topic. If you're doing real critical thinking you quit be guilty of anything on here.

[–] • 0 pt

Do we have an explanation for all the bullet points with examples? This would kill their whole system with that.

[–] • 1 pt

I consider myself stupid. All I do is ask why? WHY. And when I don’t good get answers why would I listen to anything you have to say.

[–] • 0 pt

Well da rest of us consider ya stoopid 2, tah ha ha, looks guys he ask'n quest-uns!

[–] • 1 pt

deny scientific consensus

"Scientific consensus" is not a thing that exists outside of the globalist mainstream pseudoscience. Science has precisely NOTHING to do with "consensus". Anyone stating otherwise is a fucking retard and a subverting kike.

[–] • 0 pt

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. ... Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review.

It 100% exists in all scientific disciplines.idk who told you it doesn't.

[–] • 1 pt

Scientific consensus is a method by which globalist kikes use pseudoscience to convince idiots that whatever their claims are "science". Nothing more.

Failing to understand that is retardation. Consensus isn't science. If every moron kikelover on the planet agreed that guys who cut off their dick are women it still doesn't make them women, and their conclusion has absolutely fucking zero to do with science.

[–] • 1 pt

Time for the science rant…

The scientific method is merely that: a method. And when you feed garbage into that process, you get garbage out.

When people today refer to “science”, what they are often referring to are studies funded by big money which are then utilized to advance an agenda. This technique is not new; it has been utilized for centuries. Edward Bernays used it to great effect in many of his public relations campaigns in the 1900s. Science today is largely rubbish, and is merely a weapon wielded against the people in order to manipulate them. Unfortunately the public at large is quite ignorant, and so they must rely on the priesthood of science (and it’s close cousin, medicine) in order to inform their opinions. The situation is exacerbated by a society that has become increasingly secular, which has replaced God with science and elevated it to the status of deity. Yet the public has lost sight of the fact that science is merely a tool, and is only as good as the hand that wields it. It can be used to manipulate/skew data in order to control a populace, or it can be used to uncover the truth.

Make Science Great Again…

[–] • 0 pt

Slippery slope - the logical fallacy that always turns out to be correct.

[–] • 0 pt

Gotta a source for that every time it's correct with verifiable data and supporting evidence?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

le redditor

[–] • 0 pt

So you have no evidence. Alright thanks for clearing that up.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't trust any science someone in a lab somewhere has the only machine that shows x is true.

I don't trust science behind a paywall.

I don't trust science that orders me to believe it.

I don't trust science that the experts get wrong constantly.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

who comes up with this garbage. unironically using the term "conspiracy theories" is not a good look in this day and age

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Nefarious or malicious intent is impossible, so conspiracy theorists must be crazy. People can only make mistakes, but everyone is generally good at heart. /S

Load more (3 replies)