Originally posted by Robtard
"Once science has been established, once a scientific truth emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way of the world. What I’m saying is, when different experiments give you the same result, it is no longer subject to your opinion. That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works." -Neal deGrasse Tyson
Rob, you're wasting your time. If people don't value evidence for establishing facts then there is no evidence that you can provide to convince them because they don't value evidence in the first place!!
Re: Should we bow in fear and run away from this phrase?
Originally posted by Sable
When we hear the phrase "Scientists said so."What are the all the things scientists said so, so that means is fact? And who are these scientists? Are they above or beyond reproach, what is their record, what are their names, credentials I should bow in fear to when their anonymous names are brought up in conversations.
Who are these scientists that we should all live in fear when we hear their name?
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/paging-dr-fraud-the-fake-publishers-that-are-ruining-science
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
June 2017, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 163–170
The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3
Silas Boye Nissen, Tali Magidson, Kevin Gross, Carl T Bergstrom
Research: Publication bias and the canonization of false facts
https://elifesciences.org/articles/21451
Originally posted by shiv
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paperhttps://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/paging-dr-fraud-the-fake-publishers-that-are-ruining-science
[b]Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
June 2017, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 163–170
The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3Silas Boye Nissen, Tali Magidson, Kevin Gross, Carl T Bergstrom
Research: Publication bias and the canonization of false facts
https://elifesciences.org/articles/21451 [/B]
Sigh
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Sigh
Exactly.
The data is the data, so it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when" and how extreme. Sure the timetables are changing and it's something these nuts latch onto as justification for denial, but that's the nature of scientific research. Better methods and newer data changes the current models. But the model isn't ever in the "oh, it's actually getting better, we need more pollution" direction.
So with that in mind, I suggest that when it's clear in XX amount of years and can no longer be denied due to people having to move further away from coastal areas cos the oceans magically got closer, crops dying to heat and lowered pollination rates due to decreasing bee colonies etc., all these deniers do the world and "we need to all get together on this, it's a human issue" people a solid and commit suicide (painless, of course). Less people means less pollution, less mouths to feed. But they won't, they'll just wash their hands of all accountability with "How were we supposed to know!" thoughts.
Originally posted by Sin I AM
You are deflecting a tad. How should i phrase this....ok. So by knowing his school that proves what exactly? And what do you mean by his past? Be specific. If you were my patient and walked into my office and wanted to evaluate my abilities provide me with a step-by-step breakdown of how youd do that?
Lady, just no. You've tried and failed. Provide you with a step by step breakdown? Lol.
People are getting triggered over asking for credentials. I'm not going to play your game, it's asinine.
Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly.The data is the data, so it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when" and how extreme. Sure the timetables are changing and it's something these nuts latch onto as justification for denial, but that's the nature of scientific research. Better methods and newer data changes the current models. But the model isn't ever in the "oh, it's actually getting better, we need more pollution" direction.
So with that in mind, I suggest that when it's clear in XX amount of years and can no longer be denied due to people having to move further away from coastal areas cos the oceans magically got closer, crops dying to heat and lowered pollination rates due to decreasing bee colonies etc., all these deniers do the world and "we need to all get together on this, it's a human issue" people a solid and commit suicide (painless, of course). Less people means less pollution, less mouths to feed. But they won't, they'll just wash their hands of all accountability with "How were we supposed to know!" thoughts.
This diatribe aka "RANT" from the guy that belives that Gender is controlled by the power of....
Originally posted by shiv
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paperhttps://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/paging-dr-fraud-the-fake-publishers-that-are-ruining-science
[b]Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
June 2017, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 163–170
The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3Silas Boye Nissen, Tali Magidson, Kevin Gross, Carl T Bergstrom
Research: Publication bias and the canonization of false facts
https://elifesciences.org/articles/21451 [/B]
Perfect examples!