Mon May 14, 2018 3:58 am
insightguy wrote:Arctangent wrote:insightguy wrote:"Believe in free speech? YOU'RE A NAZI!" (no joke)
Actually, you've got this reversed; this is saying that they avoided using the phrase as to not attract the people who would spew slurs in a McDonald's and then themselves complain about about Nazi politics when the manager escorts them out for being a twat.
The fact that "nazis" somehow own the word "free speech" is kind of sad in it of itself.
Sat May 19, 2018 8:16 pm
Sat May 19, 2018 8:41 pm
scalliano wrote:or articles with such headlines as "it's time to stop equating science with truth", I fear for our future as a society. These kinds of people clearly cannot be reasoned with, for if they are willing to dispute the undisputable, what hope is there?
Sun May 20, 2018 5:41 am
Sun May 20, 2018 5:57 am
Arctangent wrote:scalliano wrote:or articles with such headlines as "it's time to stop equating science with truth", I fear for our future as a society. These kinds of people clearly cannot be reasoned with, for if they are willing to dispute the undisputable, what hope is there?
But it's not indisputable. Science is just as subjective as everything else human, because humans tested it and wrote it down, and humans are in no way objective creatures.
scalliano wrote:We do not know everything there is to know, and indeed, that is ultimately impossible. What I find jarring is scientific research that is primarily driven by an agenda, or when evidence is cherry-picked to push a particular narrative. You know, stuff like papers that attempt to disprove climate change that are funded by petrochemical companies, that sort of thing. There may be merit in the research (I personally doubt it), but the weight behind such research will always be difficult to ignore.
Sun May 20, 2018 8:24 am
Sun May 20, 2018 8:56 am
scalliano wrote:But some things as general rules are set in stone and can by visibly observed by anyone, such as anatomical differences.
scalliano wrote:"But, scall, everything is agenda-driven!" To an extent, yes. The earliest scientists actually believed that they were doing God's work, for example. But while true objectivity may be impossible, it must always be the primary goal. If it isn't, be prepared for people to notice, because they will call you out on it. If they do, listen to their concerns, don't shout them down and bash them on Twitter.
dpJudas wrote:The entire point of the scientific method is to try describe things using indisputable facts. It relies on a systematic way of building up a testable theory and then apply tests to try disprove it and use that as a feedback mechanism to get increasingly closer to the correct answer.
dpJudas wrote:The tests may sometimes be incomplete or lead to the wrong conclusions, but that in no way makes science subjective - over time the subjective nature of humans doesn't matter as the evidence against a theory continue to increase it will eventually fail. Or rather typically generate new theories that factor in the gained knowledge.
scalliano wrote:We can only form opinions based on what we know to be correct.
Sun May 20, 2018 9:45 am
Sun May 20, 2018 9:54 am
Sun May 20, 2018 10:04 am
Sun May 20, 2018 12:39 pm
Sun May 20, 2018 12:56 pm
scalliano wrote:@Arctanget: Like I said, there are exceptions to every rule. Differences in a person's junk are still observable differences and dictated by chromosomes.
Sun May 20, 2018 9:48 pm
Arctangent wrote:You say this as a human, speaking of a system created by a human, which relies entirely on human perception to observe the results of certain actions which only test a theory at certain locations, in a certain time frame, with specific conditions that may be, unwittingly or not, those that produce an exceptional result.
Sun May 20, 2018 10:05 pm
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:45 pm
Reactor wrote:"ZOMG dis game iz teh shit!!!!1!!1!!11ONEONEONEELEVEN!"