You tell me to "Trust the science", but I'm not going to do it, because "science" is just a bunch of corrupt people being paid off by big monied interests.
Science™ is a racket
It's mostly just money laundering.
Science guy here.
First, please make sure that your tinfoil hat is of at least 3 folded sheets. Less will tear too easy.
OK so. Do you know how grants work? Do you know that you can be commissioned to study a thing and that once if it is not Peet reviewed it will be regarded as trash?
OK. I just wanted to make sure you weren't in here on Anon Babble just posting nonsense.
BTW your tap water has parasites.
Just another way for institutions to control minds of the populace
gatekeeping information keeps the cabal in power
Peet reviewed eh? This fucking autocorrect is amazing.
Pajeet reviewed
What these people are doing is not "science"
Anyone who inhabits an ultra-specific scientific niche is not helping us. All of the great scientific minds of history who revolutionized our view of the universe were polymaths who understood and navigated science, philosophy, belief, mathematics, natural science and geometry at the same time.
The harsh reality is that we have gradually slid into a totally artificial information economy within science in the last ~100-150 years. It started when aether theory was accepted as disproved by academia using completely obtuse methodology. And then you had the subjugation of Tesla's body of work which was quite literally the first step to becoming an interstellar civilization.
If Tesla's work had been open sourced we would have solved all of our current energy dilemmas 80+ years ago.
And then you had nuclear technology, whose development caused entire branches of theoretical physics to become blocked off. Very simple particle physics that nobody can talk about.
If it weren't for those 2 things we would quite literally have people around other stars and be capable of traveling to those stars in days. We'd most likely have multiple types of matter and information teleportation, we'd have the ability to influence the interactions of entire planets. And we'd be involved in the ambitions of other civilizations as well.
big monied interests.
The government. Most of the time the government funds us. Maybe it's different in burgerland but here very few universities receive anything from companies
lolifag
Pedophilic opinion disregarded.
what is a revolving door
polymaths who understood and navigated science, philosophy, belief, mathematics, natural science and geometry at the same time.
Einstein basically only tried something new in physics had barely an idea if he believed in God (later on he just said there's some god and that he doesn't act randomly, that's it), barely understood why he's a pacifist, wasn't very notable at maths (his first wife did all of his calculations while also juggling their two kids, he later left her for his fat cousin who pretty much isn't mentioned for any other reason in historical records). Maybe he liked shapes but his work was mostly about some abstract theoretical truths and I doubt he cared much about 'natural science'. He's still the most influential scientist of last century and massively shaped our understanding of time, space and light.
Scientism is shit but so is thinking that science was any good after the french revolution.
hurrdurr kys retard
What is something that is only a burgerland phenomenon and still wouldn't mean that companies fund us since employees don't take with them the access to the company's funds.
only a burgerland phenomenon
"revolving door" does not imply 'access to the company's funds' it's the opposite. If you can't use logic just don't try arguing.
Okay bill nye the loli guy
Einstein is a meme. He was a celebrity who knew all the influential people and singlehandedly organized a ton of nuclear activity leading up to WW2, so he earned his place in the psyche with or without relativity.
There are plenty of other contemporaries to Einstein whose theories were far more influential. Also Einstein's basic theories are not true even if they were influential that's something we clearly know now.
Tesla, Maxwell and Feynman were far more important to the state of modern technology.
maggot
And that's why you don't make sense. This is about funding.
Feynman
this guy gets it. QED is the most slept on arm of theoretical physics ever
Do you know how grants work?
Yeah. So the government and industry collude and decide between each other what it is they want funded and for what reasons. It just depends.
Do you know that you can be commissioned to study a thing-
Right. And if your findings are good for them they're published by the editors in the journals they run and if your findings aren't good for them, they still own your research, and off it goes into some filing repository never to see the light of day again.
- and that once if it is not Peet reviewed-
Ah yes. "Peer review," where a researcher waits until the final few days before the dead line to quickly skim a paper, make some petty comments, and either pass or fail it depending on politics or money.
- it will be regarded as trash?
Well of course if you buck the system they're going to trash your work. If the majority of people realized, for example, that nutritional epidemiology is complete horseshit... why... that is so much industry and government dollars down the drain... why all the shills would be up in arms defending that bastion of deceit and bloat.
OK. I just wanted to make sure you weren't in here on Anon Babble just posting nonsense.
Then why are you on here posting nonsense, science illiterate?
nuclear policymakers set specific limitations on nuclear supply and controls
nuclear policymakers go work for rolls royce and oversee the design of nuclear reactors using the exact same guidelines they drafted
It's not that complicated.
make sure that your tinfoil hat is of at least 3 folded sheets. Less will tear too easy.
tinfoil sheets don't tear you're thinking of aluminum foil "science guy"
Lots of quackery in early science; scammers looking to get rich.
He was a celebrity who knew all the influential people and singlehandedly organized a ton of nuclear activity leading up to WW2,
You mean he got famous after introducing one of the biggest paradigms shifts in physics? Yeah. Also he himself didn't organize that much regarding the Manhattan project. He just motivated the president to start with that project.
There are plenty of other contemporaries to Einstein whose theories were far more influential.
For everyday usage? Yes. But he shifted the actual knowledge about our universe more heavily.
Also Einstein's basic theories are not true even if they were influential that's something we clearly know now.
Misleading statement. They are incorrect but still massively pushed our knowledge in the right direction. This is a similar situation to Freud (also not a polymath) and Darwin (not a polymath either).
Maxwell and Feynman
Also not polymaths. An interest alone in multiple subjects is not good enough to count as a polymath.
were far more important to the state of modern technology.
Moving of goal posts. You said
All of the great scientific minds of history who revolutionized our view of the universe
not something about current everyday technology.
ITT people who resent people smarter than them
That's America for you.
The Tesla part is on point. What a freaking tragedy, we could've had it all, but I guess too many global and local conflicts prohibited such utopian realities to blossom. I think humanity by design and nature isn't meant to go beyond Earth. History and the current state of the world reinforces these scenarios.
Also, what is that picture about?
Yeah. Why do the researchers resent people who're smarter than them? Could it be that they got into thousands of dollars in debt just to be a mouthpiece for evil that has them butt bothered so much? Could it be that they're not paid very much so their debt is just all the more onerous and a decent life that much further out of their grasp just causes them so much pain for all their hard work and dedication?
Perhaps it's also the fact that even if they're inclined to do good and speak out against injustice few of their colleagues will stand behind them and will only give them a quiet, "I agree with you bro, but I need this job"? Could also the fear of having gone through all that work only to be blacklisted further sink the sunk cost of their situation?
Where does this resentment come from? The world may never know.
He was already famous. He singlehandedly organized meetings with the Naval college and the US Admiralty and explained the potential of nuclear aircraft carriers and subs, who then pivoted to vouch for the nuclear program to the President. Without Einstein, there would have been no Manhattan project.
Pushing us in the right direction and being wrong are not incompatible and I didn't claim otherwise. Being wrong is perfectly fine.
As picrel says, Maxwell's biographers indeed consider him a polymath.
biographyonline.net
No need to be in disagreement. Einstein deserves his fame but we often fixate on him because of his celebrity. Who did Einstein say was the wisest and most undervalued person he knew? Immanuel Velikovsky.
Yeah. Why do the researchers resent people who're smarter than them? Could it be that they got into thousands of dollars in debt just to be a mouthpiece for evil that has them butt bothered so much? Could it be that they're not paid very much so their debt is just all the more onerous and a decent life that much further out of their grasp just causes them so much pain for all their hard work and dedication?
Perhaps it's also the fact that even if they're inclined to do good and speak out against injustice few of their colleagues will stand behind them and will only give them a quiet, "I agree with you bro, but I need this job"? Could also the fear of having gone through all that work only to be blacklisted further sink the sunk cost of their situation?
Where does this resentment come from? The world may never know.
added directly to permanent filter.
added directly to permanent filter.
Okay, but why do you feel the need to tell us this?
Holy shit -- some made up text on an image!
what is that picture about?
Walter Russell's wave-based elemental theory, also referred to as harmonic chemistry. It basically says all elements can be plotted along a spiral and that by drawing a line through its center point you can find complimentary elements that have specific interactions.
He was a painter who devised a more elegant element system than the periodic table 150 years ago and his work has only gotten attention in the last 5-10 years.
imagine not knowing Peet from the lab
what do you think tin foil is made of Mr. Genius?
Yeah man, gravity isn't even real bro. It's all magnets, but "they" don't want you to know the truth. With a bit of lead you can demagnetize yourself and fly that's why "they" say it's poisonous to ingest.
Tin foil, also spelled tinfoil, is a thin foil made of tin. Tin foil was superseded after World War II by cheaper and more durable[1] aluminium foil, which is still referred to as "tin foil" in many regions (an example of a misnomer).
The irony is that the modern state of science is basically claiming gravity has no relationship with any other force or energy, which is much more close to saying it doesn't exist than trying to unify it into any broader theory.
Gravity is electrical in nature and saying that in academia will end your career overnight because it leads you to Tesla and Townsend Brown.
Thanks for clarifying, never seen something like this. Very interesting.
Couldn't find the lie, anon?
Because science denialism should be ridiculed at every level, and that's all I came here to say. Bye Felicia.
Terrence Howard talks a lot about the theory and adds some color theory and geometric nuances in the form of his own theories. He's been on JRE and various other podcasts so he's very accessible
science denialism should be ridiculed at every level
OK Catholic church
Do we need to look up the definition of religion again?
uh oh... g-gguys... I-I-I'M EVANGELIZING!!!!!!!!
le science le bad thing
typed on a computer, read around the globe by millions in 47 ms
the irony
even the amish people are laughing about the amount of retardness needed to post this shit.
le science le corrupt
people offering 100% insight in what they assume and what they calculate and others can replicate to confirm it but somehow its rigged.
tf is this retarded.
Because science denialism should be ridiculed at every level
You're going to have a more difficult time ridiculing it in the future by blocking it tho.
We get it, you're devoutly religious and want to evangelize your religious beliefs onto others
Nobody is saying "science is bad" we're saying it doesn't serve the public good and is just as vulnerable to corruption as any other industry with massive funding entanglements.
There was a Walrus article just the other day about prolonged grief disorder and a controversial drug to treat it I reference Walrus because its a liberal rag and we all know anything that isn't a liberal rag gets classified as "fake news" The article talked about DSM-V and how classifications and entries of new disorders are done by a "select" committee mainly behind closed doors. The majority of these people have direct ties to the pharma industry
le science le bad thing
Science is a process and can be good. The government, the industry, and the cronies that populate it that claim authority as "scientists" are bad.
typed on a computer, read around the globe by millions in 47 ms
Because the fruits of engineering lend credence to the slop of nutritional epidemiology. Oh, wait, that's right. "Science" isn't a monolith and laurels do not get to be rested upon.
even the amish people are laughing about the amount of retardness needed to post this shit.
Says this science illiterate.
le science le corrupt
... yep. And your stellar counter-argument to the contrary is...?
people offering 100% insight in what they assume and what they calculate and others can replicate to confirm it but somehow its rigged.
... your stellar counter-argument to the contrary is stand in abject ignorance of Nuremberg, the inability to replicate, and pretend that there isn't a "replication crisis" going on across various "scientific disciplines."
tf is this retarded.
That is a very good question. How can you pretend to cheerlead for science when you don't advocate for science and instead "science" and are so ignorant?
namefag
kys
science denial
scientism denial**
unironic use of "yet you live in a society" argument
science denialism
I don't deny actual science, but I DO deny that much of what you call "science" is actually that.
one of the biggest current science denials is the whole biology and genetics debate in the trans community and trying to define what a real women or man is.
You've garbled your message and I can't tell what you're talking about.
define what a real women
woman*
and its pretty self-evident what a woman is, unless youre a retard who needs someone to explain it to you:
Woman is a gender identity. Most commonly held (but not limited to) adult females, and is associated with certain traits and behaviours that can vary depending on the culture. In American (and many westernised cultures), identifying as and behaving as a woman, is generally associated with things like femininity, child-raising, emotional sensitivity, etc. However, people can identify as a woman without adhering to specific traits because how someone chooses to express their identity can vary from person to person.
spotted the butthurt mad retard.
you think the thread is full of butthurt mad retards yet you respond to the thread. how curious!
So, then how did humans solve so many problems? Nothing is perfect but things like engineering and medical research have accomplished a lot with an extremely high degree of reproducibility.
So, then how did humans solve so many problems?
There was a time when science was legit, and not corrupted by big corporations like it is today.
Then we agree that science works well. If someone is being unobjective for whatever reason such as bribes then that isn't science.
But it is a bit ridiculous to suggest this is all research of the 21st century. This is also why state funded research is important so there is no corporate agenda.
pic related shows a graph from a report about climate change commisssioned by exxon mobil in 1977.
this makes the publication obligation rather inconvenient.
when did manipulation of science start?
So, then how did humans solve so many problems?
The short answer is necessity.
Nothing is perfect-
Stop right there. You're right that nothing is perfect, but you're failing to understand that the *reason* for the imperfection, and that is because of willful malice aforethought in the process of training people, how the research is conducted, how the results are put together, how the results are pushed to the public, or even how the results are sequestered away from the public due to conflict of interest.
- but things like engineering and medical research have accomplished a lot with an extremely high degree of reproducibility.
Engineering yes, medical research no.
Again, most people simply ignore the fact that Nuremberg put an end to randomized, controlled, trials using humans. You cannot randomly abduct people off the street, you cannot strip them of their freedom, nor can you compel their participation in the experiment you wish to conduct, nor can you even subject them to interventions you so much as hypothesize might be harmful.
... and as such science cannot be done.
And so instead of doing science, a company like Purdue can put together a team of unscrupulous researchers, have them find through their "research," that OxyContin was "totally not addictive, man," and with a little FDA bribery? It was unleashed on the public. It was from those first in line to trust their doctors that anything resembling actual scientific experiment took place as they unwittingly believed the "experts."
Not only did Purdue realize that OxyContin was almost certainly addictive, but their bean-counters had already worked into the price of the drug the amount they estimated to pay out in lawsuit settlements and fines.
So not only was their research not reproducible, but it was forged with malice aforethought.
If someone is being unobjective for whatever reason such as bribes then that isn't science.
That's fantastic, and where dose that leave us then? Constantly on the backfoot? Where the industry is allowed to treat our osteoporosis with Fosamax and we should just assume that Fosamax treats osteoporosis on their say so alone and ignore the fact that Nuremberg fundamentally prevents them from meaningfully testing the safety and efficacy of Fosamax? Or are we just supposed to nod like little lemmings and ignore the fact that *after* being subjected to the general population that Fosamax is associated with atypical femur osteoporosis? How's that for a cruel irony?
But it is a bit ridiculous to suggest this is all research of the 21st century.
I grant you that none of us have the time to play whack-a-mole 24/7, especially without pay, so conceivably some diamond in the rough might pop up.
... how does that undo Nuremberg?
This is also why state funded research is important so there is no corporate agenda.
Now THAT is ridiculous! So then how do you explain the Food Pyramid then? How precisely did industry stay out of that state-pushed abomination?
I wanna be reasonable!
You're like the "both sides" of slavery, bro.
You are attempting to dismiss millions of medical breakthrough Bec a drug is addictive. You are even suggesting it doesn't work.
There is also way more to the medical field than drugs.
I highly recommend not ever seeking the services of a hospital.
You are attempting to dismiss millions of medical breakthrough Bec a drug is addictive.
a) No, on the basis of Nuremberg. Liar.
b) I gave 3 pointed examples of corruption, 2 of which had nothing to do with OxyContin.
c) In order to even get to OxyContin you'd have had to read through the Nuremberg bit first, charlatan.
You are even suggesting it doesn't work.
I "suggested" it started the opioid epidemic. Which it did.
Instead of trying to straw man me with this weak shit, how about you deal with my arguments?
There is also way more to the medical field than drugs.
I grant you that. But we're talking about reproducibility. That was your point. Why then are these problems in reproducibility in the medical field, broseph? Explain it to me, since you know so much about medical science compared to me.
Oh, so you don't want the problems to be fixed? It's okay for people to take an addictive drug when they were told it's not addictive? It's okay for a drug to treat osteoporosis to actually associate with an atypical form of osteoporosis? Informed consent of the patient be damned, then?
And for this great impropriety of me being an informed citizen? For voice criticism of justified shitty things that industry has done? For my public service of making you aware of what you were so clearly ignorant of? My thanks for that is to be blacklisted from care should I ever need it?
... and you wonder why the problems never get solved? You're not half as nice as you think you.
durr
hurr
faggot
He isn't talking about anything.
He is a transphobic snowflake trying to control people.
Loli UwU
If someone is being unobjective for whatever reason such as bribes then that isn't science
This is pure abstraction. What you call "not science" is occurring widely across every academic field, in every scientific journal and every scientific institution, where is is passed off as real science.
Think about theoretical physics. You had things like relativity, quantum electrodynamics and uncertainty emerge around 100 years ago. Within 25 years, these theories yielded products that produced more energy and human agency than the entirety of human civilization on Earth.
What has theoretical physics achieved in the last 50 years, when string theory came onto the scene? Literally nothing, and at immense cost and intellectual investment. We've barricaded theoretical physics (which is provably the single field with the greatest influence on mankind period, because it enabled advanced medicine, cheap energy and nuclear weapons) behind a completely pretentious notion of string theory. This wouldn't be an issue if string theorists didn't actively hunt and suppress literally all over avenues of theoretical physics in an extremely autocratic way.
Take for example what theoretical physics did to the USSR. In 1940, the peak of available Soviet technology was the ox-drawn hoe. It was the largest labor multiplier available across all of Russia. By 1950, the USSR had nuclear fission. It's so easy to forget how physics catapulted mankind into an entirely new paradigm of existence that would be regarded as impossible by all humans who came before.
Technology's pace has only increased. The pace of innovation, the amount of funds and intellectual resources have multiplied exponentially. Yet here we are, relying on the exact same technologies we were using in 1910; internal combustion, insulated wire, invasive surgery and vaccination.
This is absolutely not an organic occurrence. Science has been dogmatically manipulated and controlled.
There's a lot of truth to what this anon is saying. Lot of truth.
I agree with you bro, but I need this job
Retarded American take. There's numerous examples of scientists resigning after the a journal deliberately published a faulty paper, a classic one is Soon and Baliunas's Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years study. The walkout was a protest for the journal's lack of quality work to its scientific methodologies. Not everything is about the money.
And this man is dismantling the corrupt system.
Cool story retard.
Just a friendly reminder, no amount of science bashing will prove your god exists.
show me infinity on a sphere, you absolute fool. show me an infinity within an infinity. you believe in things just as made up as gods and demons
Apparently, someone is already lying about it
I don't actually, your tu quo que fallacy is both incorrect and fallacious, good work
What's the statistic? Greater than 60% of "peer reviewed" work is not replicable.
Also, the funding system itself produces bias-- some things not deemed politically or socially correct won't be funded and to even try to pursue them is career death. Journals won't publish them and "peers" will not sign off on them for review.
Department chairs won't approve the research and committees won't let grad students choose it for thesis projects.
And if you are approved for something, the funding will dry up if your results aren't what people want to hear. Anything at all with political or cultural implications is a tight rope walk, so much so that only people with ideological reason with choose them as a field of study.
I don't actually
so you agree science is made up? thanks
right, and you typed this on your dad's laptop that was developed by religion lol
you're too obvious, MSS shill.
So, your government chooses what scientists are allowed to study and what results will be published and followed up on? Sounds great. /s
I don’t think the academic establishment realizes how much credibility they learned by virtue signalling on shit like BLM and tranny kids.
The worst offender is the Global Warming™ hoax pushed by certain corporations to forced us to change our lifestyle and purchase their products.
and yes, my tu quoque is fallacious to the argument youre making. but me pointing out that eating vomit is just as bad as eating diarrhea is why i dont want to discuss the benefits of eating vomit and would rather take a step back and argue the bigger picture.
but hey, enjoy your shit and piss vomit party.
If the government already has a conclusion for a study why are they wasting funds on hiring scientists in the first place? You're terrible at this. -/s
How is it made up? When scientific achievements allow you to easily access the internet and show the world how retarded you are with that "argument"?
For someone who thinks the almighty creator of the universe has their back you seem oddly scared to engage honestly
Oh you're capable of making an actual argument?
Go ahead
Vaccination is interesting because it's one of the oldest medical practices in the world. The other oldest practice is the consumption of human waste to boost the gut biome (aka yellow soup.) Both of these practices originate in predynastic China as far as we can tell.
What people tend to be unaware of is that vaccination fell out of favor very quickly during the late industrialization period enjoyed by the west when social and labor reform took place. When children and the elderly were no longer being forced to work, when sanitation and plumbing became ubiquitous, and when simple hot water became a commodity even the impoverished could access (especially in urban areas) the spread of infectious disease in the west abruptly fell off. This is demonstrated in all of the data.
All of the vaccines deployed after this point (polio, tb, typhoid, mumps) differed from those that came before;
In the past, vaccines were produced during outbreaks by the doctor who would use thermal or chemical means to reduce the infectivity of viruses in infected tissues and then transplant that tissue into a vaccination subject. Common diseases had their vaccines dried for storage in case of isolated events when a living host could not be accessed. This practice hadn't changed in thousands of years until the moment industrial medicine arrived on the scene, with the intention of creating vaccines that have the maximum shelf life and efficacy. The issue we see emerge is that we've gone from crafting a medicine for an individual and moved to creating a viable product that has requirements beyond mere human health; It must be administrable by untrained physicians, it must be shelf stable, it must be inexpensive.
It's no surprise that all of these industrially derived vaccines had enormous PR campaigns behind them. Notice also how each of them only became viable the moment an epidemic reached its zenith. This is how marketing works: creating/inflating demand. Fear does the rest.
Just a friendly reminder, no amount of science bashing will prove your god exists.
I'm an atheist. Why do you assume that just because someone is against big corrupt corporations that means they must automatically be some religious person?
if the government is at peace, why do we have a standing military?
why on earth would a government not size itself down when they become obsolete?
you believe in things just as made up as gods and demons
nigger can you read?
access the internet
are fidget spinners science? you can act like a retard if you want, but thats not the science we're talking about. show me infinity. ill wait (forever, since thats possible according to science, but not god)
Haha yeah right, only brainwashed christcucks have an axe to grind against 'science'
(Because its proves your god is made up lol)
Science has done more harm than good for the past 50 years. Instead of helping those with mental instability it instead destroy their body and mind changing them into monsters. An example is transexualism.
It's not that they have a conclusion, it's that they've made a conclusion and only fund or approve things which meet their goals.
Don't be so fucking naive.
>you believe in things just as made up as gods and demons
nigger can you read?
Sure, but you can't. I already told you that isn't true. If you're gonna assign people strawman arguments go argue at a mirror.
You clearly need the practice
right, and you typed this on your dad's laptop that was developed by religion lol
non sequiter. Who even mentioned religion at all? I'm an atheist btw, but that's irrelevant to this topic.
(Because its proves your god is made up lol)
I don't have a god. I told you I'm atheist.
Nevertheless, you're fake "science" is bullshit. I only support real science. Not corporations.
I'm an atheist btw,
Lying for 'Street cred' on the internet? Thats pretty sad
that isn't true
so you admit science is made up. thanks
Haha I'm glad you're aware my position is unassailable. Concession accepted
different dictionaries exist so you're lying
I'm assuming you're not just bickering and want a good faith discussion. If that's the case, you need to consider the actual meaning of the word itself not its semantic dictionary definition.
You'll also find this relevant.
Religion as a concept is a modern invention. The word "religion" comes from the Roman religio, which literally translates to "scrupulousness"
So using the word religion to refer to the worlds of say judaism, christianity, buddhism, taoism, is purely an academic practice that has no real central definition or application in religious history.
This means the only functional definition for "Religion" that respects actual historical perspective is a definition that is not recursive.
The definition you gave includes "superhuman powers" and "Gods" which are terms that cannot be defined without first defining religion. It's the same thing as saying
The definition of religion is a set of religious practices and beliefs
The more accepted definition today is the one premised on logic and that's the one I gave.
Having a belief that concerns the universe in terms of function or scope is a religion. They would have called it that in the past and we still call it that now.
Retarded American take.
Lmao, okay, go on.
There's numerous examples of scientists resigning after the a journal deliberately published a faulty paper-
Sure, it happens. Typically they just toss in some other tosser who will do what's needed to be done.
- a classic one is Soon and Baliunas's Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years study. The walkout was a protest for the journal's lack of quality work to its scientific methodologies. Not everything is about the money.
Well that's rich. Climatology also suffers from lack of reproducibility. Prediction is also tricky because it's not like we have an Earth 2 replica out in space that is exactly like our home planet of Earth only we can change the climate at will to then run the experiment of what happens when X changes.
Lying for 'Street cred' on the internet? Thats pretty sad
Its not a lie.
　　　▲
　　▲ ▲
Why i provided a better definition that people actually use, instead of shopping around for one that'll suit your argument.
Bro, he knows. He's trying to rustle your jimmies.
You think he's not a christcuck? How strange
Standing military has nothing to do with what is being argued here. You're overreaching. Using historical examples and Realism from the international relations theory, all nations and states are anarchic and this applies to the global system where all nations are only self-interest. Military expansions and advancements are the result of nations competing for their own gain. If America were to suddenly deploy troops on the border of Canada and do military exercises, Canada would response with equal amount of pressure on its border for a show of force. Again nothing to do with whats being argued here so stop bringing topics you've no clue about.
So they're wasting funds for the sake of it to show everyone that they're legitimate "science"? Why even pay scientists to do the work in the first place? Again you're terrible at this.
Don't be a fucking retard.
you didnt really state your position other than saying "god isnt real" which, as i explained to you, im not trying to argue. youre right, that position is unassailable.
Lets both put our cards on the table, neither of us are experts when it comes to environmental issues and we both rely on our expects when it comes to this topic but you can't be serious when you don't understand how to do the math and then proclaimed that you won out of sheer ignorance?
Is this where this is going right out?
Prediction is also tricky because-
nigga i was making a point about government spending by showing you the exact same budgeting mentality within a different department. not my fault it went over your head
My logic is still true using your definition it simply requires different precepts. That's how definitions work.
Atheism is a religion. Belief in scientific cosmology is a religion.
It's extremely easy to provide the logic that explains this; being aware of events that occurred tens of billions of years of years ago is superhuman. Making a statement about a capital G God universally describes the creation of a universe or transition between them; that is the function of all gods in all belief systems.
Any scientific attempt to describe the beginning of a universe is a discussion of Gods in any context. Especially academic. I challenge you to find any formative paper about the big bang's accepted theories that does not mention ancient creation belief (religion) in some way.
Surprise, the ones telling you to ignore the science are also being paid off by big monied interests. You're fucked either way.
You think he's not a christcuck? How strange
Religion is also a racket.
what about the exxon scientists who discovered that climate change not only exists, but that the oil industry was the biggest active contributor to manmade climate disaster? leading to exxon mobile staunchly fighting any climate change/disaster research later on in order to protect their bottom line?
or what about the russian scientists who discovered/pioneered fracking, so gazprom decided to start misinformation campaigns targeting countries where fracking could undermine russia's bottom line in the oil industry? are those scientists the 3% you're talking about
Correct. Industrialization and cooperation corruption is the death of ethical doctors.
There's a lot of truth to what this anon is saying. Lot of truth.
You were never making a point, you're just retarded and don't pretend otherwise.
Everything you need to find true information exists in an accessible form now for the first time in history. You just need critical thinking and literacy to navigate it and discern lies.
You're only fucked if you are incapable of being logical and literate. Think about the fact Plato created the platonic solids, the foundation of all geometry and science while just having conversations with other people. People have always been capable of incredible wisdom regardless of their situation or limitations. In the most information-dense period of human history what is your excuse?
ourobouros is the point im making. things have to keep rolling, and governments have to keep themselves relevant with multiple layers of redundancy. this is why your tax money is being spent to store seeds in the arctic. governments only expand, its what they do.
there, i did the thinking for you because thinking is impossible for you.
Poor memory too? Oof
Just a friendly reminder, no amount of science bashing will prove your god exists.
the very first hing i said to you is
[science] is just as made up as gods and demons
are you pretending to be retarded?
whoops looks like Russians didn't pioneer fracking, Russians just fought fracking initiatives with misinformation campaigns as sponsored by Gazprom. but looks like everything else there is true
Haha big time incorrect. Isn't it obvious I reject your definition?
Any scientific attempt to describe the beginning of a universe is a discussion of Gods in any context.
Also wrong. I get this tu quo que fallacy is your last resort but much like all previous arguments for your god, it fails.
Lets both put our cards on the table-
Sure.
- neither of us are experts when it comes to environmental issues-
And that is because there is no such thing as an "expert" in this field. You have beguiled by big words and fancy letterhead. Without the ability to do direct experimentation? Science falls flat.
It is just that simple. And people can cry and whine about it or they can come to terms with the limitations of science.
- and we both rely on our expects-
(I'm assuming you meant "experts")
No we don't. That's you. That's just you (and unfortunately the predominate majority of people on the face of the planet because their education systems failed them, they're over-burdened in their personal lives, and the study of science is a dry endeavor)
- when it comes to this topic but you can't be serious when you don't understand how to do the math-
One does not need to work out the math problem if the first principles aren't there. I don't have to sit there and work out how many apples Timmy has after he's eaten 3 if it's discovered Timmy never had apples to begin with and the question is then phrased nonsensically.
and then proclaimed that you won out of sheer ignorance?
... where did I proclaim victory...?
Is this where this is going right out?
Prediction is also tricky because-
Okay. So how does one get cause and effect without an experiment? Basic first principles.
Ah projecting already? That was quick.
science] is just as made up as gods and demons
Thinking this makes you the retard here
show me infinity within infinity.
why would fracking hurt Russia's bottom line such that they'd sponsor state-sanctioned misinformation campaigns ? any guesses, intellectuals?
The logic is very simple:
You must describe the entire body of science as it is understood. The only way to do this without jumping between undefined ideas is to start with the beginning, and talk about how the primordial energy of the big bang condensed as is stipulated.
First we had primordial energy without volume, then we had quarks, then we had photons...
You must describe your religion. This job has been done many times for us, that's what a religious text is.
God created the formless and empty heavens and the Earth, then light, then darkness...
It's exactly the same belief system.
Infinity within infinity is just infinity. Or, there's infinit infinites within infinity.
Also what's the point?
it's because russia is a command economy which makes most of its money from oil/gas sales via Gazprom. And guess which company Putin had ties to before his ascension... any guesses intellectuals?
what about the exxon scientists who discovered that climate change not only exists
The fact that the Sahara used to be lush is proof that climate changes. The fact we've found flash frozen mammoth carcasses with foliage still in their mouths is proof that climate can change quite quickly. So we have effect down. The problem is *cause*. We don't know what caused the Sahara do desertify. We do not know what caused the mammoths to flash freeze.
We'd need to run an EXPERIMENT and test various hypotheses in order to establish CAUSE to EFFECT.
Capiche?
but that the oil industry was the biggest active contributor to manmade climate disaster?
Well that's a lie. Not only does that presume that CO2 will lead to a man-made climate disaster, but it also ignores natural sources of CO2. It further ignores that the CO2 being released by man isn't actually "man-made." It is carbon that was already free-floating in the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period, and far from being a lifeless husk of a planet, the planet had an inordinate amount of biomass.
leading to exxon mobile staunchly fighting any climate change/disaster research later on in order to protect their bottom line?
Because even if Exxon is right for the wrong reasons, the public is scientifically illiterate either way and public opinion is very much malleable.
"the logic is very simple"
makes a logical fallacy
I guess not eh? Least not for you lol
ain't no capiche, exxon mobile scientists literally determined scientifically all the way back in the 1970's that climate change was exacerbated by human development. we applied what they learned for example to fix the ozone layer in our lifetimes. there is no debate that humans are helping to drive climate change and have the capacity to shape climate change
Capiche?
show it to me. show me infinity. in real life. since its real, show it to me.
inb4 "the ozone layer isn't climate change!!!"
what would happen if the ozone layer remained fucked up homie? climate change would accelerate
It's OK that you are religious anon. It's part of being human.
Playing out the charade of hating what you really are on a level of belief is a surefire way to make your subconscious work against you.
I never said it was real, and if it were I doubt we could perceive/comprehend it with a finite mind.
Ah copying me now? I'm flattered
I never said it was real
great, thanks
This the part where you pretend that equals science not being real?
Renaissance conservatives: "Don't believe that 'science' crap about the Earth revolving around the Sun. Do your own research. It's obvious the sun revolves around the Earth!"
science denialism should be ridiculed at every level
christian denialism should be ridiculed at every level
My first reply to you was clearly an implication of your religious ideology, so I'm not copying you.
Have I said anything to indicate my beliefs?
Are you lost? I have no religious ideology
In sum, the 1616 event was not the beginning of a 17-year-long trial, as is often said, but a non-trial,
Galileo’s actual trial lasted for only a fraction of a single day, with no fanfare at all.
Galileo’s writings on helicentrism were published with papal approval
Pope Pius VII approved a decree by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of books advocating the theory in Rome
Sorry your religious leaders lied to you in your religious doctrine books and religious schools.
newsroom.ucla.edu
So they're wasting funds for the sake of it to show everyone that they're legitimate "science"?
Are you being intentionally dense or are you really this fucking stupid?
No, they are only funding things that they approve of. And if the results aren't what they like, they stop the funding.
God damned, are you a certified retard? Did you get extra time on tests and such?
i mean i cant see infinity anywhere. and neither can you?
Evangelize:
1. To preach the gospel
2. To say how good something is
Science is a system that describes the nature and purpose of the universe, and has its own ideas of gods and miracles.
You are a religious evangelist.
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.
Stop trying to shoehorn your modern politics into the past. It doesn't fit and makes you look like an idiot.
ain't no capiche-
hoo boy...
- exxon mobile scientists literally determined scientifically all the way back in the 1970's that climate change was exacerbated by human development. we applied what they learned for example to fix the ozone layer in our lifetimes.
So lets break down that process so you stop making poorly formed statements.
So what happened is that damage was already done to the ozone. Not hypothetical damage, not a prediction of potential damage sometime down the road, no. Damage had already been done. Through observation it was hypothesized that CFCs might be the culprit and we ultimately bet that hypothesis was more likely than not. Ran with it. And when the ozone started repairing the hypothesis was vindicated.
It's an important lesson that just because something is hypothetical doesn't mean it's necessarily false, granted.
You're attempting to piggy back off that to suggest that any other hypothesis they made must then be vindicated. That's not how science works.
there is no debate that humans are helping to drive climate change and have the capacity to shape climate change
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean you've then proven CO2 is driving the planet into a climate disaster.
Capiche?
it wasn’t until 1822 that Pope Pius VII approved a decree by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of books advocating the theory in Rome.
1822, more than 200 years after heliocentrism was proposed as a theory.
How long did you have to shop around for the definition?
Are you approaching a point? Just skip to the end so I can laugh at you
Since you didn't read the link:
trial is held in 1633
pope authorizes publication of galileo's heliocentric material by 1720
by 1822 the inquisition enacts a decree to publicize the theory
Does this really sound like they hated the idea the way you were told? The so-called trial was extrajudicial even by inquisition standards and yielded no verdict on the original charge
Yep. For a long time, only rich kids who were the sons of wealthy and powerful families could do controversial science as a hobby. Anyone without wealth and political connections soon found themselves tied to a stake in the middle of a bonfire. Professional scientists not of the ruling class or beholden to one of them weren't a thing until the 1800s. And it's rather returning to that situation via a corrupted grant system, and academic administrations that kow tow to politicians and wealthy corporations.
Just so we're clear the sole argument you've made to this point is that the Oxford Dictionary is the only dictionary that is valid. This is not how language works. Words have layers of meaning.
This behavior further proves my point about religious evangelism.
Put on trial, forced to publicly renounce his "heresy"
On the list of forbidden books for over 200 years
The church officially apologized and said he was unfairly persecuted in the 2010s.
ThEy ReAlLy LoVeD hElioCenTrisM
You're an idiot.
you probably suck your uncle off out of long-standing training under his gay tutelage
science is great. faggot ops are not
Funny, that's not my argument at all.
i believe i made my point clear in my very first post at you
Why do liberals bring gay shit in to every discussion? What is it with the obsession by the left?
The trials weren't public. The only detailed accounts of the trial come from Galileo's own writings.
Dialogues on the Two World Systems was the only heliocentric forbidden book by the church and many other heliocentric publications existed.
The church apologized in 1992 after an investigation by Pope John Paul II started in 1989, not the 2010s.
The Papal press published galileo's writings less than 90 years after the trial.
Clearly the narrative of him being under house arrest for 20 years is false. There is not record of it even in his own writings.
why did there need to be a trial at all? institutions have always feared the truth
published galileo's writings less than 90 years
So, it was on the list of forbidden books and not published in his lifetime.
What point are you trying to make? Galileo was wealthy and powerful and protected by friends who kept his punishment light? That there was a plea agreement?
OK, "justice" always favors the wealthy and powerful. It still doesn't change the fact that heliocentrism was publicly declared a heresy and that didn't change for 200 years. That it was published for scholarly review within church circles is meaningless. The church controlled research in that era, not secular authorities. There was no open enquiry as in the modern era.
You're examining this as if things worked then like they work now, which is a patently false assumption.
I take it this is mostly Catholic apologetics, even though the church publicly admitted that they had unfairly persecuted Galileo
show me infinity on a sphere, you absolute fool. show me an infinity within an infinity. you believe in things just as made up as gods and demons
I hope for your sake I've quoted the wrong person. Or is there something else you're accusing me of believing thats as made up as gods and demons?
what was the inquisition and why did it exist
Brother, legalism and religious government are extremely closely related. A religion with clear laws mandates a legal approach to its affairs, social, scientific, economic or otherwise this is one of the most prevalent ways human civilization has acquired social values.
By just saying "the catholic church hated galileo" is a moronic oversimplification that is in many ways not true. Most of history is in fact like this; textbooks carefully select from the vast scope of historical fact and cherry-pick to inform their ideological narrative.
I am a lab technician and sometimes I just fudge the numbers so I don't have to repeat tests and can go back to eating snacks in the break room. Science is not a respectable field anymore, and I say this as an insider, even worse are those on the academic side.
So, it was on the list of forbidden books and not published in his lifetime.
Anon, 2 things:
Galileo did not have 1 book. There were numerous writings disseminated in different ways across decades. Galileo was not the only one involved in this.
Secondly, we're in a period of history when every single book had to be written by hand by the clergy. The idea that your supposedly 'heretic' writing gets published at all is already a huge deal. Nobody back then in Italy was having their "book published" unless it was doctrinal text.
There is a lot more nuance to this.
An actual scientist is gonna love calling your results out on its bullshit
Does your dad work for Nintendo?
textbooks carefully select from the vast scope of historical fact and cherry-pick to inform their ideological narrative.
true, but such narratives are believable for a reason. institutions will do what they do. just as historians lie, so do preachers. question everything.
He had dozens of other published writings.
Something you'd know if you actually read the treatise you keep referencing is that it's a conversation between galileo, his friend and a third person whose dialog was compiled from a few different real philosophers galileo knew. He was absolutely not the only person doing this work.
Again, in galileo's own words in the introduction, he makes no assertions that the church was categorically attacking him. It only mentions how galileo was frustrated by the response of certain officials in certain places.
The second link is demonstrating I am correct about the nature of publishing in this period. In the religious center of Italy, galileo's work wouldn't have been published unless it was already firmly accepted.
The third link again is not contrary to my statement; only one of galileo's writings were on the list and plenty of heliocentric material already existed in the mainstream at the time.
Are we saying the church "rejected" the heliocentric theory simply because they did not immediately and blindly accept it without investigating it? We're talking about individuals not a monolithic entity.
Bruh nobody lies like preachers. Maybe politicians and lawyers would be a distant second.
Another popular phrase is that nobody likes people who are right.
What anime is this?
I wouldn't call that popular or relevant. Historians at best lie about past events to get fact checked by better historians or future archeologists.
Preachers lie about the fabric of reality, purpose, afterlife(s?), what it means to be human,moral, etc.
Historians at best lie about past events to get fact checked by better historians or future archeologists.
Saints at best lie about past events to get fact checked by better saints or future archeologists.
Preachers lie about the fabric of reality, purpose, afterlife(s?), what it means to be human,moral, etc.
Scientists lie about the fabric of reality, purpose, afterlife(s?), what it means to be human,moral, etc.
It's so obvious that science is playing the same function as religion in vast swaths of modern society. That's not the true purpose of science; the wise have always known this.
Legend of the Galactic Heroes
Oof was that a scary thought for you? You didn't even attempt to address the point.
Thanks. I might check it out.
Scientific teaching today has the same function as religious teaching. This doesn't have to be the case. For example, if our physics could unify and explain common terrestrial events like ball lightning and magnetic reconnection, we should use that system to develop technology and better our civilization.
If our "science" tells us we can know exactly what happened over 10 billion years ago by building a 60 trillion dollar machine we are being exploited by a religious authority. There is no difference between being forced to pay a tithe to the church for their cathedrals and being forced to pay taxes for government grants for particle colliders and neutrino detectors.
We don't need any of that. Only corrupt religious zealots want or need to answer those questions. Normal non fanatical humans want science to make us live longer, better lives without damaging nature or ourselves.
All that typing to avoid my point. I hope someday you're ready for this conversation.
Oh and by the way, science cannot explain ball lightning, or magnetic reconnection, or geomagnetic patterns, or even simple electrochemical processes like piezoluminescence or cavitation. We know that collapsing a bubble of gas at the right speed will produce more energy than nuclear fusion but nobody seems to care about that.
You can trap common transplutonics in liquid metal and bombard it with an electron beam and cause nuclear fusion on a dining room table with net gain (they did it at Los Alamos) but nobody cares about that.
All "science" seems to care about is figuring out who their God is. Being obsessed with the start of time and the concept of thermodynamics, which is used as a set of religious laws.
Having literacy and basic communication skills makes thoughtful replies much easier than you might think.
No, I am not describing false equivalence and I already gave you my proofs. If you want to argue why the definitions I gave don't work go ahead, but I know you would have already if you were willing.
I enjoy helping people anon, so I have no issue being that opportunity for anyone.
Aight, bye coward.
Emotional language is exclusively used in situations when the rationale for an emotional experience in the individual outweighs reason
science is great
It is when its actual science. But OP's point about big monied fake (((science))) is correct and you can't refute it.
You've shown zero interest in reason. If any emotion its boredom, side of pity maybe.
Me saying you have the position of a religious evangelist was substantiated. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence insisting this accusation didn't offend you when you haven't given any argument to counter any of my numerous points.
Yes. Science bad. Now go to work, eat the slop, watch the ballsport, get excited for the next [$PRODUCT], pay your taxes, and don't ask questions.
don't you fucking dare reading books
Funny how all science fiction warns us of the duplicity of the current technological and scientific narrative
Science bad.
Science isn't bad. But "science" is.
the only thing they use your "science" for is war and commerce. so commerce. your scientists are all employed by capitalists, globalists, and warmongers.
Yeah you've cracked the code, I don't take kindly to people telling lies about me. You can pick up your nobel prize on your way out.
substantiated
Least you got jokes
The thing you clearly care more about is being wrong. It's OK to be a religious person who takes pride in evangelizing their belief; just don't expect intelligent people not to recognize this practice for what it is.
Well sure that's why I'm not religious, I prefer to have justification for my beliefs.
We can keep going if you'd like, there's many reason my ideology is superior.
Yep and a example, "science" says that circumcision is a good thing. Do you really trust that?
Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you sound when you say that? You have no idea what money laundering is.
Science says its whatever, you're thinking of jews.
plenty of non jewish country practice circumcision for many reason. you fucking "pro science" ignorant retards obsessed with jews
It's always the dumbest, most ignorant mfs talking the most shit.
There's a reason rates are higher in the US than in Europe. And by jews I also mean their spin offs
count the muslim countries in this jaypeg for me will you? god you are a big obsessed retard
I'm not religious
there's many reason my ideology is superior.
bro really checkmated himself
We only counting Christians as one spinoff? There's like 50k variations. But yeah Muslims don't, the dick chopping must be an older book in the Torah
Oh you also conflating the words religion and ideology? This whole using words wrong thing must get real tedious
yeah 99.8% MC in Afghanistan, must be some jewish tricks at play huh? fkn idiot
nta dumbfuck go cry about being a closeted zealot for mUh ScIeNcE
replies to everyone as if it's the same person you lost an argument to
Ah so you were being dishonest before. Muslims do circumcise btw
neither of which answer the question, curious
in what way was i being dishonest? the guy is blaming circumcision on jews. im saying that circumcision is deeper than Judaism and i posted data to prove it.
alright, its really difficult to have interesting conversations when there is literally only absolute fucking unironic retards around.
You're aware Islam and Christianity come from Judaism right?
You're not supposed to trust science implicitly, your supposed to be able to tell the difference between good data and bad data. You are supposed to be able to discern for yourself what is credible and what is not.
Worrisome, seeing as you are religious and your baseline requirement for proof that something is no proof at all.
We already discussed this. You failed to present a counter argument and insisted religion has 1 agreed upon definition.
As I said, you are clearly offended and agitated by the fact you are realizing you are a religious evangelist but you shouldn't shoot the messenger.
He has no standard of evidence and assumes the same is true of everyone, ya know, projection
you're supposed to be able to reproduce a result using the same methods. anybody can fabricate data
Criticizing academia means you're religious?
Ah so you are.
See how much easier it is when you answer the question the person your speaking to is asking?
This is how a conversation works
Pretty much yeah
This guy's lying.
They never let me review any of their shit.
Too late, pal.
Cat's out of the bag.
They didn't criticize academia, Einstein. They went for the wholesale discrediting of science based on obviously bad science.
There are only 3 kinds of people who would do that; religious, retarded or both. It's a very safe bet given the nature of the bullshit they voiced.
Who determines what's bad science?
Nothing I've said describes quality or quantity of anything that could constitute religious faith. You've done the opposite by explaining your religion, agreeing on its precepts and also valuing it above all others.
And your replies will continue as you cannot process being called religious and not having any way of arguing to the contrary.
Nothing I've said describes quality or quantity of anything that could constitute religious faith.
Which has nothing to do with what I said.
You've done the opposite by explaining your religion, agreeing on its precepts and also valuing it above all others.
Wrong on all counts, you're too afraid to engage with my 'religion' much less get that far.
Better science or scientists, or just different ones I suppose