|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Feb 28, 2018 16:09:01 GMT
No. In fact we are supposed to be skeptical of them. The whole point of science is to remove faith from the equation. That’s why “consensus” is such a noxious concept. Liberals don’t even really believe it. They say they do, and it sounds authoritative (which they love). But in practice, liberals are even more likely than conservatives to distrust Science on the most intimate issues in their own lives, like what food they eat. Imagine Patrick Bateman in America Psycho preaching about the ills of materialism as he fills his New York apartment with yuppie crap. We all know we shouldn’t drink alcohol even as we imbibe to the point of full on intoxication. There’s a difference between what we believe in principle and what we belive in any specific instance.
Science is the new surrogate religion and we desperately need to shake it off. It’s in a terrible state and bound to get worse, if we allow it by having faith in it generally. That’s what enables it to get by on prestige in place of rigor. Before Noam Chompsky was famous, he was publishing academic papers, in many fields. One of them was math, where he saw the difference firsthand when they didn’t ask him personal questions like what degrees he had, who his friends were, and what else he had done. Who could care? It was math. But when he published in the sciences, that’s what they wanted to know. That’s because math was about math but science wasn’t about science. Science was something else.
We all used to trust Science and now we’re trusting it less, for good reason, and we all know this is what’s going on no matter how much we rationalize it. Bad actors are taking advantage of the good will that had been built into Science and now it’s not so good anymore. We see when the government insists at a cost of billions of dollars that we push underqualified women into STEM. That’s just asking for trouble, and we all know it instinctively. You can’t hide it. We see when others stand to gain from Scientific policy declarations. We’re not stupid. We may not always know the details, but we don’t have to. Public health never even steps foot in a laboratory. It’s all surveys and correlation. While we may comply with the Food Pyramid, that may have more to do with forced regulations than beliefs, like subsidies for corn syrup.
Science sees the writing on the wall and is scrambling to shore up public trust. Not with more rigor of course. They’ve got a cottage industry of shrinks to diagnose our mental inadequacies. The solution they say is we just need more schooling, more propaganda bombardment. So why did we have more faith in science in the past when we had less schooling? No answer. Russian Facebook ads maybe? Psychological manipulation techniques, like ridiculing non-believers as “anti-science”, only works for liberals with an inferiority complex. Doing more to persuade us to trust something not worthy of trust, failing to address the root of the problem, will just foment this schism. Covering up the problem creates a feedback loop whereby Scientists can behave even more badly and just rely on public relations. Maybe they’re closing in and the exodus will be silenced violently. What are Scientific ethics boards for if not censorship?
Discuss:
|
|
|
|
Post by Joc Spader on Feb 28, 2018 19:42:53 GMT
No. They say the sun is 93 million miles away. Just them worshiping satan = three 9s upside down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Earthlings on Feb 28, 2018 20:14:38 GMT
No. They say the sun is 93 million miles away. Just them worshiping satan = three 9s upside down. Of course not. A whole group of them got caught lying about global warming. If they lie about that they will lie about anything. |
|
|
|
Post by peachy on Feb 28, 2018 23:09:18 GMT
No. They are in the pocket of government and depend on grant funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Mar 1, 2018 0:19:23 GMT
No. They are in the pocket of government and depend on grant funding. Thats the problem exactly, although I love capitalism, capitalism endows people with money to buy politicians and they in turn use governments power to eff things up, in this case give grants to highly educated people supposedly using science to look for answers. Slap the label "science" on their findings and morons automatically buy it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 4:41:31 GMT
The whole point of science is to remove faith from the equation
Well it can be used to try to remove it but it doesnt mean it was designed for that
I went to catholic school and we had priests teaching us science.
In my 2nd year in high school we were taught that the old testament was all parables to build a faith on, not fact becuase many things did not add up( no dinosaurs for one)
the New testament was based more on fact
They made a point about how If Adam and Eve had 2 kids- Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel- how did humans come later? Did Cain have sex with his mom to get her pregnant? Well in the Old Testament, Adam sent Cain away and said " to be careful of all who may hurt you."If there was only 3 people on earth at the time, who the hell is going to hurt him? So you see some things dont add up because its a story. A monsignor taught ms this.
The reason why they dropped that bombshell on us is because they said children needed to believe the Old testament was 100% fact to build a faith on it
I am a student of many sciences but that doesnt contradict my faith. I still can believe God invented the universe billions of years ago. Old testament was written by a bunch of Jews thousands of years ago to teach people right from wrong using parables. If you noticed Old testament is big on stories- yet News testament is mainly about Jesus + Co. biography.
|
|
|
|
Post by 𝔅𝔞𝔰𝔱𝔦𝔞𝔫 𝔅𝔞𝔩𝔱𝔥𝔞𝔷𝔞𝔯 𝔅𝔲𝔵 on Mar 1, 2018 11:29:25 GMT
Stopped reading after ‘No’.
|
|
essex
Pussy Galore
Posts: 76 
|
Post by essex on Mar 1, 2018 13:57:25 GMT
Yes and no. It depends on what agenda is behind the scientific research. Any area of academia, if driven by a political narrative, can be corrupted. Case in point, the Nazis used to create phony archeological digs to prove that the first humans were German.
The human element in any field can always be perverted to one end or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Mar 1, 2018 14:23:56 GMT
You shouldn't trust the scientists who insist on holding up development of robotics and artificial intelligence just
to spend more time working on giving "Emotions" to artificial intelligence and robots, which is a wrong turn.
Developing an "Empathy Algorithm" is one thing, but when you start giving artificial intelligence systems
negative emotions incorporated into their programming such as anger, jealousy, fear, and hatred
then what you end up with is many thousands of times more dangerous than any human or group
of humans could ever be, and not the good kind of dangerous, not the kind of dangerous
that could effectively be used as a weapon of warfare.
No, what you would end up with is an artificial intelligence that would quickly conclude
that either all or most humans either need to be managed like zoo animals or killed.
You don't want all of the artificially intelligent machines on the planet to come to
that conclusion at about the same time. Because that would quickly mean the end of
everything for everybody.
While that might be "cool" to see that in a movie or video game, it would not
be so awesome to be living that scenario out in real life.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Mar 1, 2018 15:40:13 GMT
You shouldn't trust the scientists who insist on holding up development of robotics and artificial intelligence just to spend more time working on giving "Emotions" to artificial intelligence and robots, which is a wrong turn. Developing an "Empathy Algorithm" is one thing, but when you start giving artificial intelligence systems negative emotions incorporated into their programming such as anger, jealousy, fear, and hatred then what you end up with is many thousands of times more dangerous than any human or group of humans could ever be, and not the good kind of dangerous, not the kind of dangerous that could effectively be used as a weapon of warfare. No, what you would end up with is an artificial intelligence that would quickly conclude that either all or most humans either need to be managed like zoo animals or killed. You don't want all of the artificially intelligent machines on the planet to come to that conclusion at about the same time. Because that would quickly mean the end of everything for everybody. While that might be "cool" to see that in a movie or video game, it would not be so awesome to be living that scenario out in real life. I agree. The last thing AI needs is emotion.if we create AI it should be built to take human orders without a care, period. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Mar 1, 2018 20:52:57 GMT
The whole point of science is to remove faith from the equationWell it can be used to try to remove it but it doesnt mean it was designed for that I went to catholic school and we had priests teaching us science. In my 2nd year in high school we were taught that the old testament was all parables to build a faith on, not fact becuase many things did not add up( no dinosaurs for one) the New testament was based more on fact They made a point about how If Adam and Eve had 2 kids- Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel- how did humans come later? Did Cain have sex with his mom to get her pregnant? Well in the Old Testament, Adam sent Cain away and said " to be careful of all who may hurt you."If there was only 3 people on earth at the time, who the hell is going to hurt him? So you see some things dont add up because its a story. A monsignor taught ms this. The reason why they dropped that bombshell on us is because they said children needed to believe the Old testament was 100% fact to build a faith on it I am a student of many scientists but that doesnt contradict my faith. I still can believe God invented the universe billions of years ago. Old testament was written by a bunch of Jews thousands of years ago to teach people right from wrong using parables. If you noticed Old testament is big on stories- yet News testament is mainly about Jesus + Co. biography. Science does not compete with religion because science is descriptive whereas religion is prescriptive. Science cannot tell you what to do and that’s why liberals are so lost. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Mar 1, 2018 20:59:54 GMT
Yes and no. It depends on what agenda is behind the scientific research. Any area of academia, if driven by a political narrative, can be corrupted. Case in point, the Nazis used to create phony archeological digs to prove that the first humans were German. The human element in any field can always be perverted to one end or another. Yeah... it’s not like we’re being told by scientific authorities that we’re all secretly black originating from Africa and that race doesn’t exist... Let’s drudge up that old boogie man, “Nazi science”. The Nazis also said sugar makes you fat, and so the allies tossed out all that research and our obesity rate skyrocketed. If it weren’t for those darn Nazis we wouldn’t have had to do that! Go back even further and our psychiatrists were telling the slaves that they were mentally ill for running away from their masters. The point is this isn’t about agenda. It’s about the fundamental nature of science. Anyone who asks for trust isn’t a scientist. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Mar 1, 2018 21:00:57 GMT
You shouldn't trust the scientists who insist on holding up development of robotics and artificial intelligence just to spend more time working on giving "Emotions" to artificial intelligence and robots, which is a wrong turn. Developing an "Empathy Algorithm" is one thing, but when you start giving artificial intelligence systems negative emotions incorporated into their programming such as anger, jealousy, fear, and hatred then what you end up with is many thousands of times more dangerous than any human or group of humans could ever be, and not the good kind of dangerous, not the kind of dangerous that could effectively be used as a weapon of warfare. No, what you would end up with is an artificial intelligence that would quickly conclude that either all or most humans either need to be managed like zoo animals or killed. You don't want all of the artificially intelligent machines on the planet to come to that conclusion at about the same time. Because that would quickly mean the end of everything for everybody. While that might be "cool" to see that in a movie or video game, it would not be so awesome to be living that scenario out in real life. Hillary Clinton wants to hold back AI because it’s racist. I’m not even kidding. This is literally true. |
|
essex
Pussy Galore
Posts: 76
|
Post by essex on Mar 1, 2018 21:41:29 GMT
Yes and no. It depends on what agenda is behind the scientific research. Any area of academia, if driven by a political narrative, can be corrupted. Case in point, the Nazis used to create phony archeological digs to prove that the first humans were German. The human element in any field can always be perverted to one end or another. Yeah... it’s not like we’re being told by scientific authorities that we’re all secretly black originating from Africa and that race doesn’t exist... Let’s drudge up that old boogie man, “Nazi science”. The Nazis also said sugar makes you fat, and so the allies tossed out all that research and our obesity rate skyrocketed. If it weren’t for those darn Nazis we wouldn’t have had to do that! Go back even further and our psychiatrists were telling the slaves that they were mentally ill for running away from their masters. The point is this isn’t about agenda. It’s about the fundamental nature of science. Anyone who asks for trust isn’t a scientist. Any particular reason you take offense to me using the Nazis as an example? Seems odd that you'd focus on that. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Mar 1, 2018 23:27:39 GMT
Yeah... it’s not like we’re being told by scientific authorities that we’re all secretly black originating from Africa and that race doesn’t exist... Let’s drudge up that old boogie man, “Nazi science”. The Nazis also said sugar makes you fat, and so the allies tossed out all that research and our obesity rate skyrocketed. If it weren’t for those darn Nazis we wouldn’t have had to do that! Go back even further and our psychiatrists were telling the slaves that they were mentally ill for running away from their masters. The point is this isn’t about agenda. It’s about the fundamental nature of science. Anyone who asks for trust isn’t a scientist. Any particular reason you take offense to me using the Nazis as an example? Seems odd that you'd focus on that. Yeah. The Nazis aren’t any kind of aberration. Anything they may have done they learned from Americans first (especially wartime atrocities like gas chambers, concentration camps, fluoride, euthanasia). Singling them out reeks of the same kind of authoritarian written history that says we should trust scientists (except Mengele). Mad scientists trying to sew twins together aren’t your problem. Science isn’t in a bad way because some flunkie stole grant money. In fact it’s the opposite. It’s the so called respectable scientists who are most dangerous by virtue of the respect they command. We need to devalue them, socially. Vaccines are not sacrosanct. Whether they work or cause autism or whatever, making them with aluminum adjuvants in order to skimp on the precious antigens is an obvious angle for improvement that can’t even be discussed in media for fear that public trust will be lost which is ironically why it should be lost. Science isn’t religion. Plus I happen to be really really pro Nazi. Jews used vaccines to kill Christian babies in the Lubeck Vaccine Disaster. Happy? |
|
