|
|
Post by Benfxmth on Feb 25, 2023 7:50:23 GMT -5
Similar to the thread regarding dumb shit people say about the weather, this is about science in general. Please don't bring politics in here lol. 1. (A)GW is fake and we can't impact the climate 2. Lizard people 3. Astrology, alchemy in general 3. The moon landing was fake ^A few above that are off the top of my head. |
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on Feb 25, 2023 8:32:11 GMT -5
"Vaccines cause autism" and related conspiracy theories.
And the opposite extreme of OP's first example: anything along the lines of "the climate apocalypse is coming in 12 years", especially considering they've been saying shit like that for a lot longer than 12 years now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mörön on Feb 25, 2023 9:04:05 GMT -5
Obvious bait thread.
Anyway:
1. Calling someone "anti-science" because their views do not agree with mainstream consensus.
The point of science is to disagree, not to agree with consensus. But I know that is hard for small minds to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by kronan2 on Feb 25, 2023 9:06:40 GMT -5
Obvious bait thread. Anyway: 1. Calling someone "anti-science" because their views do not agree with mainstream consensus. The point of science is to disagree, not to agree with consensus. But I know that is hard for small minds to understand. yeah this vaccine hysteria has made me re-think some things about the human mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on Feb 25, 2023 9:22:19 GMT -5
Obvious bait thread. Anyway: 1. Calling someone "anti-science" because their views do not agree with mainstream consensus. The point of science is to disagree, not to agree with consensus. But I know that is hard for small minds to understand. Yep, sometimes the mainstream consensus is incorrect. Earth was long thought to be flat, it's still a widespread myth that you can get a cold from nothing but being out in the cold, and up until about 100 years ago, we didn't realize there was other stuff out there beyond our own galaxy. Shutting down anything one disagrees with as "anti-science!!" in spite of evidence, is itself anti-intellectual. |
|
|
|
Post by Benfxmth on Feb 25, 2023 11:10:24 GMT -5
Obvious bait thread. Anyway: 1. Calling someone "anti-science" because their views do not agree with mainstream consensus. The point of science is to disagree, not to agree with consensus. But I know that is hard for small minds to understand. Yep, sometimes the mainstream consensus is incorrect. Earth was long thought to be flat, it's still a widespread myth that you can get a cold from nothing but being out in the cold, and up until about 100 years ago, we didn't realize there was other stuff out there beyond our own galaxy. Shutting down anything one disagrees with as "anti-science!!" in spite of evidence, is itself anti-intellectual. Partly true, science isn't exactly perfect (there are lots of things we don't know and open questions). At the same time, though, science has advanced massively from the middle ages thanks to new technology, and this thread is meant to shit on anti-scientific/conspiracy fallacies that have been disproven/demonstrably false which people commonly cite (there's a big difference between the unknown and the myths). |
|
|
|
Post by Speagles84 on Feb 25, 2023 18:03:07 GMT -5
Obvious bait thread. Anyway: 1. Calling someone "anti-science" because their views do not agree with mainstream consensus. The point of science is to disagree, not to agree with consensus. But I know that is hard for small minds to understand. Interesting point is when this shift happened that "muh science muh experts" rules the day with no allowances for any dissonance |
|
|
|
Post by Speagles84 on Feb 25, 2023 18:05:17 GMT -5
Obvious bait thread. Anyway: 1. Calling someone "anti-science" because their views do not agree with mainstream consensus. The point of science is to disagree, not to agree with consensus. But I know that is hard for small minds to understand. Yep, sometimes the mainstream consensus is incorrect. Earth was long thought to be flat, it's still a widespread myth that you can get a cold from nothing but being out in the cold, and up until about 100 years ago, we didn't realize there was other stuff out there beyond our own galaxy. Shutting down anything one disagrees with as "anti-science!!" in spite of evidence, is itself anti-intellectual. It's beyond even anti intellectual, it's anti scientific as candle pointed out. Crack pots deserve a say, as it's quite easy to point out the holes in their argument. Scary when legitimate people are labeled Crack pots immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by Benfxmth on Feb 25, 2023 18:12:48 GMT -5
Science is science, it's cold-hard facts, evidence and logic found by scientists, whether it agrees with mainstream consensus or not. For example, the doomsday predictions of AGW causing the end of the world in 12 years from now are overblown and a bit arbitrary. Candle isn't completely wrong about that point, but on the other hand, outright ignoring it just to go against muh mainstream media isn't science, either, and more likely than not to agree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Feb 25, 2023 18:26:21 GMT -5
Yep, sometimes the mainstream consensus is incorrect. Earth was long thought to be flat
Actually, this is an urban legend to smear medieval people as uncivilised savages.
The myth of the flat Earth, or the flat-Earth error, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat.[1][2]
The earliest clear documentation of the idea of a spherical Earth comes from the ancient Greeks (5th century BC). The belief was widespread in the Greek world when Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of Earth around 240 BC. This knowledge spread with Greek influence such that during the Early Middle Ages (~600–1000 AD), most European and Middle Eastern scholars espoused Earth's sphericity.[3] Belief in a flat Earth among educated Europeans was almost nonexistent from the Late Middle Ages onward, though fanciful depictions appear in art, such as the exterior panels of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[4]
According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[6]
|
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on Feb 25, 2023 21:51:32 GMT -5
Yep, sometimes the mainstream consensus is incorrect. Earth was long thought to be flat Actually, this is an urban legend to smear medieval people as uncivilised savages. -Wikipedia snipped- Interesting. Today I learned! Pointing out that one of my examples was invalid doesn't do much to refute my premise though. |
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on Feb 26, 2023 0:35:36 GMT -5
^^^ You weren't alone in thinking that. It's still a widely held belief that Christopher Columbus feared sailing off the edge of the world. In reality, he and all other educated Europeans knew for a fact that the world was round, he was trying to find a western route to India. The only problem was that most calculations underestimated the size of the Earth, so he didn't anticipate the existence of the large American continent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marcelo on Feb 26, 2023 5:41:23 GMT -5
The mother of all wrong ideas about science must be the quote ‘it’s just a theory’.
The assumption that scientific theories are mere hypotheses, like the colloquial usage of the word ‘theory’ suggests.
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Mar 8, 2023 14:18:38 GMT -5
^^^ You weren't alone in thinking that. It's still a widely held belief that Christopher Columbus feared sailing off the edge of the world. In reality, he and all other educated Europeans knew for a fact that the world was round, he was trying to find a western route to India. The only problem was that most calculations underestimated the size of the Earth, so he didn't anticipate the existence of the large American continent. Even that's not quite correct. Most calculations weren't that far off but there was a lot of uncertainty. Columbus chose a method that gave a huge underestimate, possibly cause of wishful thinking. The Portuguese royal court rejected his idea partly because they thought his calculations are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Mar 8, 2023 14:23:12 GMT -5
It's beyond even anti intellectual, it's anti scientific as candle pointed out. Crack pots deserve a say, as it's quite easy to point out the holes in their argument. Scary when legitimate people are labeled Crack pots immediately. I disagree. Well they literally deserve a say in they have a right to say it. Responding to the same repeated stupid argument sometimes require quite a bit of time and some understanding of details. At some point crank ideas are no longer worth responding to and drown out actual thoughtful and informed ideas. The point of science is neither to disagree or agree with the consensus but to better understand reality. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Mar 8, 2023 14:33:45 GMT -5
And the opposite extreme of OP's first example: anything along the lines of "the climate apocalypse is coming in 12 years", especially considering they've been saying shit like that for a lot longer than 12 years now. a lot of science headlines are over-simplified interpretations by the media, or really someone else interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the science. For example, the 12 years to catastrophe comes from something like this… www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.The actual words from scientists is "will significantly worsen" not apocalypse but that got transformed somewhere. And it's 12 years or we'd reach a certain somewhat arbitrary threshold. And this is one group. Sometimes the mainstream consensus is incorrect, but most of the time it's found to be incorrect it's through better observations allowing us to prove the existing knowledge was wrong and our prior scientific technology was limited |
|
|
|
Post by Benfxmth on Mar 8, 2023 14:34:33 GMT -5
It's beyond even anti intellectual, it's anti scientific as candle pointed out. Crack pots deserve a say, as it's quite easy to point out the holes in their argument. Scary when legitimate people are labeled Crack pots immediately. I disagree. Well they literally deserve a say in they have a right to say it. Responding to the same repeated stupid argument sometimes require quite a bit of time and some understanding of details. At some point crank ideas are no longer worth responding to and drown out actual thoughtful and informed ideas. The point of science is neither to disagree or agree with the consensus but to better understand reality. My point exactly worded differently. Claiming "the point of science is to disagree, not agree" == being contrarian, but there's no need to blindly follow the mainstream consensus 100% of the time either. |
|
|
|
Post by Speagles84 on Mar 8, 2023 15:55:56 GMT -5
It's beyond even anti intellectual, it's anti scientific as candle pointed out. Crack pots deserve a say, as it's quite easy to point out the holes in their argument. Scary when legitimate people are labeled Crack pots immediately. I disagree. Well they literally deserve a say in they have a right to say it. Responding to the same repeated stupid argument sometimes require quite a bit of time and some understanding of details. At some point crank ideas are no longer worth responding to and drown out actual thoughtful and informed ideas. The point of science is neither to disagree or agree with the consensus but to better understand reality. Nobody is requiring a response, poorly substantiated ideas gain no Traction. Its concerning when legitimate sources are shut out for being Crack pots, not some moron on YouTube with 16 followers |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Mar 8, 2023 19:16:04 GMT -5
I disagree. Well they literally deserve a say in they have a right to say it. Responding to the same repeated stupid argument sometimes require quite a bit of time and some understanding of details. At some point crank ideas are no longer worth responding to and drown out actual thoughtful and informed ideas. The point of science is neither to disagree or agree with the consensus but to better understand reality. that's not what I was replying to. you said "crackpots deserve a say", not "legitimate sources are being treated as crack pots". As for crackpots, I would not feel said to see actual crack pots getting shut out, but the ones that attempted to be gatekeepers are biased, are often not actually that competent and don't have sense good science themselves. Rather difficult to have a good gatekeeper. |
|
|
|
Post by greysrigging on Apr 29, 2023 19:17:09 GMT -5
Trigonometry classes in 1953 and 2023  |
|
