Proxima [1879587]

It's true, my PhD is being funded by the illuminati

Proxima [1879587]

It's true, my PhD is being funded by the illuminati

Stente [1899758]

You also have a pretty huge duck? 

Proxima [1879587]

It's true, my PhD is being funded by the illuminati

-BeeReal- [1762864]

Genuinely not sure if you're trolling.

-BeeReal- [1762864]

Genuinely not sure if you're trolling.

LawOfOne [266775]

Why would I troll something that is 100% true. People use science as the ultimate authority figure and worship it as if was a God. They program us with bunk cherry picked studies that only fit their narrative of the truth. Like the IPCC, half the people in the world actually believe a study that many brave and  honest scientists call "highly flawed and lacking any scientific method at all. 

PopadaPill [900338]

Lots of strangers telling you whats what..in white coats

PopadaPill [900338]

Lots of strangers telling you whats what..in white coats

-BeeReal- [1762864]

Sounds appropriate for you Popa

PopadaPill [900338]

Lots of strangers telling you whats what..in white coats

PopadaPill [900338]

Lots of strangers telling you whats what..in white coats

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Much better to make believe the answer in your own head, so long as the voices agree, huh, Popa?

-BeeReal- [1762864]

Genuinely not sure if you're trolling.

LawOfOne [266775]

Why would I troll something that is 100% true. People use science as the ultimate authority figure and worship it as if was a God. They program us with bunk cherry picked studies that only fit their narrative of the truth. Like the IPCC, half the people in the world actually believe a study that many brave and  honest scientists call "highly flawed and lacking any scientific method at all. 

-BeeReal- [1762864]

Ok, this is a slightly more reasonable post than the original. It covers an extremely complex topic that involves a report analysing over 6000 other scientific works, as such, what with the extreme workload I currently have, this will be a brief reply.

There may be people who take science as the ultimate authority and "worship" it, but why is that? Well the reason is quite clearly that its because science is purely a method of analysis of reality. What better is there to believe in? Admittedly this leads to problems when the media gets involved and people start assuming that if something has the word science in it then it's true. Take this for example: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=410313446 a study that purposely "p-hacked" to get the results they want. But a study doesn't necessarily need to p-hacked for results as a lot of accepted statistically significant uncertainty ranges are actually quite weak resulting in studies like this: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/15/precognition-studies-curse-failed-replications which also shows the problem with lack of publication of replications resulting in a large percent of published work being wrong (expertly covered by Veritasium here: https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q). 

Now all this leads to the problem of some people (who don't understand science) taking random studies and assuming them to be correct ("I fear the man of a single [study]") and this is why we talk about scientific consensus. For example, the scientific consensus on antrhopogenic climate change: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 

So in short of the above, some people misinterpret science. Now what about the whole fitting my narrative thing? Well if anyone tells you that all or most scientists fake or purposely misinterpret data just so that they get money, throw them in a mental institution. A more common problem on the other hand is bias effecting the methods they use to analyse results (please see: https://hbr.org/2015/03/what-to-do-when-people-draw-different-conclusions-from-the-same-data), but having lots of people analysing something drastically reduces bias.

If you want to argue that the IPCC report had methodological flaws, fair enough but please do point out those flaws and breakdown what is actually wrong. Saying there's some "scientists" (how many, what are their qualifications, do they work in relative fields, what's their experience with data and statistical analysis?) who disagree is a bit lacking and for anyone to say that a statistical analysis of over 6000 scientific works isn't scientific is just downright absurd. 

If the media runs amock with something are you truly going to blame the scientists for it?

As for your comparison of old days science to contemporary science, I call bull. Im a physics student so I look at a phenomenon, I figure out how it works, I then figure out what predictions I can make with that model and I go and see if those predictions are right. Another thing that must happen though is looking at a set of data and saying what does this actually mean? 

To me, the most important things about science are the repeatability and the quantification. I think anyone who disagrees is not being scientific and so any dogma around them is just an unfortunate product of them calling themselves scientists.

YEAR_ZERO [108862]

Whatever next, TRT = literature?