Lewri [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. 

Lewri [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.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

You are wasting your time, Mr. Lewri... and your typing. 

No matter how you try to explain it, if the audience lacks the necessary ability to think critically... the battle is lost from the beginning. You would have a better chance of explaining the Higgs boson to a dead cockroach.

YEAR_ZERO [108862]

Whatever next, TRT = literature?

Heigw [1962062]

Do you think anyone read those old stories like "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austin and "Little Woman" by Luisa May Alcott when they were first wrote?  No!  The people of that time knew they were just shit and they made jokes just like this about them being considered literature.  Here we are hundreds of years later and only people who want to look fancy read them.  TRT = literature.

My God... I just defended shit.  Well it's less of defending TRT and more bashing classic literature.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Yes... people with an interest and the money to obtain them read them. 

Just because one can't understand something, doesn't make that something wrong. 

Lewri [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. 

Lewri [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.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

You are wasting your time, Mr. Lewri... and your typing. 

No matter how you try to explain it, if the audience lacks the necessary ability to think critically... the battle is lost from the beginning. You would have a better chance of explaining the Higgs boson to a dead cockroach.

PopadaPill [900338]

Lewri [1762864]

Genuinely not sure if you're trolling.

Show post

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. 

Lewri [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.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

You are wasting your time, Mr. Lewri... and your typing. 

No matter how you try to explain it, if the audience lacks the necessary ability to think critically... the battle is lost from the beginning. You would have a better chance of explaining the Higgs boson to a dead cockroach.

PopadaPill [900338]

MachineGunSteve [184119]

You know... you sure get hung up on things don't you, Popa? I mean wouldn't that unnecessary post for this thread have gone better in the thread that pertained to the topic of the image? 

What is your point, Popa? Relative to the subject of this thread... you know the one dealing with science as dogma, or are you simply trying your level best to derail another thread?

YEAR_ZERO [108862]

Whatever next, TRT = literature?

Heigw [1962062]

Do you think anyone read those old stories like "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austin and "Little Woman" by Luisa May Alcott when they were first wrote?  No!  The people of that time knew they were just shit and they made jokes just like this about them being considered literature.  Here we are hundreds of years later and only people who want to look fancy read them.  TRT = literature.

My God... I just defended shit.  Well it's less of defending TRT and more bashing classic literature.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Yes... people with an interest and the money to obtain them read them. 

Just because one can't understand something, doesn't make that something wrong. 

Heigw [1962062]

No I read and understood them (I actually liked "Little Woman" but pride and prejudice was a load of crap.)  It just seems the only people who read them are kids who have to for school or people who think they are fancy.

YEAR_ZERO [108862]

Whatever next, TRT = literature?

Heigw [1962062]

Do you think anyone read those old stories like "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austin and "Little Woman" by Luisa May Alcott when they were first wrote?  No!  The people of that time knew they were just shit and they made jokes just like this about them being considered literature.  Here we are hundreds of years later and only people who want to look fancy read them.  TRT = literature.

My God... I just defended shit.  Well it's less of defending TRT and more bashing classic literature.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Yes... people with an interest and the money to obtain them read them. 

Just because one can't understand something, doesn't make that something wrong. 

Heigw [1962062]

No I read and understood them (I actually liked "Little Woman" but pride and prejudice was a load of crap.)  It just seems the only people who read them are kids who have to for school or people who think they are fancy.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Reading anything shouldn't be looked down on. By calling other people "fancy" for reading a book it makes you look kind of petty, imho. I think if you think about it a little you might agree.

YEAR_ZERO [108862]

Whatever next, TRT = literature?

Show post

Heigw [1962062]

Do you think anyone read those old stories like "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austin and "Little Woman" by Luisa May Alcott when they were first wrote?  No!  The people of that time knew they were just shit and they made jokes just like this about them being considered literature.  Here we are hundreds of years later and only people who want to look fancy read them.  TRT = literature.

My God... I just defended shit.  Well it's less of defending TRT and more bashing classic literature.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Yes... people with an interest and the money to obtain them read them. 

Just because one can't understand something, doesn't make that something wrong. 

Heigw [1962062]

No I read and understood them (I actually liked "Little Woman" but pride and prejudice was a load of crap.)  It just seems the only people who read them are kids who have to for school or people who think they are fancy.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Reading anything shouldn't be looked down on. By calling other people "fancy" for reading a book it makes you look kind of petty, imho. I think if you think about it a little you might agree.

Heigw [1962062]

Yeah, it is a little petty, guess I was just unloading some stagnant anger from having to read Pride and Prejudice and Little Woman in the same semester.  So have you read either of them?

Proxima [1879587]

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

Lewri [1762864]

Really? My funding comes from the Lizard People, they make me and the tens of thousands of physics students each year fake experiments "proving" that the Earth is "round".

Heigw [1962062]

Do you think anyone read those old stories like "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austin and "Little Woman" by Luisa May Alcott when they were first wrote?  No!  The people of that time knew they were just shit and they made jokes just like this about them being considered literature.  Here we are hundreds of years later and only people who want to look fancy read them.  TRT = literature.

My God... I just defended shit.  Well it's less of defending TRT and more bashing classic literature.

Show post

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Yes... people with an interest and the money to obtain them read them. 

Just because one can't understand something, doesn't make that something wrong. 

Heigw [1962062]

No I read and understood them (I actually liked "Little Woman" but pride and prejudice was a load of crap.)  It just seems the only people who read them are kids who have to for school or people who think they are fancy.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Reading anything shouldn't be looked down on. By calling other people "fancy" for reading a book it makes you look kind of petty, imho. I think if you think about it a little you might agree.

Heigw [1962062]

Yeah, it is a little petty, guess I was just unloading some stagnant anger from having to read Pride and Prejudice and Little Woman in the same semester.  So have you read either of them?

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Honestly I have not. I am more of a Steinbeck, Heinlein, Asimov, Mccarthy, and biography and history man myself... romance is not my cup of tea, at all, lol.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Yes... people with an interest and the money to obtain them read them. 

Just because one can't understand something, doesn't make that something wrong. 

Show post

Heigw [1962062]

No I read and understood them (I actually liked "Little Woman" but pride and prejudice was a load of crap.)  It just seems the only people who read them are kids who have to for school or people who think they are fancy.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Reading anything shouldn't be looked down on. By calling other people "fancy" for reading a book it makes you look kind of petty, imho. I think if you think about it a little you might agree.

Heigw [1962062]

Yeah, it is a little petty, guess I was just unloading some stagnant anger from having to read Pride and Prejudice and Little Woman in the same semester.  So have you read either of them?

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Honestly I have not. I am more of a Steinbeck, Heinlein, Asimov, Mccarthy, and biography and history man myself... romance is not my cup of tea, at all, lol.

Heigw [1962062]

I envy your not having read them!  I think "Of Mice and Men" was Steinbeck right?  That was a pretty good one.

Proxima [1879587]

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

Lewri [1762864]

Really? My funding comes from the Lizard People, they make me and the tens of thousands of physics students each year fake experiments "proving" that the Earth is "round".

Hamr [2027992]

Oh that's a load of baloney. The flat earthers have got it all wrong, the flat earth narrative is a red herring to disguise the real problem.

You see, the Earth is round. We know this from massively distributed measurements and activities that only work if it is round.

We also know all planets and comparable bodies are round, because we can see them via telescopes.

We, therefore, are all led to assume one thing.

That the moon, too, is round. This is not the case.

You see, the moon is actually not round. It is a prop. Either a super-large flat disc in orbit around earth, or a hologram projected onto the Earth's atmosphere, or an animated sprite that makes up the fiction of our matrix-verse. Whatever the case, it can only be that the moon is flat.

Why, you ask. It is all to hide why there are no alien signals from space, to hide from us a critical component about the Fermi Paradox. Scientists have long been drawn to the conclusion that the tidal forces from the moon may have been instrumental in the formation of Earth and life upon it, and when we see Earth-like planets with no such influence we, naturally, have an explanation as to why there is no life out there.

Aliens do not come from above, they are either part of Earth already, or have been inserted by the matrix.

All this flat-earth nonsense is just an intellectual distraction, a layer of camouflage upon the whole industry of science. The truth is out there, looking back at us.

 

Evidence:

- There is no opposite side of the moon, it cannot be seen from earth, and is never reliably photographed

- NASA only ever "landed" on the visible part of the moon

- NASA proved they landed there by attaching mirrors to the surface to reflect back lasers (easily faked on a flat moon)

- There is nothing stopping a hologram or matrix making an animated sprite that goes through the phases of the moon

- No normal person will ever set foot on the moon

- Space programmes are intentionally delayed so we don't find this out, we could have worked on this since the late 60s, but we didn't

Proxima [1879587]

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

Lewri [1762864]

Really? My funding comes from the Lizard People, they make me and the tens of thousands of physics students each year fake experiments "proving" that the Earth is "round".

Hamr [2027992]

Oh that's a load of baloney. The flat earthers have got it all wrong, the flat earth narrative is a red herring to disguise the real problem.

You see, the Earth is round. We know this from massively distributed measurements and activities that only work if it is round.

We also know all planets and comparable bodies are round, because we can see them via telescopes.

We, therefore, are all led to assume one thing.

That the moon, too, is round. This is not the case.

You see, the moon is actually not round. It is a prop. Either a super-large flat disc in orbit around earth, or a hologram projected onto the Earth's atmosphere, or an animated sprite that makes up the fiction of our matrix-verse. Whatever the case, it can only be that the moon is flat.

Why, you ask. It is all to hide why there are no alien signals from space, to hide from us a critical component about the Fermi Paradox. Scientists have long been drawn to the conclusion that the tidal forces from the moon may have been instrumental in the formation of Earth and life upon it, and when we see Earth-like planets with no such influence we, naturally, have an explanation as to why there is no life out there.

Aliens do not come from above, they are either part of Earth already, or have been inserted by the matrix.

All this flat-earth nonsense is just an intellectual distraction, a layer of camouflage upon the whole industry of science. The truth is out there, looking back at us.

 

Evidence:

- There is no opposite side of the moon, it cannot be seen from earth, and is never reliably photographed

- NASA only ever "landed" on the visible part of the moon

- NASA proved they landed there by attaching mirrors to the surface to reflect back lasers (easily faked on a flat moon)

- There is nothing stopping a hologram or matrix making an animated sprite that goes through the phases of the moon

- No normal person will ever set foot on the moon

- Space programmes are intentionally delayed so we don't find this out, we could have worked on this since the late 60s, but we didn't

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Thumbs up for creative writing, lol.

Proxima [1879587]

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

Lewri [1762864]

Really? My funding comes from the Lizard People, they make me and the tens of thousands of physics students each year fake experiments "proving" that the Earth is "round".

Hamr [2027992]

Oh that's a load of baloney. The flat earthers have got it all wrong, the flat earth narrative is a red herring to disguise the real problem.

You see, the Earth is round. We know this from massively distributed measurements and activities that only work if it is round.

We also know all planets and comparable bodies are round, because we can see them via telescopes.

We, therefore, are all led to assume one thing.

That the moon, too, is round. This is not the case.

You see, the moon is actually not round. It is a prop. Either a super-large flat disc in orbit around earth, or a hologram projected onto the Earth's atmosphere, or an animated sprite that makes up the fiction of our matrix-verse. Whatever the case, it can only be that the moon is flat.

Why, you ask. It is all to hide why there are no alien signals from space, to hide from us a critical component about the Fermi Paradox. Scientists have long been drawn to the conclusion that the tidal forces from the moon may have been instrumental in the formation of Earth and life upon it, and when we see Earth-like planets with no such influence we, naturally, have an explanation as to why there is no life out there.

Aliens do not come from above, they are either part of Earth already, or have been inserted by the matrix.

All this flat-earth nonsense is just an intellectual distraction, a layer of camouflage upon the whole industry of science. The truth is out there, looking back at us.

 

Evidence:

- There is no opposite side of the moon, it cannot be seen from earth, and is never reliably photographed

- NASA only ever "landed" on the visible part of the moon

- NASA proved they landed there by attaching mirrors to the surface to reflect back lasers (easily faked on a flat moon)

- There is nothing stopping a hologram or matrix making an animated sprite that goes through the phases of the moon

- No normal person will ever set foot on the moon

- Space programmes are intentionally delayed so we don't find this out, we could have worked on this since the late 60s, but we didn't

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Thumbs up for creative writing, lol.

Hamr [2027992]

Ty, but those images are so easy to fake, it's laughable.

To those in the know, this is like showing a blurry picture of bigfoot to a skeptic.

Proxima [1879587]

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

Show post

Lewri [1762864]

Really? My funding comes from the Lizard People, they make me and the tens of thousands of physics students each year fake experiments "proving" that the Earth is "round".

Hamr [2027992]

Oh that's a load of baloney. The flat earthers have got it all wrong, the flat earth narrative is a red herring to disguise the real problem.

You see, the Earth is round. We know this from massively distributed measurements and activities that only work if it is round.

We also know all planets and comparable bodies are round, because we can see them via telescopes.

We, therefore, are all led to assume one thing.

That the moon, too, is round. This is not the case.

You see, the moon is actually not round. It is a prop. Either a super-large flat disc in orbit around earth, or a hologram projected onto the Earth's atmosphere, or an animated sprite that makes up the fiction of our matrix-verse. Whatever the case, it can only be that the moon is flat.

Why, you ask. It is all to hide why there are no alien signals from space, to hide from us a critical component about the Fermi Paradox. Scientists have long been drawn to the conclusion that the tidal forces from the moon may have been instrumental in the formation of Earth and life upon it, and when we see Earth-like planets with no such influence we, naturally, have an explanation as to why there is no life out there.

Aliens do not come from above, they are either part of Earth already, or have been inserted by the matrix.

All this flat-earth nonsense is just an intellectual distraction, a layer of camouflage upon the whole industry of science. The truth is out there, looking back at us.

 

Evidence:

- There is no opposite side of the moon, it cannot be seen from earth, and is never reliably photographed

- NASA only ever "landed" on the visible part of the moon

- NASA proved they landed there by attaching mirrors to the surface to reflect back lasers (easily faked on a flat moon)

- There is nothing stopping a hologram or matrix making an animated sprite that goes through the phases of the moon

- No normal person will ever set foot on the moon

- Space programmes are intentionally delayed so we don't find this out, we could have worked on this since the late 60s, but we didn't

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Thumbs up for creative writing, lol.

Hamr [2027992]

Ty, but those images are so easy to fake, it's laughable.

To those in the know, this is like showing a blurry picture of bigfoot to a skeptic.

PopadaPill [900338]

Ooo whats he gonna say,I normally get the dad talk from steve after writing something similar 

Lewri [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. 

Lewri [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.

Lewri [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. 

Lewri [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.

MachineGunSteve [184119]

You are wasting your time, Mr. Lewri... and your typing. 

No matter how you try to explain it, if the audience lacks the necessary ability to think critically... the battle is lost from the beginning. You would have a better chance of explaining the Higgs boson to a dead cockroach.

Proxima [1879587]

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

Lewri [1762864]

Really? My funding comes from the Lizard People, they make me and the tens of thousands of physics students each year fake experiments "proving" that the Earth is "round".

Hamr [2027992]

Oh that's a load of baloney. The flat earthers have got it all wrong, the flat earth narrative is a red herring to disguise the real problem.

You see, the Earth is round. We know this from massively distributed measurements and activities that only work if it is round.

We also know all planets and comparable bodies are round, because we can see them via telescopes.

We, therefore, are all led to assume one thing.

That the moon, too, is round. This is not the case.

You see, the moon is actually not round. It is a prop. Either a super-large flat disc in orbit around earth, or a hologram projected onto the Earth's atmosphere, or an animated sprite that makes up the fiction of our matrix-verse. Whatever the case, it can only be that the moon is flat.

Why, you ask. It is all to hide why there are no alien signals from space, to hide from us a critical component about the Fermi Paradox. Scientists have long been drawn to the conclusion that the tidal forces from the moon may have been instrumental in the formation of Earth and life upon it, and when we see Earth-like planets with no such influence we, naturally, have an explanation as to why there is no life out there.

Aliens do not come from above, they are either part of Earth already, or have been inserted by the matrix.

All this flat-earth nonsense is just an intellectual distraction, a layer of camouflage upon the whole industry of science. The truth is out there, looking back at us.

 

Evidence:

- There is no opposite side of the moon, it cannot be seen from earth, and is never reliably photographed

- NASA only ever "landed" on the visible part of the moon

- NASA proved they landed there by attaching mirrors to the surface to reflect back lasers (easily faked on a flat moon)

- There is nothing stopping a hologram or matrix making an animated sprite that goes through the phases of the moon

- No normal person will ever set foot on the moon

- Space programmes are intentionally delayed so we don't find this out, we could have worked on this since the late 60s, but we didn't

Proxima [1879587]

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

Show post

Lewri [1762864]

Really? My funding comes from the Lizard People, they make me and the tens of thousands of physics students each year fake experiments "proving" that the Earth is "round".

Hamr [2027992]

Oh that's a load of baloney. The flat earthers have got it all wrong, the flat earth narrative is a red herring to disguise the real problem.

You see, the Earth is round. We know this from massively distributed measurements and activities that only work if it is round.

We also know all planets and comparable bodies are round, because we can see them via telescopes.

We, therefore, are all led to assume one thing.

That the moon, too, is round. This is not the case.

You see, the moon is actually not round. It is a prop. Either a super-large flat disc in orbit around earth, or a hologram projected onto the Earth's atmosphere, or an animated sprite that makes up the fiction of our matrix-verse. Whatever the case, it can only be that the moon is flat.

Why, you ask. It is all to hide why there are no alien signals from space, to hide from us a critical component about the Fermi Paradox. Scientists have long been drawn to the conclusion that the tidal forces from the moon may have been instrumental in the formation of Earth and life upon it, and when we see Earth-like planets with no such influence we, naturally, have an explanation as to why there is no life out there.

Aliens do not come from above, they are either part of Earth already, or have been inserted by the matrix.

All this flat-earth nonsense is just an intellectual distraction, a layer of camouflage upon the whole industry of science. The truth is out there, looking back at us.

 

Evidence:

- There is no opposite side of the moon, it cannot be seen from earth, and is never reliably photographed

- NASA only ever "landed" on the visible part of the moon

- NASA proved they landed there by attaching mirrors to the surface to reflect back lasers (easily faked on a flat moon)

- There is nothing stopping a hologram or matrix making an animated sprite that goes through the phases of the moon

- No normal person will ever set foot on the moon

- Space programmes are intentionally delayed so we don't find this out, we could have worked on this since the late 60s, but we didn't

MachineGunSteve [184119]

Thumbs up for creative writing, lol.

Hamr [2027992]

Ty, but those images are so easy to fake, it's laughable.

To those in the know, this is like showing a blurry picture of bigfoot to a skeptic.

PopadaPill [900338]

Ooo whats he gonna say,I normally get the dad talk from steve after writing something similar