# I Don't F*cking Love Science.



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

johnson.han.3 said:


> It is not me who think victim reports are inaccurate. Studies have shown that it is inaccurate. The arrest studies clearly showed that no racial difference in commiting crime when you factor in SES.


And where are those studies showing that victim reports are inaccurate? And also, are the SES-sources you're referring to counting hispanic people as white? I'd like to view your source on this. Because it doesn't seem to be correct.



> Also your "Victim" reports are just raw numbers therefore it doesn't prove anything.


How can you say that? If a victim identifies a rapist by gender, doesn't that prove anything? What if 90% of the victims stated that their rapists were men, wouldn't that give the police some direction of focus in trying to catch the perpetrator?



> Who cares about inventing words? if you have a problem with that, the word *gravity *didn't exist prior to PEOPLE INVENTING IT. your arguments are so childish.


Everything sounds childish when you're comparing it to a total different scenario, and continuously twist my words.



> The scenarios you gave are strawmans. No one ever said those things. wtf are you even saying. Holy shit. This is just like your "millions" are being raped by illegals. No you can't just make shit up.


How is it a straw man?



> FBI data is just DATA. There is nothing wrong with the data itself. However number isn't causation. A study is better than raw data in the fact it proves an causation by eliminating other factors. The part I have issue is you post raw data, and falsely claim a causation.


But I have never said that raw data is better than studies. But it sure as hell tells us some trends worth investigating. And a lot of people have, so I don't know what you're getting at. The only thing I've said is that raw numbers are accurate. Never said that they prove a causation.



> Please learn to read.


Only if you ask nicely. 



> There are poorly done studies, but they are everywhere. IF you want to ATTACK a certain study for being innacurate or the methology is poor, go for it, but to attack the field as a whole, then you are just not very smart. Find a study and criticize it. I am all for that.


Come on, don't pretend that sociology isn't majorly influenced/driven by people with a thirst for changing politics rather than presenting objective knowledge.



> Gender is social construct. You need to understand what gender is because spouting nonsense. ok? Having testorstone is related to gender how? Are you suggesting some men can't be nurturing? or be attracted to nurturing things?


Was gender the one you choose or the one you were born with, I'm confused.



> The whole point of getting rid of gender role is not to make guys into girls, but let people be themselves and not be ashame of it. If they want to play with planes, go for it. If they want to play wih dolls, go for it. I had friends who were guys who played with dolls as a kid. It is about giving choices to people. OFc there are people who take it too far, but they are insane people.


Yeah, and I support people doing whatever they like. But to imagine that boys fight and women nurture only because they have been socially programmed to do so is just nonsense, and it completely disregards the biological influence (which is at least 50%) in terms of predicting behaviour.



> The kicker is that sociology is not some hippie dippie shit. It is a name that describe a field of studies involving how human interact with the society. In order to prove gender is not a social construct, you still have to go through sociology and make a sociological study to prove that gender is not a social construct. It is ironic you say leftist flock towards sociology. Where do rightist flock over? spouting nonsense and anti-intellectualism?


Then why is it considered such? Why isn't it considered hard science? Why are professors higher percentage of liberals than nearly any other profession? One would think that diversity would be the better case?

Rightists flock over to building your country and keeping it going.



> Really? you have no idea what theory mean. IT means proven ideas that can be use to predict. You seem to think a "theory" is a guess, which is the laymen's term.
> 
> Instead of attack the field as a whole which doesn't make sense, perhaps look over a few studies and try to tear apart their methology. "I DON'T AGREE WITH THE RESULT" IS NOT A VALID criticisim.


I've never attacked any results conducted from any sociology study, I've attacked the liberal misrepresentation within the field, and for good reason. There are about 6,000 sociologists in the US, and about 12 conservative sociologists. That's not healthy for it's students. Agree?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Wiz said:


> And where are those studies showing that victim reports are inaccurate? And also, are the SES-sources you're referring to counting hispanic people as white? I'd like to view your source on this. Because it doesn't seem to be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Conservatism do not mix with sociology because sociology often go against what conservatives believes. Conservativism is about keeping the tradition going, or use "rule of thumb" styled knowledge. ie, a lot of conservatives believes beating your kids regularly make them good, but studies have showned that they don't. It is unlikely for conservatives to want to explore new ideas involved in social interactions to begin with, so I hardly expect a lot of them to be in this field. I would encourage more right wingers to be sociologist however I do believe once people study sociology, they lose a lot of their conservative beliefs. 

Women ARE sociologically programmed to be nurturing as well. not EVERY woman is nurturing/ warm and fuzzy, and they feel pressured by society to act that way. Ask any woman if acting cold "bitchy" is very socially acceptable...and you will see. It is expected that women are "nice" and "friendly". No one is disregarding biology, but genetics "biology" of a population can change due to selection factors...and those are either from the physical environment, or from the social environment. Since our physical environment is pretty much tamed in modern nations... well you get the picture. You misunderstood what the sociologists are saying. 

Gender by definition is something socially constructed. It is a term created for that sole purpose. Your argument is very........silly. The problem came when people misuse the term "gender" intechangably with sex. Again this is the mistake of the laymans and not sociologists. This is why "common sense" doesn't mix with "science". 

Politics can form around anything, but it doesn't make it untrue. Just as left have taken the stance on Global warming, doesn't make it untrue. you have to prove that it is UNTRUE. which you haven't done so. 

Lack of right wing professors can the result of the anti-intellectual aspect of the right. Spreading fear and shit doesn't fair well among educated folks. Conservatives care more about keeping things the same than exploring new ideas. This is why in certain fields, like divinity, you might find more conservatives. '

I have already proved to you why arrests are far superior because it eliminated the chances of multiple reports and false report as investigations are carried out prior to arrests. Remember you are talking about criminal reports on all crimes, and not specific crimes that are intimiate. Also Hispanics are counted as Hispanics... I know right..it doesn't seem right? this is because a lot of things goes against our beliefs....since so much of what we belief is framed by biased information from the media.

No, you used raw number to try to prove an causation. you have done it serveral times. The one time I remember well is the one you said free countries are doing well due to the fact they are free because of some charts you found on the internet.


It is a straw man because no one is saying that a white man is racist because he find a white woman attractive. No one in the field of sociology have ever made the claim. For example, I don't find black females attractive, but it doesn't mean they aren't attractive to other people, nor are they inferior because of it..... 

Your argument that the left is "making up" words is childish because it is not an argument. new words are being made up all the time to discribe new ideas. It only goes to show that so much of human social interactions are unexplored. 

Can you start arguing against studies you disagree with because none of what you are saying is an argument for anything.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Studying sociology made me more conservative, actually. It crystallized for me the importance and function of social hierarchy and cultural norms.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I've seen a lot of people talk about _Science_ like it is some kind of almighty god. Science is going to solve all of the problems in humanity, bring world peace, get rid of pollution, give us shiny hair, extend our life spans and maybe even make us live forever! _Science_ is going to bring about a paradise, basically. Jesus got some competition... 
All we have to do is BELIEVE! Follow the leaders in _Science_. Don't question it or else you are an ignorant person who resists TRUTH, which is immoral and unethical.

I was under the silly impression that scientists are not in a hive-mind community where everyone is of the same opinion and it's all considered indisputable fact that once established must not be questioned (because we all know these scientific understandings stay same for centuries and never change because they are totally infallible truths about reality...oh wait...). But _Science_ must not be questioned! 

I have no doubt there is pressure among scientists to think a certain way and not question certain things. I have no doubt that there is human bias, error, arrogance, heavy interpretation, heavy speculation and agenda. When people don't want to admit this and use _Science_ to assert that some idea is unquestionably RIGHT, then it no longer seems like it is scientific at all. As a layperson with no scientific background whatsoever who likes to be entertained by questionable pop science articles online, my limited understanding is that it's not particularly scientific to NOT rigorously question and test stuff and that the popular understanding is not necessarily the right one, etc. But _Science_ is presented very dogmatically.... I find that to be anti-intellectual, frankly. So much of it looks like faith - accept something you don't fully understand becomes it comes from a higher up you have decided to trust (and I am not bagging the concept of faith here....just saying that's what it looks like).

I also don't think that legit science is capable of explaining or solving _everything_. I think people want to extend its use past its viable realm so that it's no longer able to even meet scientific criteria or use valid methods. If there is not scientific basis for something, then many people want to invalidate it, as if _Science_ is the ONLY way to validate anything ever or it's the only way to approach understanding of anything. Forget the idea that scientists are _flawed humans_...


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Science is what separates the man from the dog. Without our capacity to organize thought, and then systematically rule out things and rule in others, we are no better than dogs. I honestly don't see that man was that different from Chimpanzees despite the advanced mental capacity until agriculture. We realized that we could manipulate nature. We were not at the mercy of circumstance. It was possible to do things and get a predictable (more or less) response. We stopped being driven just by the passion of the moment. We had structures that dictated life. Primitive yes. But it paved the way for all future advances. We've been evolutionarily modern for like at least 100,000 years but yet agriculture was only in the last 10,000? We are not that smart. It's our structures that are smart. The cumulation of human advances has made us what we are. We're stupid as fuck but yet we can do things that are amazing. It's because of these structures.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

The problem is that people like the word 'science', not actual science
So every sign these people are holding feels meaningless, maybe it's just a gut feeling but none of it rings true, like I don't think any of these people go home and lie in bed thinking about the wonders of science, I think they like waving the science flag in response to conservative arguments

I mean, I've so often heard 'science' touted for the pro-choice argument with *absolutely no scientific argument attached* that it's hard to take 'but science' seriously at all these days, sounds like a totally hollow word. Sounds as hollow as the typical 'go educate yourself' Tumblr-liberal argument, with no explanation of where one should do this, 'read a book' with no hints of which book to read or why that one book that proves this point is better than the hundred books that prove a different point, maybe part of a larger trend of sorta fetishizing intellectualism without actually engaging in it

Like this endless post that goes around:










...from girls who are still using a childrens' film as their reference base, not that there's anything wrong with that, and maybe it's just a tidbit about their childhood but it feels like 'look at me I _love_ to read I'm not like the other shallow girls who just want Prince Charming', never seen any of these girls sharing this post talk about character development in War and Peace, sure some of them do read and think about books but I bet most of them just like the _idea_ of reading.

For real if you're protesting cutting science funding...make a real argument about a specific program, and how that program is important...don't just march in favor of science, no one (or a fanatical few) is arguing against science as a principle, it makes your argument unbeatably strong to march in favor of something literally no one is against but it also does nothing. The question isn't 'are we pro- or anti- science, the question is 'how much money do we want to allot to certain scientific programs, when there is a limited amount of money to go around?' That's the question they should be answering...but aren't.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

johnson.han.3 said:


> Conservatism do not mix with sociology because sociology often go against what conservatives believes. Conservativism is about keeping the tradition going, or use "rule of thumb" styled knowledge. ie, a lot of conservatives believes beating your kids regularly make them good, but studies have showned that they don't. It is unlikely for conservatives to want to explore new ideas involved in social interactions to begin with, so I hardly expect a lot of them to be in this field. I would encourage more right wingers to be sociologist however I do believe once people study sociology, they lose a lot of their conservative beliefs.
> 
> Women ARE sociologically programmed to be nurturing as well. not EVERY woman is nurturing/ warm and fuzzy, and they feel pressured by society to act that way. Ask any woman if acting cold "bitchy" is very socially acceptable...and you will see. It is expected that women are "nice" and "friendly". No one is disregarding biology, but genetics "biology" of a population can change due to selection factors...and those are either from the physical environment, or from the social environment. Since our physical environment is pretty much tamed in modern nations... well you get the picture. You misunderstood what the sociologists are saying.
> 
> Gender by definition is something socially constructed. It is a term created for that sole purpose. Your argument is very........silly. The problem came when people misuse the term "gender" intechangably with sex. Again this is the mistake of the laymans and not sociologists. This is why "common sense" doesn't mix with "science".


You say conservatism doesn't mix with sociology because it goes against what they believe. This is implying what I fear with sociology, that you can't study sociology if you're not supporting breaking down the societal structures you study.

And yes, women are sociologically programmed to an extent, but I disagree with you that it's this social programming that causes the less stereotypical women to feel pressure. I think this pressure comes from simply not fitting the norm, just as it would have if a straight guy only had gays in his social circle. It's unfortunately just the result of not fitting the norm. And I just simply don't think that a shift in culture would do anything else than shift the pressure on some other group. Just observe within the various groups within society where you're disregarded simply for being normal.



> Politics can form around anything, but it doesn't make it untrue. Just as left have taken the stance on Global warming, doesn't make it untrue. you have to prove that it is UNTRUE. which you haven't done so.


I don't know if this is a "tactical" misunderstanding from the left, but regardless it's false. No one is arguing that global warming doesn't exist, or that humans have no influence what so ever. It's simply a disagreement over how much control we have over it's further development, and to which extent it should influence policies. So within that famous 97% there are many professors that take the stance that for the amount of influence we have over our climate, there are being forced economically damaging policies upon various institutions that do more harm for society than it does good for the climate. To imply that everyone that suggests that the focus should be shifted towards other ways of harm to be "climate deniers" is just simply lying.



> Lack of right wing professors can the result of the anti-intellectual aspect of the right. Spreading fear and shit doesn't fair well among educated folks. Conservatives care more about keeping things the same than exploring new ideas. This is why in certain fields, like divinity, you might find more conservatives.'


Again I think this is a false claim. Right wing people are as focused on reducing the harms of society as left wing people. But the major difference is the differences of opinion on how that should be done. For instance, some people are supportive of immigration on the basis of empathy, and some people are against it on the basis of economy. It's nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. The reason for lack of right wing professors may just as well be that they are a lot more driven to use their talents in the free market.



> I have already proved to you why arrests are far superior because it eliminated the chances of multiple reports and false report as investigations are carried out prior to arrests. Remember you are talking about criminal reports on all crimes, and not specific crimes that are intimiate. Also Hispanics are counted as Hispanics... I know right..it doesn't seem right? this is because a lot of things goes against our beliefs....since so much of what we belief is framed by biased information from the media.


But when talking about arrests, you'll find that for a lot of crimes, a lot of innocent people are arrested due to them being suspects. I can't remember wether this was included in the study you posted. Convicted perpetrators are matching almost exactly the data for victim reports, which would make me suggest that they are in fact highly accurate. And the hispanic thing varies with what numbers you are referring to and wether they have split hispanics into an own category.



> No, you used raw number to try to prove an causation. you have done it serveral times. The one time I remember well is the one you said free countries are doing well due to the fact they are free because of some charts you found on the internet.


I find there is nothing wrong to entertain the idea that a majority of the best countries in the world similarly have the freest flow of capital in the world. And the countries with less free flow of capital seems to trend towards being the worst countries in the world.

I can't remember publishing a study on the matter, but it's an interesting fact.



> It is a straw man because no one is saying that a white man is racist because he find a white woman attractive. No one in the field of sociology have ever made the claim. For example, I don't find black females attractive, but it doesn't mean they aren't attractive to other people, nor are they inferior because of it.....
> 
> Your argument that the left is "making up" words is childish because it is not an argument. new words are being made up all the time to discribe new ideas. It only goes to show that so much of human social interactions are unexplored.


My reason for saying this is that it creates a lot of confusion when solving problems or discussing policies whenever a large group of people have one definition of a word and the opposing group have an entirely different definition of a word. One would think that people advocating science and understanding should be very much aware that people don't read up on the new definitions of words every year, which is the reason why I think a lot of them are wilfully misunderstanding it.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

The Night's Queen said:


>


This is a really common trope lately, and I think it needs to stop. The message is invariably that if you're smart or interesting, then it's because you aren't like _other women_ who are only interested in _stupid woman things._

I am not exempt from this, I look down on gossip magazines and reality television. Plenty of things that are very popular among women. But I need to be careful, because rarely do I look upon a masculine interest in sports or tinkering with cars with the same derision. And I am not sure why this is. Reality television is hardly less intellectual than a baseball game (and they're equally boring, in my opinion). In fact, you could argue that there is just as much strategy playing out under the surface in a catty episode of Housewives as there is in a football match. 

It's also popular for women to wear their non-conformity to femininity as a badge of honour in some cases. _I don't like pink_, or _I can't cook_, or _I hate shopping unlike other women_. I can't help but wonder if in many cases this isn't just a shallow attempt to elevate oneself above the competition. 

Anyway, carry on. The picture just reminded me of something I am trying to be more mindful of these days.


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> It's also popular for women to wear their non-conformity to femininity as a badge of honour in some cases. _I don't like pink_, or _I can't cook_, or _I hate shopping unlike other women_. I can't help but wonder if in many cases this isn't just a shallow attempt to elevate oneself above the competition.


There are males who do this, too.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Wiz said:


> You say conservatism doesn't mix with sociology because it goes against what they believe. This is implying what I fear with sociology, that you can't study sociology if you're not supporting breaking down the societal structures you study.
> 
> And yes, women are sociologically programmed to an extent, but I disagree with you that it's this social programming that causes the less stereotypical women to feel pressure. I think this pressure comes from simply not fitting the norm, just as it would have if a straight guy only had gays in his social circle. It's unfortunately just the result of not fitting the norm. And I just simply don't think that a shift in culture would do anything else than shift the pressure on some other group. Just observe within the various groups within society where you're disregarded simply for being normal.
> 
> ...


yea, take a few classes in sociology and see. Conservatism is not about seeking out new meaning. It is more about keeping things the same. 

lol, it is funny how you think "norm" is not social engineering. The norm is the driving force of social engineering. We know this because "norm" changes from place to place, or in different time periods. 

Climate change deniers are dumb because they don't conduct scientific experiments. The best they can do is sprung some conspircacy theories. 
Climate change cost A lot of money and is much more impacting than the policies people put in place. Also, economic growth is not the only thing we need to deal with. People talk about it as if it is end all and be all. Without a planet to live is much direr than some short-term economic damage. Even if economic impact is what you fear, climate change have been linked to an increase in severe weathers, and other environmental problems that can easily lead to huge financial losses. These problems are not talk enough because peopel tend to think natural diseasters are not "man caused". 

Right wingers "believe" they are reducing harm by using "unscientific" or outdated ideas to conduct themselves, but in reality they are causing more harm. One such incident is harsher punishment will lead to better results, but it didn't work. There are countless paper published that goes against this idea, yet right wingers still push for it. The dumbest one I heard recently is if you offer people health care they will be irresponsible with their body.... like lol? 

Wanting immigration is not a compassionate move. Government is not compassionate. People might be. It is more of a economic move for the government to have immigrants. Without a doubt immigration have a net postitive effect on a countries' economics. What right wingers believe, and falsely is that immigration steal jobs. However they don't consider the net job creation because of immigration. Surely with everything there are some negatives, and right wingers tend to focus on things that affirms their world view and keep on hammering at it (studies have shown that right wingers are more likely to believe false things if it affirms their world view). Unfortunately, doing so they miss the bigger picture and all the economic benefits of immigration. 

The lack of interest in intellectual exploration is what I am talking about. They can be successful, but at the same time they can completely uninformed or unable to digest academic knowledge. 


While arrest numbers is not perfect, it is better than what you gave. Furthermore, false conviction among blacks are much higher than whites. Google it and you will find several papers on this topic as well. 

People misunderstand what scientists have to say is not the fault of the scientists. They use a lot of technical jargons. You are suppose to read up on shit and not just react with the lizard brain that we all have.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

johnson.han.3 said:


> yea, take a few classes in sociology and see. Conservatism is not about seeking out new meaning. It is more about keeping things the same.


Sure, I don't disagree with that. But liberalism want's to reduce everything to a singularity, so depending on where you draw the timeline, they are the ultimate conservatives in a sense  



> lol, it is funny how you think "norm" is not social engineering. The norm is the driving force of social engineering. We know this because "norm" changes from place to place, or in different time periods.


Yeah, I don't disagree with that. But I think you give it too much credit for shaping male and female gender roles. I bet you could find a handful of extremely rare examples where women are warriors, but regardless the male has a certain role within a "tribe", wether it's the jungles of Africa or the streets of New York.

And I'm not saying we should "settle" with that. I'm just saying that there are some biological group mechanics that you can't blame people for being part of.



> Climate change deniers are dumb because they don't conduct scientific experiments. The best they can do is sprung some conspircacy theories.


Agree, the people who deny climate change are by my standards dumb.



> Climate change cost A lot of money and is much more impacting than the policies people put in place. Also, economic growth is not the only thing we need to deal with. People talk about it as if it is end all and be all. Without a planet to live is much direr than some short-term economic damage.


Sure, but you're talking about these policies like they have an impact past virtue signalling and general awareness. Even if we halted everything we contribute to fucking up the climate it could take up to 1000 years before until the climate would catch up.



> Even if economic impact is what you fear, climate change have been linked to an increase in severe weathers, and other environmental problems that can easily lead to huge financial losses. These problems are not talk enough because peopel tend to think natural diseasters are not "man caused".


Sure, I'm not denying the impact of the climate. I'm just requesting the calculations that show that we're not just straining the economy over virtue signals with little to no impact on the climate.

Also, if the govt. are trying to remove fossil fuels and non-renewable energy, why aren't they removing tax on solar technology? It makes me suspicious when politicians are punishing harmful choices, rather than rewarding good choices. I can't blame people who think that the govt. are yet again just inventing taxes on the go whenever they need money without even an equation to show that it works. 



> Right wingers "believe" they are reducing harm by using "unscientific" or outdated ideas to conduct themselves, but in reality they are causing more harm. One such incident is harsher punishment will lead to better results, but it didn't work. There are countless paper published that goes against this idea, yet right wingers still push for it. The dumbest one I heard recently is if you offer people health care they will be irresponsible with their body.... like lol?


I agree, there are a lot of outdated and stupid ideas within the right wing. Especially regarding prisons, drugs and punishment. But you also take for granted that we're talking about a country with 320 million people. Of course there are A LOT more examples of people who will never become a productive member of society. 



> Wanting immigration is not a compassionate move. Government is not compassionate. People might be. It is more of a economic move for the government to have immigrants. Without a doubt immigration have a net postitive effect on a countries' economics. What right wingers believe, and falsely is that immigration steal jobs. However they don't consider the net job creation because of immigration. Surely with everything there are some negatives, and right wingers tend to focus on things that affirms their world view and keep on hammering at it (studies have shown that right wingers are more likely to believe false things if it affirms their world view). Unfortunately, doing so they miss the bigger picture and all the economic benefits of immigration.


That's true. But you can't deny immigration brings a lot of social issues, and when "white" people are being targeted and replaced to fit some politically correct template, of course they are worried. And rightfully so. Also, I think the response is just the different extreme where the left doesn't dare to raise questions, or even criticise or demand a certain behaviour of minorities. I can speak for myself, and I really think the greatest danger is the demonisation that's going on against white people on the basis of their skin.



> The lack of interest in intellectual exploration is what I am talking about. They can be successful, but at the same time they can completely uninformed or unable to digest academic knowledge.


This suggest that there are no good arguments from conservatives, that's just false. The conservatives are a lot more pragmatic and critical of ideas before funding it. Philosophically I disagree with a lot of conservative views; abortion, drugs, prison etc. but in regards to economy the "free market" approach just works. 



> While arrest numbers is not perfect, it is better than what you gave. Furthermore, false conviction among blacks are much higher than whites. Google it and you will find several papers on this topic as well.


While it may be true in regards of false convictions, that doesn't mean one should jump to the conclusion that the reason is racism. 

And in regards to your research, I'd suggest you start using duckduckgo or something else than google. They are filtering and censoring out everything that doesn't fit their liberal agenda. This is not a conspiracy, just search for any controversial topic on google and compare it to ducksearch and you'll see everything that's being hidden from your "intellectual exploration". 



> People misunderstand what scientists have to say is not the fault of the scientists. They use a lot of technical jargons. You are suppose to read up on shit and not just react with the lizard brain that we all have.


I think it just shows how stupid the liberal mindset is when they expect people to just read up and take responsibility for their opinions. They should focus on adjusting their language to their audience, but I guess that isn't as easy when you're living in a echochamber more concerned about pointing fingers than having empathy and meet their opposition half way and discuss things without yelling racism at everything they disagree with.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

dulcinea said:


> The problem isn't science. It's how people view science. Science should not be a cult, or a movement. It exists to create a base of empirical thinking based on rigorous testing for the sake of determine what is or is not, a fact. You can't change what the facts are. Without access to this kind of knowledge, society can easily go back to a society that is ignorant, superstitious and easily manipulated by a priest or shaman class that can, say, for a fee, exorcist the demons that have made your child sick.


People are still superstitions and easily manipulated though. Someone can easily manipulate them under the guise of "science" instead of religion. And doctors can, for a fee give you a pill that seems to cure your ailments, while the medical literature on that pill later shows its no more effective than a placebo. 

I believe in science, but I don't trust the people who cheerlead science in a cult-like manner. They act as though all scientific knowledge is cut and dried, and if you are skeptical of any of it then you are a 'dangerous science denier', which sounds too much like 'dangerous heretic'. Real science is about data which is often not cut and dried, it's open to interpretation, and it's not as perfect as the science believers make it sound. Shoddy studies and outright fraud still manage to make it past peer review, and there's the problem of studies often showing what their funders want them to show. We see things long held as scientific fact get overturned. Look at nutrition. Things they told us were bad for us 20-30 years ago are now not so bad, and the healthier alternatives 20-30 years ago are now unhealthy. See butter vs. hydrogenated margarine, coconut oil, salt, low-fat diets, etc. 

So in short, yes science is a net benefit, but it's good to look at it critically rather than automatically take everything it says as 'gospel truth'.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Wiz said:


> Sure, I don't disagree with that. But liberalism want's to reduce everything to a singularity, so depending on where you draw the timeline, they are the ultimate conservatives in a sense
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is the misnomer of what a liberal/progressive means. Conservativism is resistance to change and live by the old ways because it is "better" when it is no longer relevant. Liberalism/progressive means the embracing of new ideas. (The new ideas must be proven to work because change for the sake of change is just bad too.) 

Well, you can say the old society needed women and men to fit in a certain role. I am speculating here but back in the day work/military require physical strength. Men being stronger than women are able to do those things. Today's society that is no longer the case. Physical strength is no longer the pillar of our society. 

IT is because it takes a long time for us to get started and for climate to recover that we need to start the awareness now, or it would be too late.

I don't see how it is virtue signalling.

renewable energy sector is one of the biggest growing fields. 


All mass movement of people bring social issue, even if they are done between two cities/stats. Carefully managed immigration bring very little social issues. Giving other people an opportunity is not targetting and replacing "white" people. Furthermore, white prilivage is real within a country of majority white. This is not to demonize people for being white, but point out that this exist. You can say there are groups of people out there uses this "white privliage" thing to attack people, and that is not ok. Furthermore, people still equating race = ethinicity. 


Is the market really free? and does it work fine? eh. 

I never said black people get falsely convicted is because of racism though I believe it does play a part. I was just talking interms of the numbers. 


Technical jargons are not ment for the layman but people within the field. What happens is when little kids read this, and they misrepresent it, and then right wingers gets upset by what the kids are saying and attack these little kids on youtube, and it all goes to shit.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

johnson.han.3 said:


> That is the misnomer of what a liberal/progressive means. Conservativism is resistance to change and live by the old ways because it is "better" when it is no longer relevant. Liberalism/progressive means the embracing of new ideas. (The new ideas must be proven to work because change for the sake of change is just bad too.)


I think most people are "liberals" when it comes to embracing better solutions. The rise in the type of conservatism we see to day is more rooted in cultures, economy and principles than practicalities IMO. For instance with drug abuse you'll hear conservatives blaming the addict for "making the choice", so because he didn't say no, his misery is only his own fault. 

"If you didn't want X, why did you do Y". Is a usual conservative approach which I disagree entirely with, for instance. My threshold ends where biology stops and intellectualising/self deceit/free will begins.



> Well, you can say the old society needed women and men to fit in a certain role. I am speculating here but back in the day work/military require physical strength. Men being stronger than women are able to do those things. Today's society that is no longer the case. Physical strength is no longer the pillar of our society.


That's correct. But that's only a small portion of the male stereotype, and are very physiological. Studies show that men and women have different; vision, sensitivities to audio frequencies, tolerance for pain, ways of thinking etc. Where I live, which is one of the worlds leading countries in terms of equality, studies show that when women are encouraged to take certain topics their choices remain the same. Actually less women choose those fields, because they want success based on their merits, not "free passes".



> IT is because it takes a long time for us to get started and for climate to recover that we need to start the awareness now, or it would be too late.
> 
> I don't see how it is virtue signalling.
> 
> renewable energy sector is one of the biggest growing fields.


Numbers are never discussed (probably because no matter what we do we'll only impact it like 5%) which is why I'm calling it virtue signalling as a means to justify more financial government control. If the government wanted to boost the development of renewable energy, they could easily use policies to make it the only clear choice for investors, entrepreneurs etc. 

Governments around the world are choosing to punish everyone, instead of simply lifting taxes thereby creating a positive win/win situation. 

Drug policies are similar. Punishment was the norm, but once those laws was lifted, win/win for everyone. The government get their money through tax, people are free to enjoy whatever they want, less crime, less jail, and less illegal markets.



> All mass movement of people bring social issue, even if they are done between two cities/stats. Carefully managed immigration bring very little social issues. Giving other people an opportunity is not targetting and replacing "white" people. Furthermore, white prilivage is real within a country of majority white.


But you can't deny that there are reasons for white people to be concerned both for their culture and their "race". No other places in the world is the opposite set in motion. No majority black/asian/middle eastern countries are, or are even expected to implement policies to make it easier for the minorities that live there.



> This is not to demonize people for being white, but point out that this exist. You can say there are groups of people out there uses this "white privliage" thing to attack people, and that is not ok. Furthermore, people still equating race = ethinicity.



Whites are 15(and falling)% of the world population. Also, they are the only countries that have redefined "racism" so much that they have implemented laws that ensures that their institutions are less white. So if we're talking diversity, it's the rest of the world that has a problem. 

The term "racism" is redefined to be usable only against white people, and it's mostly used to "reduce" the presence of white people, wether it's in companies, government, freedom of opinion, or in general.

I'm not trying to create a "sob-story", but I understand and empathize with questioning the motives, as well as the ideological backlash against the seemingly blind hypocricy of the left when people with no ill intentions are unjustly targeted and robbed of the right to defend themselves, even vocally, all on the basis of "hue".



> Is the market really free? and does it work fine? eh.


There will always be need of regulating certain markets. But as we discussed, removing regulation can and be positive in some instances, like if one for instance wanted to boost positive forces such as renewable energy. 

Also, just for thought, take a look at the unregulated Bitcoin/alt coin surge that's currently happening. Jumping from 200$ to 2000$ in value, creating millionaires all over the world with no victims except banks and financial institutions. Once the wrong people are getting rich, the gvt. steps in.

Just look how the gvt. aims to control everything that's "free". They are currently taking control over the internet with no valid reason or acute danger that justifies them to do so. The same will happen with Bitcoin/altcoins despite the fact they are working perfectly well on their own.

So I think the real problem, which both the right and the left can agree upon is how irresponsible and ineffective the government have become. 



> I never said black people get falsely convicted is because of racism though I believe it does play a part. I was just talking interms of the numbers.


True, and it might as well be one of the reasons. However I think that the U.S. especially are more "poorcist" than racist. 



> Technical jargons are not ment for the layman but people within the field. What happens is when little kids read this, and they misrepresent it, and then right wingers gets upset by what the kids are saying and attack these little kids on youtube, and it all goes to shit.


That is a problem. And both sides need to take responsibility for solving it. It's the "bubble" mentality, where ones environment uses the same words with different understandings.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

hornpipe2 said:


> I had a full-blown post typed up about how all-consuming the Cult of Science has become...
> 
> but instead I'll just leave you with this link that perfectly encapsulates my problem with those who claim to "love science".
> 
> https://qz.com/966436/march-for-science-the-best-signs-from-protests-around-the-globe/


Science isn't a cult. Only a religious person would be able to call science a cult because it requires that ignorant kind of faith based thinking that blocks people from not seeing everything as faith based.

Religious people always invoke the faith based way of thinking to explain why people don't believe in god. But faith is the exact thing that is not needed in science. In fact, science is not something you believe in. Science is what it is, regardless of who believes it or what is believed about it.

Here's another way to put it:

If ALL religious knowledge would be removed from humanity. From all our brains, as if this knowledge had never existed,... it would come back, but not in the same way as it exists now.

If ALL scientific knowledge would be removed from humanity, from all our brains, as if this knowledge had never existed,... it would come back in exactly the same way.


But besides the religious factor (you called science a cult and therefore made your post religious), science helps everyone, regardless of their beliefs. Because of science your life expectancy at birth is more than twice what it was before science, you can travel a 5000 miles in the same time that you needed to travel 30 miles, etc. etc. etc. All religious people, very happily, use these benefits that are the result of scientific knowledge.

So you do love science, whether you are aware of it or not. Because you do love your car, you do love your tv, you do love the simple over the counter medication that you use every now and then to get rid of a headache or stomach pain, you do love your computer, you do love the internet, etc. etc. etc.

Almost everything you take for granted is possible because of scientific knowledge. And even if you would get rid of all of that and just live from the land, you would use wheels and fire and as anoying as that may seem, that too is scientific knowledge.


----------



## hornpipe2 (Nov 3, 2015)

Peter said:


> Science isn't a cult. Only a religious person would be able to call science a cult because it requires that ignorant kind of faith based thinking that blocks people from not seeing everything as faith based.


You might find the rest of my posts in this thread helpful in clarifying what I actually meant.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Peter said:


> Here's another way to put it:
> 
> If ALL religious knowledge would be removed from humanity. From all our brains, as if this knowledge had never existed,... it would come back, but not in the same way as it exists now.
> 
> If ALL scientific knowledge would be removed from humanity, from all our brains, as if this knowledge had never existed,... it would come back in exactly the same way.


Not necessarily. There is a curious tendency for scientific revolutions to mirror the culture of which they are products. That is, the same society's art, music, literature, economics, political philosophy, etc. I think it might be a mistake to deny science a creative status.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Flying Triangle said:


> There are males who do this, too.


How many exactly? Except doing the same thing would not work for them and they have the lowest participation rate so far in identity politics. Half or a quarter of people who are males of this type are even on the right wing for some reason too though thankfully not all.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> Not necessarily. There is a curious tendency for scientific revolutions to mirror the culture of which they are products. That is, the same society's art, music, literature, economics, political philosophy, etc. I think it might be a mistake to deny science a creative status.


There is a lot of creative thinking required to figure out nature. But when we use creativity for science and technology, we don't call it creativity anymore. I guess it would confuse too much with arts.


----------



## Jeffrei (Aug 23, 2016)

I have to say that science does matter (I tried, ok? XD)

However, protesting about it at this point is pure folly. I didn't say anything good coming out of any of the previous protests (except for some YouTube videos and Tennessee saying you can run people over and possibly not get in trouble (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.us...d-drivers-who-run-over-protesters?context=amp)). What on earth makes people think that walking around with witty signs will do any good?

Life finds away and so will scientists.


----------

