I don’t trust the science.
>>16796549The neat thing is, it works whether or not you believe in it.
>>16796554>The neat thing is, it works whether or not you believe in it.This but unironically. They don't need you to trust it. They just need the 99% of human cattle to trust it and then they will force the new status quo on the remaining 1% without any strong objections.
>>16796558It must be tiresome and infuriating, having to use the computers made by science to post these stupid anti-science tirades on the internet.
>>16796554It only works due to the manipulation of public perception
>>16796574>If you believe hard enough, the earth will become flat!
>>16796578Yes
>>16796567You sound mentally ill.
>>16796646You are factually retarded.
>>16796658You don't know anything about me. You're just hallucinating something about some "anti-science tirade" that isn't happening and "science" being some kind of monolith enterprise that produces computers one day and clot shot gene therapy on the next.
>>16796574how does public perception matter when the public doesnt even get exposed to 99% of studies
>>16796567computer scientist here. I made the computers and I dont "trust the science." You dont speak for us
>>16796549I trust old science and i think New science is Utterly, utterly useless. Close all adult day cares, i mean universities. Fund trades. Fund libraries for the curious.
>>16796549Which science and why? it's okay not to trust the science...when you have evidence that you can come up with a better working model. Einstein didn't trust Newtonian physics and thus came up with a better model
>>16796664You are literally factually retarded. This is based on the posts you have made.
>>16796746I don't speak for deluded schizophrenics, yes. Take your meds, you invalid.
>>16796853The neat thing is, schizos schiz whether or not you believe in it.
>>16796856You thought that sounded smart?
>>16796859Thanks for the implication, I was just trying to be silly, but you have elevated my silliness to an artform.
>>16796852Are are losing your mind with rage, probably because:1. You got 4 clot shots2. You don't know how a computer works3. You have no actual STEM degree
>>16796549You think you don't trust the science. But unfortunately, you actually do. You are simply not equipped and not experienced enough to legitimately not trust the science to at least a fraction of the mistrust it actually deserves. Simply put you is sheeple and there's nothing to be done about itt. PhD-haver
>>16796549Why don't you?
>>16796934What's "the science" and how do I trust it, Mr. PhD in Communications?
>>16796934Correct but he is on the right path. Dont talk down on him.t. Masters degree haver
>>16796549okay
>>16796925Why are you upset? I'm simply stating the fact that you are retarded. I have PhD, by the way, if that helps.
>>16796856>>16796852>>16796658>>16796567>>16796554A case study would show public sentiment is against you and that repeated pattern of your behavior indicates a significant deviancy from normal thought ergo I can prove scientifically that you are the retard
>>16796853take my warm, thick jizz down your gullet spastic incel
>>16796959Oh I must have forgotten that popular opinion is the same as the truth and intelligence is the same as memorizing the status quo.
>>16796956>I have PhD,In Science Communications, probably. No wonder you're sharting up your panties with rage.
>>16796971My point is if I constructed a case study that reviewed your behavior in this particular thread, I could misconstrue it to the point where you would come out being retarded. If I document and submit that, it goes into a journal thus becoming an aspect of the science.That's the point of having a general distrust for a lot of 'the science', especially in the fields that have more fluctuation like medicine. Case in point being the amyloid protein debacle with alzheimer's.
>>16797009>My point is if I constructed a case study that reviewed your behavior in this particular threadHaving peer-reviewed your study, I approve of its publication and concur that the subject is retarded.
>>16797009So you could make a shitty biased short sighted study that is eventually debunked and shown to be completely fraudulent like other hoaxes from the past?
>>16796944bruh
Like with many other things in life, every problem people have with modern science can be traced back to the publisher.
>>16797019And why would somone go about debunking the study? Could it be that they didn't trust my result? But it's settled science, they should just blindly believe it.Not to mention the funds that would have been sunk into subsequent bullshit studies that 'corroborate' my findings. I'm not saying 'I don't believe in tension therefore bridges don't exist', I'm talking about areas that are being prematurely placed into 'settled science'. There is a serious paucity of negative evidence in the science as it is not advantageous to submit these findings especially when their done as side-projects by DPhil students.Feel free to argue, if you do I might end up with enough evidence to document your retardation.
>>16796554FpbpScience, technology, is as simple as sticks.
>>16797087>>16796554Pretty sure it's not so simple in the case of public perception. There's an ongoing problem with popular media blowing various theories out of proportion, while also failing to communicate that they're THEORIES.I imagine this is the primary source of people's distrust.>Scientists: we got this and that result from the quantum eraser experiment, we're not sure what it means, but here's some possible explanations>The press: SCIENTISTS PROVE THAT TIME DOESN'T REAL
>>16797095Um. Adorable retard. The eye that looks at nature is first formed by nature. The hand that pokes at nature is first formed by nature. And so on. Science is your father. Your mother.
>>16797095>blaming "popular media"Non-sentient biobot rhetoric. Your "argument" was punched into you by the "popular media" you blame.>>16797097>heckin' science is my father and mother>science is le heckin' natureScientism is low-grade psychosis.
>>16797109Pretty sure I've seen your brand of unwarranted hostility in several different threads.
>>16797113That's physically impossible because my hostility is warranted.
>>16797215This thread is relevant and right.
>>16797215This is a conversation on the topic of accuracy and efficacy in the scientific process.
>>16796554>itand what would that be?
