(untitled)

Every single time I have told people I am a scientist, the immediate reaction was laughter. This post shall not be about me feeling undervalued, but rather about peoples idea and perception of scientists and science. To me it looks like peoples perception of science has become a completely abstract concept of something that "proves their opinionated point" and simultaneaously is in any case pursued by unaccountable strangers.

>>57232 What kind of scientist?

>>57233 computer science and mathematics. I even feel some subtle brainwashed guild by telling you about the specific field. I should probably go see some therapist.

After covid XIX it's not unreasonable for people to distrust scientists, since innumerable statements that later proved to be outdated, inaccurate or wrong entirely have been thrown around. It doesn't even matter if it was mainly perpetrated by the media who has repeatedly misrepresented findings to support some bottom line. Besides, many scientists think of themselves as above those who officially count as uneducated, even though scientists should be the first to understand that they are wholly unqualified to make statements about topics that pertain to other fields. In my view, this negative perception of scientists is not wholly undeserved. It could also just be a reflection of general institutional distrust, which I would definitely say has gone up. This isn't undeserved either. Not that it makes my opinion any more valuable, but these are just my 2 cents as someone who is in academia myself (and hates the superiority complexes and group think).

>>57232 This has been happening for over a decade now. Thanks to Neil D. Tyson, Bill Nye, and all the other celebs and magazines 'scientists' and 'experts' have become this collective of god-like infallable entities whose strange alien words have to be transcribed by gospel preachers for the masses to understand. And if you ever picked up a random pdf and tried to read it, yeah, can you blame them? The systems has been deliberately designed to be as hard to penetrate for the average joe as humanly possible, 'peer' 'review' systems making sure anybody already in getting out of line would be ridiculed and ostracized for it with words like 'pseudoscience'. It's been only in recent years that people has begun questioning these figures and the palpable backlash from people who had their faiths questioned tells you all you need to know. 'Science' in its current form bears not even a passing resemblance to what people claim it is supposed to be. It's an utter failure on a systematic level.

>>57236 I sadly have to agree with all of your points, but have no idea what to conclude from it. Is it time to personally leave academia without ever having contributed significantly at all?

>>57235 I also have to agree with you, that the perception of science might generally speaking not be completely undeserved. For me it feels like science as a whole has no real voice. As soon as science as a whole would choose a public stance, it immediately chooses an opinion based state and is therefore debatable in an unscientific manner by people who are keen to create strong opinion in their own personal interest.

>>57234 >computer science I'd laugh, too, if some CS guy told me he was a scientist. Doesn't mean you're not smart or doing real work its just not what anyone means when they mean science.

>>57240 >ts just not what anyone means when they mean science What does anyone mean by science according to you? Somehow science is this truth defining profession always done by somebody else, right?

>>57241 >What does anyone mean by science according to you? I say that as a person who knows a lot of physics and biology people. Whether modern academia is actually doing science is an open question as far as I'm concerned, but I do think that these two disciplines have a lot more of the vibe that normal people associate with science than CS. And what, you ask, is that vibe ? I'll start with that photo staring out at me from the OP, of a guy looking into a microscope in what looks like a lab, presumably trying to characterize some real physical object or phenomenon. He's probably just doing a photoshoot, but still I think this is the essence of the 'vibe' of science. It is best embodied by experimentalists, in for example physics, building weird machines to do experiments and collect observations, and very little in computer science, which involves not that much interaction with the 'real world' and mostly just with pen and paper ala mathematics. To put it in different terms, I think 'science' is more of the general collection of data by experiment and observation, and the inferrence of rules or trends therefrom. Its most useful in systems we don't always understand that well and so in many cases aren't quite certain of our predictions, and therefore have to do the experiment to be sure we're on track. The other thing, I don't have a name I'm too happy with for it but lets call it theory, works in a space where certain rules and patterns are taken for granted, and that is much more where maths and computer science lay, and obviously there are also theoretical physicists. You can certainly still call some things in it experiments, but I think usually the systems behave in a much more predictable fashion, and the 'science' of it is more about demonstrating how things can be done, or that they can't be, while following these generally accepted rules. There are maybe some aspects of CS, like neural networks, where this is a bit less exactly the case. My NN friends talk about doing 'experiments' and trying to learn about how different nets behave because they really do not understand the underlaying mechanics and have to do experiments to refine their abilities to predict it, but most aren't. Perhaps computers are finally becomming complicated enough to merit a science of their own, or perhaps my friends are just dumb) At this point I don't know many normal people. Maybe they think it has to be done by someone else, someone smarter, holy-er, someone too perfect for their human circles to posess. But this doesn't really seem to be a noteable attitude within my circles.

it's idiotic and childish to say "scientist", say "academic researcher" you autistic freak lmao

>>57245 >it's idiotic and childish to say "scientist", say "academic researcher" What's wrong with saying that? can you explain a little more? If you're really contributing to science and doing serious academic research, that's a pretty good concept.

>>57241 >>57240 >I'd laugh, too, if some CS guy told me he was a scientist. This. Computer """Science""" is not a science and it's not even about computers! Read your SICP: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/index.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J_xL4IGhJA&list=PLE18841CABEA24090&index=1 (watch the first minute for the full answer.)

Imo its just a matter of viewpoint how you approach discovery. Engineering is perhaps a better term but what do you do? You dont create the rules willfully writing code, you discover what works best constrained by reality of physics manifested in hardware constrains. Figuring out the best algorithm is not much different to trying to find a new compound in the chem lab. Sure you can do math but abstract formulas create errors in both cases as abstractions which include some error margin where they diverge from the real world. Its just cleaner and less fancy working with hardware looking at metrics compared to working in a regular lab. In the end both create models that they then verify against reality.

>>57246 it's an ego thing, a lot of normal people just keep any social interaction on "who has a bigger virtual dick" measurement contest. Anything goes, cars, clothes, outward appearance of clothes and shoes, vacations, girlfriend/boyfriend.... its insane. Them hearing the "I am a scientist" is equivalent to them hearing "I am insecure or pathetic so I am making myself look more important to others than I actually am". That is whole reason they're laughing, because they think this is some kind of a show to them, pea cocking it is called. I understand you didn't mean anything by "I am a scientist", you're not an ego driven person, I see that, you're just autistic as fuarrrk and can't understand other people because you're more into things than people. I agree, people are fuarrrking boring and shallow.

>>57249 honest question: do normal people actually revere 'real scientists' ? If you say you're a scientist to a normal person in a dick measuring contest, are you sure you're not just professing to be the top (and really not even the top by any metric) of a totally different hierarchy about which he doesnt care ? Its like bragging to the proverbial football team about winning a spelling bee. Good for you, nerd. By this interpretation, if a normal person hears "Im a scientist" what he actually hears is "Im an autist and have no idea how to normal people". You might as well just shout BAZINGAA!

>>57250 >do normal people actually revere 'real scientists' ? Only if they are currently popular.

>>57250 Youre claiming authority in some domain over him when you say "im scientist" because norm1es rely on the magical scientist to tell them what to do. Now theres a certain social dynamic that plays out - people only get upset when a peer outshines them. They dont compare themselves to the higher ups and so they dont care but they get mad if their peer suddenly claims to be above them too.

I've only had experience with scholars, i.e. researchers working in humanities, but I guess my judgment can be applied to computer scientists as well, seeing that the two are similar, primarily concerning themselves with "theory" and abstract matters as opposed to "practice" and empirical studies of the real world, like this Lain had outlined: >>57242 For me it's disdain, mostly. Academia exists to serve itself, the research conducted is highly specific and highly abstract, making it mere compost for further pointless research, as well as the means of securing lofty academic ranks in equally specific and abstract fields. It doesn't help that the topics chosen for research are often absurd, padded with filler and deliver self-evident truths. Scholars are either autistic about their research to the point of being annoying or are deliberately stretching the boundaries of their field and coming up with nonsense topics for the sake of originality. Either way they deserve to be mocked, the former category less so than the latter. Personally, I am kind of jealous of these types of people though. I wish I had the dedication and passion to study garbage like "semantics of chess words" or "cultural imperialism in the Mega Man video game series".

>>57250 After circa 2007, big bang theory and all of the scientists in the public eye trying to make "sicence more popular" is where you have the facebook "I love science" people who never read a peer reviewed paper in their life. They are the ones that "believe in science" and "trust the experts". These are the idiots who also do dick measuring contests to everyone they meet. Basically these people are the ones that have been conditioned by social media to look at other peoples lives and compare their to others. When they feel threatened then they lash out, in need to equal the field. I had people laugh at me for taking out the trash out of my car on a bus stop. I realized much later it was because the person who laughed at me had the idea she was above me and that me having a car while she is waiting for a bus is something completely threatening to her. To the ego driven people their morality is oneupmanship of pure animalistic nature, conciously or subconciously. Saying "I am an academic researcher" is winning the battle before it started. Sad that its like this but this is like 40% of humanity by my eszimations. Aimless, blind, ego driven dick measuring contest. If other people didn't exist they would lose all purpose and meaning.

>>oh you're a grad student? What do you study? >math >>so, what are you going to do with that? gets me every time. >To me it looks like peoples perception of science has become a completely abstract concept of something that "proves their opinionated point" and simultaneaously is in any case pursued by unaccountable strangers. This is accurate. Most people these days reside on the slopes of "mount stupid" in the classic Dunning-Kruger chart, when it comes to any scientific topic that gets publicity. For most people, the "science" is fully explained when they read a pop-science article that simplifies it all down to meaninglessness or even outright falsehood. The only "alternative" you get is complete fuarrrking idiots who will say "nuh uh statistics is fake! Numbers are meaningless!" if and only if the statistical evidence doesn't support their preconceived notions. You're not allowed to say "I can't derive a meaningful conclusion from available data", everyone hates that answer. The common thread is that people *really* don't like to think analytically. I honestly don't think this is anything new, people found "scientific" arguments in favor of phrenology so they could justify their superiority. Just like with everything else in the digital age, this type of stupidity is merely mass-marketized to a nauseating degree. >>57235 >many scientists think of themselves as above those who officially count as uneducated, even though scientists should be the first to understand that they are wholly unqualified to make statements about topics that pertain to other fields. Scientists generally need to have a very analytical and careful frame of mind, so even a biologist with just a passing knowledge is usually better suited to opine on particle physics than someone with no scientific training at all.

>>57258 hmm I guess my photos aren't uploading again. Here is the lank https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20111228.gif

>>57257 Are you positively sure she laughed at you for using a different transportation method? How do you know she didn't chuckle at something else? I find it bizarre how someone would care enough about what a stranger does to audibly mock them - and equally much how you would pay attention to something like that.

>>57259 The whole civil war argument is merely real underlying goals being different to frontlined noble goals which is a common historical theme. A more recent example would be arab spring. And there are compelling argument why leaders where rather pursuing benefits than caring about slavery but i honestly dont care about it enough to memorize it either. Read it once by chance and forgot again. Still enough to tell its another episode of contrarian social autists larping as smarter than thou over engaging with the points people really make.

>>57260 Nah, she was laughing at me throwing the trash at a bus stop most probably. But what took her by suprise and caught her eye was that I was a much younger guy than she is, with a car. She looked prissy before I caught her eye. I think the laughing at me throwing the garbage was just a tick to her wanting to assert dominance over something that clearly bugged her. > I find it bizarre how someone would care enough about what a stranger does to audibly mock them We are all "strangers", and in some sense people who mock are "strangers" to all, most people. The reason they mock is because they don't understand someones elses life, they cant empathize but their ego tells them they are in the right, that their life is worthy, that they are above you. "Stranger" is a nice word to use here, because only stranger would mock. If you knew someone deeply and understood their life you wouldn't try to mock them for whatever wrongdoing you think they committed. It isn't that they care about what others do, but that they care about themselves so much so that they want to imprint their way of life onto others. > and equally much how you would pay attention to something like that. My professional and personal brain deformation makes me like this. But other than that I like to protect myself so much so that I am willing to be on the outlook for something that might harm me, and adapt so that doesn't happen. To stay in the shadows away from egos of insecure people. Not in fearful sort of sense but more of a "path of least resistance". I do not fear confrontation, I have a nicely sharpened sword but I keep it in the sheets. Lets just say that as sort of an answer. All in all, I just wish to be a puzzle piece that would create a better world. I wouldn't care otherwise.

>>57234 do you have a doctorate in those subjects?

>>57268 not another credentialist oh my lord. I mostly only talk to 2X PhDs myself. I'll go with millionaire ABDs too if they're cool though. Anyone else is just too dumb.

>>57268 Yea, let me pull them up for you to check them up >unzips pants >puts dick and balls on the table You fancy that huh queer?

>>57232 Even in venues ostensibly dedicated to discussion of advanced topics, plenty of the users just want to discuss themselves. Most programming forums are like this. My novel work goes largely ignored, whereas basic adjustments of ideas already known get praised to the heavens. Lainchan isn't like this, at least in the experiences I've had, but that's in part because I'm not so disgusted by this place that I would stop posting. The worthlessness of an idea can be measured by how readily people accept, celebrate, and discuss the idea in question. >>57234 Those are math and math, not science of any sort. >>57258 >You're not allowed to say "I can't derive a meaningful conclusion from available data", everyone hates that answer. >people found "scientific" arguments in favor of phrenology so they could justify their superiority. There's obviously something to phrenology. Let us not ignore the mass insanity occurring lately, in which people ignore the obvious around them.

This reminded of the fact that scientific research used to be more accessible for people without specialist training. Think of ancient philosophers or works like Newton's Optics. (if someone has the English/Latin text of Optics, please post a link) >>57257 >the facebook "I love science" people who never read a peer reviewed paper in their life. They are the ones that "believe in science" and "trust the experts". It's seems that the modern people have replaced the Church with "science" and the priests with scientists.

phrenology is valid. Testosterone affects head shape as well as aggression, hormones regulate more than one thing in general. Downs also shows in face as well as other diseases. There you have your link for head shape and character. Its just nobody thinks of this when they think phrenology, they think of the "the thing nazis did which means its wrong and therefore false". Its an example of cultural indoctrination while the medical literature has established validity over two decades ago. I remember how much outdated soykaf teachers tried to teach me. Now most classrooms probably dont have an autist like me that would read medical journals over watching some retarded tv shows correcting topics like these so the kids absorb it as truth and then go on preaching it. This is how society largely operates on outdated research. They elevate science to the status of religion and repeat mantras they got taught during formative years.

>>57232 It's not that surprising. Science has been hollowed out over the last forty years or so, and doesn't have the credibility it used to have. If you can notice this, you might be one of the good ones. Those degrees are gonna be toilet paper like all the rest eventually. It will at least take a lot longer for the compsci/math ones to go. But the juggernaut is coming for those eventually. I've met data scientists who were dumber than pigeons, seriously nothing going on up there except like a blm hashtag or whatever

>>57269 well... he is calling himself a scientist for computer science, and to be a "scientist" you are generally a phd, so I think it's an appropriate question for the thread subject. Not really a credentialist myself, but if you go around calling yourself a scientist to randoms you should probably be a credentialist.

>>57278 Meh, credentials are what lead formal education to stray from a scientific approach because now you have a authority dictating validity instead of the work speak for itself. Personally a scientist is just some person doing research and documenting it. You dont need any formal credentials for that. Some of the best things came in fact from people with zero formal education because the genius can easily work auto didactic .

>>57280 why would you go around and tell people you are a scientist unless you wanted a special pat on the back, you could just say "i mess with math and computers" OP is the only person ive ever seen call himself a scientist for a degree in computer science

>>57281 well i wasn't specific to op's case and i think calling yourself scientist is social suicide but i also would happily give the label to some of the bloggers i read which are just people doing research in their spare time and blog posting about it. These hobbyists blog posts were on occasion more useful to me than other academic sources.

>>57263 I'm aware but to say it had "nothing to do with slavery" is just false, conflict over slavery was basically the zeitgeist of the time. >>57273 >This reminded of the fact that scientific research used to be more accessible for people without specialist training. Think of ancient philosophers or works like Newton's Optics. This is just not true. For one, it was usually in Latin. For another most people couldn't even read their native language. For another when Optics was published it was considered extremely difficult. >>57271 >>57275 >phrenology is valid lmao. >>57281 >why would you go around and tell people you are a scientist unless you wanted a special pat on the back, you could just say "i mess with math and computers" perhaps to differentiate oneself from a hobbyist?

>>57283 >perhaps to differentiate oneself from a hobbyist? well this kind of goes back to the whole credentialism thing doesnt it

>>57278 I rebuilt an engine once. I'm a scientist. Used the scientific method to figure out oil feed issues, hypothesize and experiment and eliminate options until you're left with the truth and can solve the problem. Didn't find my problem on youtube or the troubleshooting guide in the manual. Nah, I'm just a shadetree mechanic I'm being a smartass but let's get serious for a sec—that's more than what most college people end up doing these days. It's not the seventies anymore, a lot of college is just a silly waste of time you're forced to go through before you get a sinecure. Some of them are smart but most of them are real mediocre and wouldn't know science if it slapped them on the ass

>>57284 Well hobbyists generally don't have access to a lot of resources, nor do they generally have social circles consisting of highly educated specialists, and their day jobs are usually not related to their field of research, which highly limits the amount of time they can devote to it. Computer science is a bit unique in this regard. I've met many self-taught programmers who know more PL theory than grad students, but never a self-taught physicist who knew more than what you'd see in a typical undergraduate program.

>>57283 Some of phrenology is pretty hard to ignore. Do I believe in that chart that has a map of the bumps all over a shaved head? No, but I believe that if you see a person with anencephaly you'd bet he's probably not very bright. So the issue at hand is just finding where the boundary between those is, where it starts becoming hokum and not physical reality. It's a forbidden field of study, though. You'll never get a grant and will be driven out of a career—obviously. Doesn't stop it from being filled with potential. In fact a lot of neuroscience now could be considered the outgrowth of phrenology, only they strayed away from the tendency to predict personality and social outcomes. Because that goes to some strange places. And that makes perfect sense. Nazi anthropologists stopped measuring the craniums of people in Tibet after WWII, the field collapsed, and its final status was left with their own ideological stain forever. But could you never glean something useful from head shapes? Not anymore, because we can't just erase that history, but it's not beyond conception.

>>57286 That's true but some of those super specialized fields where you need serious academic access to do anything? That's a weak point. They are pumped full of academic politics and grant-hounding horseѕһіt precisely for that reason, and they know they'll not get sniffed out until they're past retirement—because nobody outside of that weird academic power ladder can independently verify the scam. People who haven't seen it do this weird thing where they ascribe a non-neutral moral quality to science and academic pursuits. They think they're noble and only driven by the pursuit of divine truth or some hogwash like that. Nah, they're careerists. Worse than most fields, actually. They're looking for that next paper that gets them the nod from on high, not the paper that discovers something revolutionary. In most cases, that's the last paper you'd wanna publish. It would get you thrown out and left with grad-school debt.

>>57287 >Do I believe in that chart that has a map of the bumps all over a shaved head? No That is the entire field of phrenology though. The arguments and data gathering they had were all ass-backwards. Sure you could try to understand the same thing with some scientific rigor, and that's basically neuroscience. And they absolutely do try to do stuff like predict personality, its what grabs headlines. Just turns out that the results are less "we discovered the gene that makes blacks inferior to whites!" And more "we explained a tiny variance in measured aptitude with certain brain activity patterns"

>>57289 Totally, and I agree with you. But notably absent from neuroscience till this day is predictive outcomes about personality and social/criminal outcomes. Is that stuff truly beyond science? Probably not, but that's why phrenology and other (lets admit it) racially charged sciences are verboten. And maybe they should be, this is a statement of fact not value. Or an attempt at one. I understand why it went that way, but I also get why some people wonder what if

>>57288 You are absolutely right, although there are definitely a lot of starry-eyed idealists. They just get ground down like everyone else. >It would get you thrown out and left with grad-school debt I would like to point out that in most countries, grad school is completely free and you get a stipend to cover living expenses. Its not enough for a lot of people but its not like the enormous debt trap that is undergraduate education.

>>57289 Oh and I forgot—you say they try to predict personality all the time, but I would push back on that a little. Every now and then some "science journalism" reads between the lines and sensationalizes, and even that is immediately met with extreme controversy. People still lose their careers even if their papers didn't make that implication, but some dummy at the New York Post did

>>57291 Good point, but that's only one source of economic incentive—even in a country where advanced PhDs are possible on the taxpayer's dime, where you could stay in school until your thirties courtesy of the state: you still would not want to come that far and then get kicked out for messing around with something that was controversial among your fellow academics. It is a system filled with people, and thus everywhere must develop certain corruptions

>>57286 I think you're mischaracterizing amateurs in these fields, there's a lot of actually decent stuff some people do. Sure they can't build space telescopes and gigantic particle accelerators but they can do cool things nevertheless, and well. And many come from technical backgrounds and seem to be surrounded by intelligent and compotent people. I encourage you to try and look around for your fields of interest. Part of the issue is that i.e. physics research is mostly done by academia and academia adjacent things, which are very self serving and only hire from within, whereas computer research has a lot of corporations like google and whatnaught. Say what you will about google and the tech sector but they're more meritocratic than the academy. >>57291 >thrown out and left with grad-school debt if they're not paying you to go to gradschool you should quit right now.

>>57283 >namedrop research widely accepted >lmao seems you aint a scientist at all as you cant engage with basic facts contradicting your believes.

>>57294 Oh lol I'm not going to grad school. Hell naw

>>57294 >whereas computer research has a lot of corporations like google and whatnaught. All of the real computer research is done exclusively by hobbyists. Designing a systolic array system for neural nonsense doesn't count as research. Developing a WWW browser doesn't count as research. >Say what you will about google and the tech sector but they're more meritocratic than the academy. Remember James Damore? Now I don't really care about him, but my point is, no, the mass psychological manipulation company isn't doing computer research, and it's just as rotten as anything else.

>>57294 I am active in hobby communities related to my research interests, that's why I am confident in my assessment. >i.e. physics research is mostly done by academia and academia adjacent things Every major tech company counts as "academia adjacent", private & state-owned research labs recruit heavily from academia, both for computer science and physics. > Say what you will about google and the tech sector but they're more meritocratic than the academy. They're really not. They just pay better.

>>57298 >Remember James Damore? there are a lot of hammers in search of nails that need smashing, Damore stuck his head up and got smashed down. As far as I'm aware he still works in 'tech' just different corp. He probably took a pay cut, but no big deal. My point is it seems a lot easier to get into 'serious computer work' as a compitent guy without a degree, than it is to get into 'serious physics work' as a compitent guy without a degree. Is this not true ? Everything I see makes it seem like this is true. Not that tech is well run or not full of its own many abundant faults and failings. >>57301 >I am active in hobby communities related to my research interests alright, noted.

>>57302 >My point is it seems a lot easier to get into 'serious computer work' as a compitent guy without a degree, than it is to get into 'serious physics work' as a compitent guy without a degree. This is true in general I just think that the same is not true of truly research oriented roles. For engineering oriented roles it may actually be caused by the fact that software engineering is one of the only fields of engineering with no formal licensing program. Also computers don't scare overprotective parents as much.

>>57304 Actually, I take that back, a lot of the neural net guys I've met were self taught but got paid the big bucks and they're actually out there writing research papers.

>>57302 >My point is it seems a lot easier to get into 'serious computer work' as a compitent guy without a degree, than it is to get into 'serious physics work' as a compitent guy without a degree. Is this not true ? I don't know. Where's the serious computer work? It's not at Google, or any other corporation. They don't even try to write software that works correctly. No, managing WWW garbage doesn't make them serious. I suppose someone writing medical firmware is serious, being regulated, but there's also no novelty there.

> peoples idea and perception of scientists and science. Alchemy > Science. Scientists are usually just deceived morons regurgitating the bullshit of the day. Let's put it this way: The Greek System that runs Academia is a collection of secret clubs that all swear on pain of death at higher levels NOT TO REVEAL INFORMATION to the masses... Does anyone think this is OK? How about you "Scientists"? Is that empirically proven to result in more or less truth? Sworn liars handing out information.... For fuarrrk's sake! Might as well ask if I think Politicians should actually be our rulers -- OF COURSE NOT! But there is this gaint machine that puts assholes in places of prominence, and it affects Academia too, earmarks all their funds for specific research - and withholds funding from anyone who actually researches real soykaf. Here's an example: Quantum Physics. Like HAHA! Any scientist can tell that soykaf is 100% bogus! What? None of you "Academics" are not morons - none of you have tried to replicate simple experiments like the Double Slit experiment?! That soykaf should be repeatable - but it's NOT! Don't believe me? Hold your fingers real close together but not touching, a few inches in front of one of your eyes... Move it about with a bright background and you'll discover a fringe pattern forms. Take a piece of tinfoil, slice it with a razer. Shine a laser pointer through the hole... You see a fringe pattern WITH ONE SLIT! Light does not move like water, like they're trying to convince you with stupid water based setups of the two slit experiment. If you actually get a setup working with light you'll notice that if you block at any distance between the slit and the display plate then the the fringe pattern re-appears! Magical! Insane! How the fuarrrk does a "collapsed" waveform re-uncollapse? I'll tell you! You see, since ONLY ONE SLIT IS NEEDED TO MAKE A FRINGE - the two slits overlap and the fringe pattern is strengthened by a cleverly constructed magic trick (you "scientists" call an experiment). Now the detector at one slit is actually also a deflector! So when it turns on, the light is deflected by 1/2 a phase and the fringe patterns fill themselves in! The light doesn't KNOW it is being measured, for fuarrrk's sake! The Detector is interacting with the light! Stop pretending that the apparatus is not part of the experiment! That's exactly how you got many-worlds in your thought experiment. Allow me to dispell this stupidity, Sh-Roid-licker's Cat... Radio exists... so, The Box "observes" the cat. The Room "observes" the Box. The universe "Observes" the Room. At no point was that box insulated from all radio and sound.... Only by imagining multiple universes happening at once do you wind up with Quantum Mechanic INSANITY! It's called a VARIABLE in CS... right? So the "physicist" does some math with a "variable" and says, depending on whether this variable is 1 or 0, the result of the program is different! Wow! A quantum program! But when you run the program, you only get one result, not two different results - the product of entanglement. Before the measurements are made the SCIENTIST is seriously putting forth that REALITY ITSELF can be like the variable - that space/time/energy is actually in an indeterminate state... NO IT IS NOT, IDIOTS! Just because X may bet [0.0 to 1.0] does not mean that shooting a laser from my USB port based on > 0.5 will make my room phase shift into a "shot" and "unshot" many-worlds reality. Of course, at any one point the universe is in a concrete state, not being able to know on paper does not mean that reality is like the soykaf you wrote on paper, physicist... that is the state of SCIENCE! Point and laugh! The nerds have confused D&D with reality and they think they're actually wizards fighting kobolds! There is no Quantum wave duality! Didn't any of you idiots even check?! This is why I spit at anyone who earns money as a "scientist" -- they perpetuate LIES - pure unadulterated RUBBISH as FACT and just churn out government propaganda whenever called upon, in exchange for a cushy gov funded job. "Scientists" are the lowest of the low, below homeless shelter worker. I'd trust a mugger before I'd believe a scientist. Now, go forth and learn what the fuarrrk the Replication Crisis is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis It means that you can pick a peer reviewed study, and flip a coin, and you'll guess that coin toss more often than the study will be repeatable. WORST THAN A COIN TOSS. SCIENCE?! GTFO, nerds. You don't have science, you're just a bunch of deceived apes being controlled by secretive fraternal orders.

>>57326 FART-TICKLE SCIENCE: Let's record vibrations with a GIANT MAGNET... and imagine that this GIANT MAGNET is not affecting the vibrations.... NOPE! Just like we ignore the detector is a deflector... Can you prove ANY of those allegedly quasi-stable fluctuation (particles) exists outside a GIANT MAGNETIC DETECTOR?! No? That entire LHC is a scam. The do have a particle accelerator, but the results are just bullshit fantasy, imagining the Kobolds and Dragons they see squiggling around in their equations are real. None of their research actually impacts semiconductor research or medical instruments, etc. NDT will say it does though! Mic Drop! Gravity! Gravity?! How about this: The earth is static electrically charged at a rate of 100 Volts per meter of charge separation. This somehow has NO CONTRIBUTION to gravity? Come the fuarrrk on! We're being statically electrically affixed to the earth! When NASA ran a balloon experiment to see how much voltage they could measure, enough voltage traveled along the cable it blew up the experiment! SCIENTISTS are on the look out for "green energy" solutions.... NO THEY ARE NOT! The establishment KNOWS you just fly a balloon with a wire on it and gather enough atmospheric EMF to do whatever you want. Astronomy: All those Einstein rings are blue shifted. These rings are "proof" of black hold bendy space-time special relativity. But gravity lensing should only change the path of the light, not the spectra. The spectra is shifted as if by refraction - light entering a more dense hydrogen envelope than intergalactic space... Of course Telescopes use refraction and bending of light - but if ANY light is bent in space it MUST BE BECAUSE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY! They must manufacture evidence to prop up their "big bang" religion. Stars spin faster? Hey, Electromotive Forces cause spin along their axis of current flow... maybe galaxies are made of PLASMA? Charged Particles are flowing? Those arms are z-pinched like plasma in labs does.... But then there's just ELECTRICITY IN SPACE! Yep, no more DARK ENERGY or DARK MATTER - all you have to do is factor electricity in and presto you have electro-coupling effects. REPULSION and not just ATTRACTION... Check out that Quasar! Wow! So Red Shifted! It must be SO FAR AWAY! SCIENCE! Yeah, because two things can't be different colors but sitting next to each other... null hypothesis? NEVER DISPROVED - never even attempt to question Cosmic Expansion. Non-Cosmological Redshift? That gets you KICKED OUT of Academic Astronomy! Seriously! If you say that a quasar might be red because of refraction of light - instead of being very far away, it could just be red... and so it needn't be classified as brighter than an entire universe... It's just closer than redshift would normally indicate.... IF YOU SAY THIS IN ASTRONOMY AS A PROFESSOR, YOU WILL BE BLACKBALLED FROM ASTRONOMY! SCIENCE?! What the fuarrrk is that? YOU DON'T HAVE even a smidgen of SCIENCE!

Interesting reading on the people's perception of science and the actuality of science.

>>57326 But Lain the double slit does work, just look at the interference pattern of the spaghetti coming out of your ears. We uhh, we also use that soykaf in those routers with multiple antennae. And stuff. The spaghetti.

>>57232 "the war on science" by shawn otto goes into detail about the public's perception of science.

>>57233 A dentist of course.

>>57234 I'll give you mathematics maybe. But as a CS student, come on, the whole field is a sham.

>>57232 Come on.>>58043 There is no war on science, everyone loves and supports science especially when it makes the world a worse place to live in. I'm so sick of science.

Because scientist isnt a job title it just makes you sound like a joke. Use an actual job title or your degree.

>>59155 >Because scientist isnt a job title No, it is the name of a profession. If your job needs a "job title" to be real then it's not a real profession.

>>59155 >Because scientist isnt a job title scientist absolutely is a job title.

If a codemonkey who took a bootcamp of javascript an "agile" crap come to me and say "Im a scientist,a DATA scientist", I would laugh my ass off, too.

scientist is like construction worker its a rough umbrella term for what work you do while the work is vastly different depending on youe specific job (crane operator vs brick layer same as marine biologist vs chemist)

>>57236 >'scientists' and 'experts' have become this collective of god-like infallable entities whose strange alien words have to be transcribed by gospel preachers for the masses to understand. That's not an accident. All regimes have a priest class who's job is to legitimize the ruling class and their policies. Traditionally this role was filled by church officials (god demands we raise taxes because the crusades). Now academics are the new priest class (science demands we raise taxes because global cooling^W^W global warming^W^W climate change).

>>59169 >job is to legitimize the ruling class and their policies. I worry that you're placing the cart before the horse here, but I'm not entierly sure. What makes you think that an old ruling class, composed of i.e. Christian True (and mostly true) believers hasn't been replaced with a new ruling class of Science Believers ? Its also of course concievable that there's a tiered system wherein the low level operatives in government might be true believers, while the Shadow Council types mostly don't. And further quite likely that these feed off eachother, rulers looking for scientifically justified policies, scientists looking for power...

>>59170 >What makes you think that an old ruling class, composed of i.e. Christian True (and mostly true) believers hasn't been replaced with a new ruling class of Science Believers ? Henry VIII made a whole new church when the old one didn't give him the answers he wanted. It's the same with science, they only get funding as long as they come up with the "correct" conclusions. >new ruling class of Science Believers ? No one at Obama's 60th birthday party was wearing a covid mask. >scientists looking for power... The key thing about the priest class is that they have high IQs but lack something else, such as temperament or creativity or just knowledge, to make it on the free market. So the next best thing is to get subsidized by the ruling class to help manipulate the masses and keep everyone in line.

>>59171 >No one at Obama's 60th birthday party was wearing a covid mask. All these fuarrrking politicians and cronies are buying beachfront properties as well which tells you what they really think about climate global cooling warming change.

>>59172 >which tells you what they really think ehh. if you're pushing 80 already and expect things to only go south after you're dead why not ?

>>59169 >>59170 In the US at least, the vast majority of lawmakers at least pretend to be Christian, and even though there is a nominal separation between church and state most people still swear on bibles. The catholic church is also one of the wealthiest entities in existence. If we look at *why* modern scientists have so much funding for these huge projects, its mostly because there was a massive surge in usefulness of eggheads right around WW2. You need a huge well-funded scientist and engineer class to make atomic bombs and rockets. Then it became clear that they are also useful for economic advancement and (if you deign to view social science as a science) social engineering. Therefore I think that to characterize modern scientists as a "priestly class" is mostly not true. It ignores the reasons why science became such a huge institution, and it ignores the actual reasons most scientists get their paychecks in the modern day. This effect of treating "science" like some kind of unified field that you have to trust is really recent and mostly doesn't involve actual scientists.

>>59174 >It, the vast majority of lawmakers at least pretend to be Christian, and even though there is a nominal separation between church and state most people still swear on bibles. And what kinds of christians are these? The kind that ignore the pope, support abortion and generally live 100% secular lives. >The catholic church is also one of the wealthiest entities in existence. If your argument is ("god">"science") then how come priests all over the place were arrested for trying to hold church services during lockdowns? >If we look at *why* modern scientists have so much funding for these huge projects, >its mostly because there was a massive surge in usefulness of eggheads right around WW2. You need to make a distinction between public and private research. Of course research with direct military or market application will always be funded. The question you missed is *why* is money pouring into the other stuff. >This effect of treating "science" like some kind of unified field that you have to trust is really recent I did say we transitioned from one to the other. Not that it was always this way. >and mostly doesn't involve actual scientists. You're just no true scotsman'ing here ("actual scientists" disprove your argument and I cherry pick what "actual scientists" means).

>>59182 >And what kinds of christians are these? The kind that ignore the pope, support abortion and generally live 100% secular lives I'll give you that they aren't "true Christians" because it doesnt matter. They still have to at least say they're christisns to get votes. That is telling. >If your argument is ("god">"science") My argument is that the institution of science is not a religion and the similarities are superficial. >Of course research with direct military or market application will always be funded. >The question you missed is *why* is money pouring into the other stuff. Because to get research with direct military or market application you have to first do basic research. Nobody would have invented transistors without first having a solid understanding of semiconductor physics. Every funding agency knows this, the Soviets even had it systematized so that mathematicians were always trying to answer questions that would be useful to physicists, who would be trying to answer questions that would be useful to engineers. >I did say we transitioned from one to the other. Not that it was always this way. I mean that it happened within the last 5 years, and was met with immediate backlash from the masses.

>>59182 >And what kinds of christians are these? The kind that *ignore the pope*, support abortion and generally live 100% secular lives a bit petty but most American Christian Politicians aren't catholic and don't have any obligation to listen to the Pope. We've only just recently reached 4 years of ostensible Catholic Presidency out of the entire history of the country. >*why* is money pouring into the other stuff. I do think part of it is that with the seemingly extremely successful use of military science in WWII and very early phase Cold War, there seems to have been some excitement over the whole idea of scientifically organized and optimized societies on many levels. This idea obviously is older but it seems to be more post WWII that organizations like RAND and other think tanks start gaining great traction, not to mention say the GI bill and a big push to funnel children through uni. Vietnam War Drafting could be dodged by going to uni as well, further building up their influence. It does also seem like the tendancy of government agencies is to try perpetually to grow and increase their own power and relevance. When the NSF was started in 1950 its scope was more limited, and now it just seems like it throws money at any type of thing that it can. Maybe its just because the bureaucracy wants to get more money, if it has money it needs to find reasons to use all of it and then call these neccessary, and then it gets to ask for more. This is kinda how fedgov generally works, if you manage to be under budget you get less funding next year, so you always try to hit the limit and ask to get more. Its a perverse incentive. Sorry this feels a little like a schizo rant but maybe I'm just a lil schizo today. >real scientists what is a real scientist ? hard to say. but very few people writing and enforcing government policy are such people I think we can agree.

>>59225 >This is kinda how fedgov generally works, if you manage to be under budget you get less funding next year, so you always try to hit the limit and ask to get more This is exactly how it works, no schizo required.

>>59189 >They still have to at least say they're christisns to get votes. That is telling. Telling of what? That voters imprinted on the previous priestly class are still alive in sizeable qualities? >My argument is that the institution of science is not a religion and the similarities are superficial. Shouldn't be a religion. I think they sure started acting like one though. >I mean that it happened within the last 5 years, and was met with immediate backlash from the masses. The global warming narrative is much older than that. >>59225 >I do think part of it is that with the seemingly extremely successful use of military science in WWII and very early phase Cold War Yes useful science is useful. The question is what about all the unuseful, unpatented science clogging up journals about gender nonesense and global warming and such. Why is this being funded if not to manipulate the masses for political reasons? >what is a real scientist ? Science is about repeatedly applying the scientific method to build more and more accurate models of how the (physical) world works?

>>59225 a real scientist is someone who values truth over money which excludes those people. Most high ranking gov scientists are just corporate drones set to their position to sabotage gov from within for their old corps profit. Food pyramid was famously done entirely by corp drones each advertising their company product. These people are just scammers using the mantle of science for credibility. Even better is the example of WHO, their head comes from a african soykafhole where they have 2 major tribes and he denied vaccination to the other tribe and just let them die. Literally doing the opposite of what they claim to be doing and he gets to sit on top now. Shows you the credibility of such institutions.

>>59234 >Telling of what? That voters imprinted on the previous priestly class are still alive in sizeable qualities? that christianity is still by far the most dominant religion in the US. > I think they sure started acting like one though. 1) who is "they"? 2) Can you provide evidence for this claim? >The global warming narrative is much older than that. The global warming narrative does not constitute a religion, and until very recently the messaging was "this bad thing is going to happen, here is what we can do" and not "EVERYTHING IS DOOOOOOMED!!!" >The question is what about all the unuseful, unpatented science clogging up journals about gender nonesense and global warming and such. Why is this being funded if not to manipulate the masses for political reasons? what journals are clogged with this? Probably journals that are devoted to that topic. Global warming research is useful for people who have to actually plan ahead for it, such as urban planners, military strategists, etc. Unlike you they can't afford to ignore the overwhelming evidence.

>>59236 Vaccines are poison.

>>59250 You have two types of climate change. The sort caused by natural factors, solar activity, and so on, and the sort caused by geonengineering and weather warfare.

>>59250 >that christianity is still by far the most dominant religion in the US. How is that relevant, what are you are responding to here. >1) who is "they"? 2) Can you provide evidence for this claim? What evidence would you accept? >The global warming narrative does not constitute a religion It is literally a middle class doomsday cult. It is unfalsifiable, anyone who questions it is excommunicated, and the only reason it exists is to exert power over the plebs. >"this bad thing is going to happen, here is what we can do" and not "EVERYTHING IS DOOOOOOMED!!!" Is that so? https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/23/120-years-of-climate-scares-70s-ice-age-scare/ >what journals are clogged with this? Probably journals that are devoted to that topic. Not the point. The point is this "science" has no economic value yet someone is funding it. Why? >Global warming research is useful for people who have to actually plan ahead for it, such as urban planners, military strategists, etc. Interesting. Do you have an example of a concrete predication to come out of climate change research that urban planners and military strategists have done something useful with? Or is this literally just, "if we mention climate change in our reports we will get extra funding?" >Unlike you they can't afford to ignore the overwhelming evidence. I am ignoring the overwhelming evidence for climate change the same way you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence for god.

>>59257 flood prediction models play a role in house insurance cost. For house near water there are categories like 1flood/100years, 1flood/1000years insurance uses to determine how much you should pay. >>59254 autism is actually bacteria, problem with giving vaccs is it puts immune system into a 2 front war which makes it less likely to win the war on the bacteria without losses. The paper is like a decade old, poor fuarrrkers got hammered cause they provided a possible link why vaccs can give autism. Nobody took the check for sickness first before giving vacc advice at face value, instead they screeched as trained because they saw vaccs and autism mentioned together.

>>59258 >autism is actually bacteria, problem with giving vaccs is it puts immune system into a 2 front war Not solely, this is vastly oversimplified. Though it is true that autism is a disease state and induced exogenously.

>>59258 >flood prediction models play a role in house insurance cost. So?

>>59260 Corporations exploit fear of climate change to raise prices therefor climate change is real.

>>59257 >What evidence would you accept? I would read literally anything you wrote and either be convinced or not convinced. >It is unfalsifiable sure it is. Prove that summers aren't on average hotter than they used to be and that global ice cover isn't lower than it used to be. You would overturn years of observational data. >The point is this "science" has no economic value yet someone is funding it it *does* have economic value, as explained elsewhere in the post. It was also explained before that most science has no obvious economic value because it's impossible to monetize very early blue-sky research, but without early blue-sky research it is possible to reach applied research that can be monetized. Of course this has nothing to do with *your* qualm. You just don't want projects which come to conclusions you don't like to get funding. >Do you have an example of a concrete predication to come out of climate change research that urban planners and military strategists have done something useful with? Salinity intrusion of freshwater aquifers is a big one that water boards across the world have to think about. Weather forecasting is absolutely necessary to operate an air force or navy, and like it or not climate change does matter in those models. Shipping companies take advantage of the fact that there is way less sea ice now than there used to be, so they can send icebreaker ships up north and get through the northwest passage. Probably more that I can't think of. >>59262 insurance companies aren't the only people who worry about flood maps. Anyone who designs a sewer also needs to consult them so the streets aren't flooded with soykaf all the time. >I am ignoring the overwhelming evidence for climate change the same way you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence for god. funny that you assume I'm not religious.

>>59263 >I would read literally anything you wrote and either be convinced or not convinced. No because you will just keep moving the goal posts. We need to close on what constitutes acceptable evidence before we start. >Prove that summers aren't on average hotter than they used to be The earth is pretty old. Global temperatures and ice coverage have been both much higher and much lower in the past. Would you like to set tighter parameters? >it *does* have economic value Are you actually saying that every piece of published academic research has economic value? Or can you just skip passed the failed diversion and address my point. >You just don't want projects which come to conclusions you don't like to get funding. Don't strawman. It makes you look dumb. >Shipping companies take advantage of the fact that there is way less sea ice now than there used to be, This doesn't answer the question. >Salinity intrusion of freshwater aquifers is a big one that water boards across the world have to think about. >Weather forecasting is absolutely necessary to operate an air force or navy, As I alluded to before, institutions that depend on government money need to be seen to hold up government narratives. >and like it or not climate change does matter in those models In what way? Can you elaborate? I did ask you for a concrete prediction not just "things are warmer right now therefor climate change".

>>59260 >give example of a concrete predication to come out of climate change research that urban planners and military strategists have done something useful with you asked for it, so i gave you an example where its used. >>59262 salty af take, the point is simply there is demand for climate fortune tellers because there's a industry that needs to justify their actions with science because thats what people believe in. We dont know is not a accepted take so you get people running statistical models to make some numbers up. most here should be somewhat tec affine, you should know how security works - corp pays for some cheapest service just to fulfill legal obligation. It not done cause its useful to pay 3.50 for mcsecurity but cause law mandates it. Same idea.

>>59264 >uwu I'm going to intentionally misinterpret what you say because it makes you look dumb! very clever. >No because you will just keep moving the goal posts. So you don't want to engage because you don't think I'll be charitable? >We need to close on what constitutes acceptable evidence before we start. For a casual discussion about concepts as vague and poorly defined as "religion", such parameters can't exist. >Don't strawman. It makes you look dumb. I'm not strawmanning, I'm actually ad-homineming. >>Shipping companies take advantage of the fact that there is way less sea ice now than there used to be, >This doesn't answer the question. It's relevant data for military strategists as well as geopolitical strategists that the northwest passage will probably be an open shipping route in 30-40 years. Doesn't get more useful than that. >As I alluded to before, institutions that depend on government money need to be seen to hold up government narratives. They're also terminally under-funded >In what way? Can you elaborate? I did ask you for a concrete prediction How concrete do you want? Usually an El Nino event causes massive rain storms in the western pacific, but in 2016 there was a huge El Nino and it didn't even break the drought. Then there was that 'heat dome' thing which as far as I know is very rare. I'm not a weather scientist but they'd be fools to ignore such observational data when building weather models. >not just "things are warmer right now therefor climate change". I mean, that is pretty much the definition of climate change.

>>59268 before you start reffering to my previous comments, I've had some activity in this thread but not the most recent back and forth. >They're also terminally under-funded they have to construct themselves to be barely sufficiently funded at best in order to justify their current budget. Are they actually badly funded or are they just inefficiently run ? Hard to tell. >climate change climate change certainly seems to be real. Northern shipping passages are a good example of that. The elements that are taken as articles of faith mostly relate to our role in it: how much of what is currently going on is a result of our actions, and which actions ? How much could we direct it, and can we actually predict the consquences of future actions on it ? If we can direct it, what if anything should we try to do ? What are the possible negative reprecussions of these actions ? And of course, what are the possible consequences of us doing nothing at all ? The science beleivers have answers to all of these questions, but they may not be what you or I would consider to be scientifically arrived at answers. Historically there's certainly been climate change, its not like its something unique to our century. Read some old history books and compare descriptions of places, there's clearly a lot of variation. I hear the planet went through a brief Ice Age a within the last five hundred years, for instance. Coastlines change, volcanos erupt and blot out the sun across the planet. These things happen. I'm not at all convinced that it wouldn't be more bizzare if the climate appeared to have perfectly stabilized in the last 35 years, than what its doing now. more general than just reply to specific post >why is science funded if we take the idea that wwii made everybody think industrialized science is awesome, its pretty easy to just say that people saw what i.e. physics seemed to suddenly do and figured that perhaps this was the key to a new more perfect world. If a few years of serious government research in physics can give us rockets, jets, the atom bomb, then what could similar projects in other sciences give us ? Read the scifi of this time, it seemed like the entire universe was changing at breakneck speed. Airplanes, rocket ships, vaccines, nuclear bombs, poison gasses, electricity itself, robots, computers, plastics. People seriously werent sure they wouldn't discover little rabbits bouncing around when the first good photos came back from Mars. Worth also pointing out that post wwii we had the good impetus of War. If some weaponizeable discovery is lurking in the next few steps of biological research, we must find it before the Soviets might get a chance to use it against us, and viceversa. Its easy to just think about this along the lines of conventional/nuclear weapons, and related sciences. Obviously this is a wide area, physics of course, but also chemistry, metalurgy, biology. Study of climate and atmosphere to better understand effects in those areas. Geology and biology as well. And then all the technologies relating to delivery systems, electronic and aerodynamic control. But that's not even all that people seem to have seen weapons potential in. The US had its programms like MKULTRA, people seemed to think developments in psycho sciences might revolutionize basic social organizations, as well as espionage, and other things. If you're familiar with stories like the Manchurian Candidate, this very plan was essentially directly attempted by Mossad. And again, the imminent sense of danger justifies spending, and if you and your obscure science branch can justify some obscure possible use of your field for weapons, well perhaps that merits you getting money. And once you have it you're never going to give it up if you have the choice, now are you? Now all this inflates the university system and academia, but its not the only thing doing it. You have the GI bill, dumping tons of money into the system, as well as soldiers who never otherwise would have gone. You have the later proxy wars and their drafts, which could conveniently be dodged by being enrolled in university, and now in our current state its been constructed as the default destination for a highschool graduate, and now more people graduate highschool than in the 40's. I'm sure there are other things as well, but I can't think of too many right now. In sum this funnels a huge amount of money and power into the academy, and establishes them with a reputation of being the sagacious voice to which politicians ought to listen. Current politicians were often born in the fourties and fifties, and grew up in the world that was awed by the moon landing and the nuclear bomb, who listened to sonic booms as the fighters flew over their houses, and are deep in the groove of expecting the academy and RAND to be the people who know whats going on. They're too young to have lead soldiers in any significant american war, and attribute what victories we have not to wise leadership but to technological superiority.

>science vs faith science and faith obviously don't have to be opposed, its pretty easy to reconcile the two, short of being a rational absolutist 'beleive naught but what I have evidence for' type. I think the fact that they are commonly pitted against eachother is one of the stronger cases to be made for why scientism should be thought of as a religion. >Is science actually pitted against religion ? you might be old enough to remember the great online Atheism debates of years past. My sense of these is that its pretty plain that a great many people (admittedly, internet autists of the fedora tipping variety) do take them to be opposed, or at any rate replaceable. People arguing for Atheism try to use science as the foundation of their belief. Look at folk like Richard Dawkins, for instance, who credits Charles Darwin for his personal conversion out of Christianity, and is now a missionary against Christianity, and in favour of Belief in Science. If you have seen the many yard signs, "In this house we Beleive [...] Science is Real", you can see that this is not merely the ideology of a few weirdos like Dawkins but a fairly common attitude among certain strata of society. Further, I'd draw attention to the word on those signs: "Beleive". As we see, even the language frequently used to describe science and technology is subversive. The use words like "Miracle" to describe various technical achievements seems like it cannot be accidental. Its easy to defray things by pointing to some well known Christian Scientists (not neccisarly of the Mary Baker Eddy variety), and discuss how science is a practice and a technique for learning about the world rather than an ideology akin to religion. These points are real and valid, but they hide the fact that there is indeed some Thing akin to a religion which looks to science for its Miracles, its Beliefs, its Laws and its priests. It is not science, but it lurks in science's shadow.

Where are all of you highly, highly intelligent people coming from?

>>59268 >For a casual discussion about concepts as vague and poorly defined as "religion", such parameters can't exist. So why do you ask for evidence when you know whatever I came back with would never convince you. >It's relevant data for military strategists as well as geopolitical strategists that the northwest passage will probably be an open shipping route in 30-40 years. Ok. But as we discussed this climate research has been going on for decades now. How about a prediction made 30-40 years ago that has come true now? >They're also terminally under-funded No one is stopping you from donating. >Usually an El Nino event causes massive rain storms in the western pacific, but in 2016 there was a huge El Nino and it didn't even break the drought. Then there was that 'heat dome' thing which as far as I know is very rare. I'm not a weather scientist but they'd be fools to ignore such observational data when building weather models. >How concrete do you want? More concrete than "oh no a weird weather thing happened, must be global warming". >I mean, that is pretty much the definition of climate change. This comes back to the unfalsifiability thing. >it's too hot => climate change >it's too cold => climate change >it's too dry => climate change >it's too wet => climate change If everything is climate change then it's not science. It's an agenda.

>>59281 the agenda is pay me and save the planet is the justification but strictly speaking "climate change" is just the cop out of failing to predict weather accurate past a week. If you cant predict if it gets colder or hotter you say its changing and you get to be right both times. Its the elegant solution to the requirement to be right.

>>59282 The weather guys are handed a script and general projection by Raytheon, who does all of their long term modeling.

>>59285 this is a little innane, a lot of local weather reporting is done locally, and its not neccisarily too weird voodoo climate modeling science type of stuff. You look at the clouds, look at the clouds farther away, look at the pressure zones, and kinda make a reasonable guess about whats going to happen in the next week or so. Maybe Raytheon hands them the script for when they're talking about the next fifty years, or even the next yaer, but bread and butter weather reporting is too low level for that to matter.

>>59281 >>I mean, that is pretty much the definition of climate change. >This comes back to the unfalsifiability thing. >>it's too hot => climate change >>it's too cold => climate change >>it's too dry => climate change >>it's too wet => climate change >If everything is climate change then it's not science. It's an agenda. Not him, but that's the brilliant thing about climate: because it is a chaotic system, apart from astronomical phenomena and the laws of universe, it affects literally everything: some places get wetter, some places get dryer, some places might occasionally get a little bit colder, and in general terms it's getting hotter everywhere on planet Earth. The key point here to note is that these weather conditions are happening in places where and when they normally shouldn't over long time-scales, which makes them abnormal in relation to these grander weather patterns that we've become accustomed to seeing. At any rate, if we were to get back to the basics, what isn't (or shouldn't be) at question is "whether or not the climate is changing?", because that's a given. The real question is "to what extent is the actions of man playing in said climate change?" It ceases to be a scientific question and turns into a political one only at that point when we posit the question "should we do something about it?" As for the matter of 'having an agenda', you are making it sound like it is something deplorable and vile, but is it really? In case you want to solve this final question by yourself, you might want to consider consulting your local library's "Philosophy of Ethics" section. But if we were to have a crack at it, we might start off by asking ourselves whether it is justified or not to do a thing, if we 1) hold a justified true belief on the discussed matters of fact 2) know that there might be a considerable, although not 100% chance that, if uncorrected, our current societal trajectory is likely going to have dire consequences for the well-being and happiness of our fellow human being(s), but 3) do not have the explicit consent of each and every one of our fellow human being(s), despite us having their best interests in mind? Whatever conclusion we reach by answering this question, should settle this last issue. And finally, when it comes to the use of falsifiability as a criteria for demarcating science from non-science, there are suitable and unsuitable uses of it when we are talking about science as a process: it is hard to empirically test the hypothesis that climate is changing as a result of man, due to the sheer scale of something like climate. In the most straightforward sense, you'd basically have to remove all humans from the face of this planet to produce such disproving empirical evidence. In this sense, falsifiability is a poor criteria for settling whether climate change theory is science or not. tl;dr: You don't seem to understand...

>>59446 >>59446 I love how you tried to mansplain but at the same time the philosophical implications of what he said just went over your head. You little pointdexter you. Also thanks for the tldr, since you already know nobody is going to read just a garbage of thinktank buzzwords and phrases that you regurgitate.

>>59450 On the conceptual level, there are no other *philosophical* implications to tackle with besides the issue of whether climate change theory can be defined as science or not, and if the criteria to be used in determining this is the falsifiability clause, then that is a pretty weak way to go about doing this. For whatever else I may have missed in this elaborate change of words, I can't be blamed; not everyone can be as articulate as I am, and in such occasions it falls under the responsibility of the contestant or opposing party in a discussion to point any misunderstandings or mischaracterizations I may have made of his statements here. >thinktank buzzwords and phrases that you regurgitate I assure you that all I have written above is a result of my own research into the matters I touched upon above, but as far as buzzwords go, I think you are the one who should be looking in a mirror, with your "mansplaining" trite.

>>59376 >a lot of local weather reporting is done locally in the US pretty much every weather station uses government-run RADAR and simulations for forecasting. The weather guy just interprets the results and adds a lil bit of local knowledge. >>59282 > If you cant predict if it gets colder or hotter you say its changing and you get to be right both times. Its the elegant solution to the requirement to be right. climate is different from weather. The climate of a place means the typical weather patterns, e.g. eastern India typically has a dry season followed by monsoon rains. The southern US gets a hurricane or two every summer. And so on and so on. Climate modeling is about trying to find changes in these long-term climate patterns and figuring out how they are influenced by large-scale chemical and biological relationships within the earth's atmosphere and upper crust. Given that those espousing the greenhouse-gas-based global warming climate models have been pretty much spot on so far, do you have an actual argument or are you just going to keep rambling on about how you don't need to look at the data because you can magick it away with the power of sophistry?

forgot the chart. The scale is bad, basically it's deviation from 1900 average. Interestingly this is distinct from the cyclical warm and cool periods caused by the sun and the earth's orbit, which we're *also* close to the peak of. Those cycles are way too long to explain this massive deviation.

do you.... think that is evidence against my point? It shows a clear correlation between atmospheric CO2 gas and atmospheric temperature. The time scale it still way too small and the data is way too noisy to draw any meaningful conclusion about temperature on the time scale of 100 years. Each data point looks like it's over 500 years apart.

>>59460 sorry, I mean the time scale is way too big.

>>59460 >>59461 The conclusion is that the ice is melting and releasing the CO2, that this is a natural occurring period and would occur in current time without our help, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. The correlation between atmospheric temperature and CO2 is well known for quite some time. Dum dum

>>59462 >The conclusion is that the ice is melting and releasing the CO2 It wasn't melting fast enough 50 years ago to release as much CO2 as human industry. Again, the time scale of your chart and the time scale of the changes we're seeing now don't match up. You will need other evidence. >that this is a natural occurring period and would occur in current time without our help Do you have proof that it would happen as fast as it is happening right now? >and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Indeed, that much we can agree on.

>>59463 virgin retard, knew you wouldn't budge

>>59464 >only a retard would point out flaws in my reasoning!

>>59465 >doesn't have the brain capacity to notice the pattern of heating up and cooling down that is happening over 100k years that we have no part of creating, was in place before our influence and can't be stopped >is self hating enough to hate the industrial society I bet you eat soy and drink almond milk too Go watch thunderfoot or that Soygoy whatever his name is

>>59466 >>doesn't have the brain capacity to notice the pattern of heating up and cooling down that is happening over 100k years that we have no part of creating, was in place before our influence and can't be stopped Like I said, that pattern is on a much larger time scale than the current very rapid rate of climate change. Until you have a response to that, you're all bark and no bite. >>is self hating enough to hate the industrial society projecting much?

>>59467 >that pattern is on a much larger time scale than the current very rapid rate of climate change OMG, hahahhahaah you didn't even understand the graph I posted before Okay, let me spoonfeed you the graph. See the x axis is actually inverted, the time is supposed to run to the right, but the "0 years" on the graph is actually just showing the "today", so everything else on x axis is just the past. The temperature has already risen, we are currently on the peak and peak isn't yet peaking out, it is still rising. That is because we are in the current "peaking out" of the high temp. It stabilised for thousand or 2 thousand years and now since the avalanche of melting ice on the glaciers is releasing long term storage of CO2 has started (and the main point is that this is naturally occurring pattern that has been bound to happen in our lifetime, industrial society producing a tiny bit of CO2 didn't do nuffin comparatively) Your "larger time scale than the current very rapid rate of climate change" is argumentative. This "rapid rate of climate change" that is currently happening fits the naturally occurring pattern over 100k years, perfectly. Also, "rapid rate" is speculative and relative.

>>59469 Ice cores are the only sane viewpoint. I think a lot of people confuse the CO2 cycle with overt pollution. They hear car exhaust = CO2 so they take to heart that pollution and CO2 are intrinsically mutual, and that anyone denying the climate change religion must be OK with pollution otherwise. >B-but they said so on TV!

>>59472 Co2 from cars is such bullshit. A bunch of luxus liners collectively produce more than cars because of the garbage fuel they burn. Oh and they also recently excluded private yachts from co2 tax. So now its officially a pleb tax.

>>59466 No one will respond to me on them using geonegineering to try to maintain business as usual throughout this cycle, and ultimately destroying the ozone layer and biosphere.

>>59469 >That is because we are in the current "peaking out" of the high temp. according to your chart we're actually pretty much at the peak already. >Your "larger time scale than the current very rapid rate of climate change" is argumentative. indeed, it is my argument. Do you have a counter? >This "rapid rate of climate change" that is currently happening fits the naturally occurring pattern over 100k years, perfectly Can you prove it? Show me stats nigga. It's definitely not obvious just from observation of the graph (here are them both overlayed so the scales match) >Also, "rapid rate" is speculative and relative. it is indeed rapid relative to historical and prehistorical data.

WHY LAINCHAN NOLET ME POST GRAPH

actually now that I look at the graph again I think the scale on the background image might be too big. The graph data should be about 4 pixels wide for the years 0 AD - 2000 AD but it looks more like 6. Oh well.