• Solar Bear
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18 months ago

    Ah, personal attacks, the sign of honesty and strong argumentation. Are you okay?

    I have zero patience for pseudo-intellectualism.

    I said not to believe in science, as the point of science is to approach truths of reality without getting influenced by beliefs; believing in science as if it is just “truth provider” defeats the purpose as science itself tells to not believe it.

    That is not the point of science. Science does not “tell us to not believe it.” What podcast did you hear that on?

    • @Solumbran
      link
      08 months ago

      So you need patience to avoid being manipulative? Okay.

      The point of science is to constantly attack what is considered to be true as a way to validate or invalidate it. That’s the point of the scientific protocol, to do your best to prove something wrong, and upon failure to consider that it might be true until proven wrong. You don’t go all “I think the earth is flat so I’ll do my best to find arguments as to why it is flat”.

      • Solar Bear
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        You don’t go all “I think the earth is flat so I’ll do my best to find arguments as to why it is flat”.

        That would definitionally not be believing in science, because that would be an entirely unscientific approach. Believing in science would lead you to do the opposite of this, actually.

        • @Solumbran
          link
          08 months ago

          Science has many biases, for decades “science” said that cigarettes were healthy, studies said that GMOs caused cancer, and only time showed those to be wrong. Believing in science means that you consider that the conclusions of current science are necessarily right, which is wrong. And science itself does not consider that it is always right.

          • Solar Bear
            link
            fedilink
            English
            08 months ago

            None of what you just said is correct.

            Scientific consensus was never that cigarettes were healthy. Advertisers pretended it did, and you clearly fell for the ruse.

            Consensus was never that GMOs caused cancer. There’s no proven study that established that link.

            And lastly, “science itself does not consider that it is always right” makes no sense as a statement. Are you trying to say that science reflects our ever-changing understanding, and thus we must always be ready to update our beliefs when presenting with new information? Because it that’s your point, then one, you are extremely bad at expressing what you mean, and two, that means you believe in science.