I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn’t think so.
what if i watched THREE youtube videos?
Then baby we got an algorithm going.
It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.
But I said the phrase “scientists don’t know everything” so now you have to listen to my bullshit.
- an anecdote your cousin told you
don’t worry, science as conclusions derived from research will soon be replaced by bullshit psuedo-research-AI-word-vomit derived from equally bullshit pre-determined conclusions
This has already been done by politicians and continues to this day
Did you write this with deepseek?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_fHJIYENdI
You should really watch this – AI is being used in real research, and not all of it is bad. Those who think AI is bad are simply uneducated luddites.
AI’s primary use case so far is to further concentrate wealth with the wealthy, and to replace employees. People who think AI is bad recognize that it is in the hands of the modern generation of robber barons, and serves their interests.
Those who don’t recognize this are delusional.
AI as a tool can absolutely be a good thing, just like almost any tool. A tool on its own is neither good nor bad, it’s just a tool that can be used. The usage is what makes it good or bad.
Yes, most of what AI is used for now is bad, but it can absolutely be a good thing in the right use cases.
something that does count:
a dream about a snake eating it’s own butt (cool story btw)ok, but what about three Youtube videos?
As long as they’re shorts, only showing one vague, unverifiable, third or fourth hand anecdote each.
That makes sense. I heard that my college roommate’s pen pal said something like that.
Are they at least 3rd-hand, (or more) spurious sources with an inscrutable chain of custody, because if not, you can miss with that.
Are they at least 3rd-hand, (or more) spurious sources with an inscrutable chain of custody
Is there any other kind?
Maybe, if they’re from potholer54
All hail potholer54! The guy is awesome
I need a tshirt of this
That why its such a shame that big corporations can and do regularly buy scientists opinions in exchange for funding setting up a ill give $xxx.xxx for your environmental impact study to not blame my coal mine. Thus by negating the peer review process. science can sadly no longer be taken at face value with out knowing who funded it and why. i miss trusting scientists who are clearly smarter than me because they fell in to the capitalist greed trap RIP real science we should have treated you better and i am sorry.
This is why you never trust a single source. For anything. Reputable news organizations have never trusted single sources, they always use multiple sources to verify information they are told. Science is not immune from this, and never has been. And even for those that you’ve followed in the past, times change, especially in a capitalist society with a massive oligarchy that owns the news companies, like modern western civilizations. Trust, but verify.
How often does this actually happen? The cases where this does occur stand out because they are rare. I really hate the implication that scientists are not trustworthy because some individuals acted in bad faith. Scientific fraud is real but it doesn’t mean you can’t trust science.
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
Because of the implication.
Isn’t a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it’s still le sahyênçe.
Sorry, I don’t understand.
Yeah, I’m being silly.
Isn’t a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it’s still science.
FTFM
Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science
Science requires systematic observation, measurement and usually variation (often experimentally controlled); and, usually, iterations.
One datapoint outside such a system is not science.
You can’t even necessarily just insert a new datapoint into a pre-existing scientific sytem. The system itself may need to be adjusted, for example to test and account for biases that often occur due to how observations are made.
Not to my mind, science requires a testable hypothesis and evidence. I would argue that merely refuting someone else’s hypothesis without providing a new one doesn’t meet the bar of doing science.
Speech-to-text set to the wrong language or something?
Hey, but measles in Texas, and tuberculosis in Missouri, are making comebacks!
Ivermectin! RFKjr! Bleach!Learn to ReSeArcH!!
Aren’t those just from the gay space lasers and Jewish hurricanes? I feel like their resistance means we’re on the right path.
Counterpoint: nuh-uh (They et. al., good ol’ days).
Citations
They et. al. (Good ol’ days). Trump proves that YouTube videos about The Creator that validate your feelings are equivalent to science. Many People Are Saying, 1(2), 10–20. Things I done heard. https://doi.org/I forget
Thanks, I was wondering what a tiny bit of partially digested dinner would taste like.
That’s what I was going for! Sorry about dinner.
Counter-counterpoint: uh… damnit, I forgot the tooth (already!?).
A statement which somehow makes so much more sense than the rest of 2025 so far.
You might want to banana.
Crazy town, banana pants!
While they don’t refute it, enough of those do prevent better science from happening though, especially when it’s needed.
Foucalt would probably be opinionated on this.
