this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
582 points (96.0% liked)

Political Memes

8994 readers
2154 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (60 children)

You're the one who told me to talk to my colleagues

Yes, but then you didn't do that, did you? I said to ask them, you made a sweeping anecdotal assumption instead of actually performing the test.

And then you could find one single example of a published work claiming 100% certainty.

Please let me know where you do your research so I can avoid it. Otherwise I'm finished here.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (59 children)

You're an idiot, so I don't mind you being finished here.

I do talk to my colleagues about it, when we design and set up experiments, and write papers, we talk about what we know is fact, and what we are testing. There are lots of facts in science mate.

And I already told you, read any paper. Just about every paper makes claims of known facts in their introductions to establish the work they are doing.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (58 children)

About 100% certainty? Sufficiently established for practical work, sure. But 100%? You are not a scientist. A chemist maybe, but not a scientist. You're an embarrassment, it's science professionals like you that cause bullshit like vaccine denial through your arrogance. I've read plenty of papers, they all use language that acknowledges their uncertainty. Maybe your colleagues are all embarrassments too.

Do everyone a favor and tell us where all you unscientific glorified mixologists do your hackwork.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A top 20 university in the world, that is well renowned for producing excellent research.

Tell me what your credentials are? Because you've been a condescending prick this entire time, and are acting like a teenager who just took their first science class and thinks they know shit.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I haven't actually, that's you who's been a condescending prick from the beginning. I've tried as hard as possible to be civil regardless, but I can't stand your science fundamentalism. It makes real scientists look wishy-washy when they properly cite their uncertainty.

Which university is that? I'm sure I can find an article they've released on scientific certainty.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nope, you've been a prick.

And I'm not doxxing myself to you.

You still haven't given me any of your credentials? Cause right now I still think you're just a bratty teenager.

And all scientists rely on established facts for their research. Science is full of facts, you need to stop denying that.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hydrogen and Oxygen reacting together to form water is not going to be discarded.

And evolution is a absolute fact in that is occurs. We know it occurs with absolute certainty. What remains to be modified is the mechanism by which it occurs.

Gravity is a fact. It exists with absolute certainty, and that fact will never be discarded. The exact mechanism by which it works is what may be modified or discarded.

You have repeatedly failed to understand this distinction.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The facts are that we have overwhelming evidence to support the existence of gravity, evolution, and the reaction of hydrogen and water.

It is extremely unlikely that we will find evidence to contradict any of those statements. It is very safe to make those assumptions when doing work that builds upon them. The probability of finding evidence to contradict any of those statements is vanishingly small, infinitesimal, for all intents and purposes we can treat them as "facts" in our daily lives.

But, scientifically, that probability is not, and cannot ever be, 0%. If it's not, in theory, falsifiable, it's not science.

You have repeatedly failed to understand that distinction.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The existence of gravity is 100% known fact, there is no way to falsify it. The science is in how gravity works, and that is far from 100% known.

Gravity is a theory and known fact.

Stop trying to lecture an actually experienced scientist on this, I do know more about this than you.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (50 children)

Whatever you say dude, brain rot has set in. Do you know more about this than Richard Feynman?

Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty.

I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.

Albert Einstein?

As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Carl Sagan?

Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend ... to have attained it. But the history of science—by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.

We will always be mired in error. The most each generation can hope for is to reduce the error bars a little, and to add to the body of data to which error bars apply. The error bar is a pervasive, visible self-assessment of the reliability of our knowledge.

I'm going to go with the actually experienced scientists. They know more about this than you.

load more comments (50 replies)
load more comments (56 replies)
load more comments (56 replies)
load more comments (56 replies)