this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
582 points (96.0% liked)
Political Memes
8907 readers
3428 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow
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.
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.
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.
Whatever you say dude, brain rot has set in. Do you know more about this than Richard Feynman?
Albert Einstein?
Carl Sagan?
I'm going to go with the actually experienced scientists. They know more about this than you.
They are talking about theories, not established phenomena like gravity. How can you not be certain that gravity exists?
And they actually don't, because I have an extra 50+ years of science advancement over them to go on. Einstein denied quantum mechanics existed, but it is now very well established for example.
That's an awful sloppy use of language on their part then, which would be very out of character. Where I come from, "anything" means "anything".
By a basic understanding of scientific epistemology. All knowledge comes through the senses and is interpreted by the brain. Absolute certainty even of observed phenomena forgets that these are observed phenomena. Sure I'm extremely certain that gravity exists, but not 100%. I'm not 100% certain that I exist.
Fucking lol
He didn't, he acknowledged its use at the atomic scale but didn't believe it was a complete theory.
But pretending he did for a moment: you're saying that one of the top experts in his field expressed absolute certainty about the field he was an expert in, and yet later he was shown to be wrong? And you think that supports your argument?
Do you think you're more of an expert in this topic than Einstein was in physics? Yet you proudly declare the hubris of his certainty? Arrogance. I used to think like you, when I was a teenager. People like you are going to make more arrogant little teenagers just like you, and it makes me sick.
Science is only trying to explain observed phenomenon. And if everyone is measurably observing things the same, then we can be certain such a thing exists ion our observed reality.
Since Einstein died we've invented computers, the internet, we've decoded the entire human genome, we've come up with ways to image the structures of proteins, and visualize individual atoms within a molecule, and so much more. Yeah, I do know more than Einstein did.
Yes, because he's the one you quoted, and he didn't even believe his own statement. And I am only expressing absolute certainty in things that have shown absolute evidence for, such as gravity, evolution, the fact we are made of trillions of tiny cells. These are absolute certainties.
You still are a teenager, you have never once said otherwise when I have called you a bratty teen, so you are one. You also have not given me any credentials still.
You've done nothing but insult me for ages now, and I make you sick? Fuck off you little prick.
I'm not, but you're behaving like a teenager cosplaying. You have done nothing but show you don't understand the fundamentals of science. Your reading comprehension is abysmal, you're arrogant, logically illiterate, and just generally unpleasant. If you're not cosplaying, you're the worst kind of science professional. The fewer we have like you, the better.
I hope you learn some humility when you grow up.
You've insulted my integrity as a scientist, said I add nothing to scientific discourse, and said I have brain rot. Only after all that shit you threw at me did I become unpleasant and call you an idiot.
Look in a fucking mirror.
And once again, what the fuck do you even know about science? What re your fucking credentials? Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question Mr. astrology is great, but I'm not so sure about gravity?
Nowhere did I say that I was more confident in astrology than gravity. In fact, several times now I've said that I do not believe in astrology, and that I do believe in gravity. I have repeatedly acknowledged the vast relative difference in their supporting evidence. I only claimed that your statements that all astrologers were con-men and all horoscopes were fundamentally vague were incorrect, by virtue of the absolute nature of the claims. My only positive claim was that there is a non-zero possibility that there is an incidental correlation between approximate date of birth and certain personality traits. Not that it's probable, not that it isn't unlikely, but that at some future date we might find some effect, totally unrelated to the stars and planets in their courses, that corresponds to certain other effects.
I said only that absolute certainty is brain rot. If you hadn't claimed absolute certainty, it would not apply to you. I provided several authoritative scientific sources which reiterate that absolute certainty is fundamentally unscientific, falsifiability being central to the concept of scientific thought. You then persevered in your insistence on the unambiguous truth of unfalsifiable facts.
You claimed to be more of an expert on the philosophy of science than Einstein, Sagan, and Feynman, by virtue of the irrelevant matter of time and technology. As if the fundamental precepts of the discipline have changed because we have more data and better processors. Science is science, fundamental uncertainty in science is one of those definitions like 2 + 2 = 4, or that carbon had 6 protons. No amount of experience supercedes axiomatic properties.
I haven't revealed any credentials, because credentials are irrelevant to science. That's the point. It's a methodical approach to incremental knowledge increase based on rigorous rationality, appropriately supported by evidence and reason. It's only after your repeated disrespect to that fundamental property that I partially abandoned civility.
This is why I question your reading comprehension. This is why I question your logical literacy. This is why I have serious doubts that you are the scientific professional you claim to be. This is middle school stuff. If you had any scientific education, you would know better.
Science fundamentalism is a cancer that erodes the dignity of scientific pursuit. People like you who claim absolute certainty in the name of science are the cells that propagate that cancer.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
God, what a joke.
Yeah, see? You keep making banal statements like this. Credentials mean nothing. Sure, they might lend an initial air of credibility, but real credibility ultimately lies in evidence and reasoning. Generally those with high credentials support their claims with evidence and reasoning, but it is not the credentials themselves that provide credibility. That would be another deeply unscientific belief. Another for the growing mound.
It wouldn't surprise me if, assuming you are a research chemist, you are so hopelessly mired in The Game that you actually base credibility on titles and credentials instead. That hypothesis would be consistent with your observed behavior. And yet, credentials meant nothing to you in the case of Einstein, as you were so eager to point out, and you are certainly no Einstein.
Keep playing The Game, mixologist.
God you're a dumbass, and know fuck-all about science. People are judged on their credentials, which guess what, includes their published research. You're actual peer-reviewed research is part of your credentials.
And you just keep waxing philosophical, because you have nothing to actually go on. You have no credentials. No peer-reviewed papers, no actual scientific experience. you're just a schmuck.
There's that science fundamentalism again, and the piss-poor reading comprehension. Credentials only have value in that they imply adherence to good practice. Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name. You fundamentalists are preventing science into a religious cult of personality.
And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass. You keep accusing me of bad reading comprehension, when you've shown it time and timer again.
And if you feel so strongly about this why don't you enter the sciences and actually try to make a change?
Go ahead and write that grant application about how you'll disprove the very existence of gravity. Go ahead, I'll wait and see how well that gets funded.
Yes, for that paper. Past work is not evidence for future work.
I see the problem. When I say "science" I mean science.
When you say "science," you mean academia. I agree with most of your statements as they apply to academia. Academia is not science.
You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.
Call it the Game, call it the science Meta, call it politics in the sciences, whatever you like. It's an extension of the same fundamentalist principles. Whatever it is, isn't science itself.
But it is. More science than you've ever done it seems since you think one data point with no controls is somehow scientific.
That's asinine. The bureaucracy and politics surrounding the practice of science is explicitly not science itself. It is crucial to a career in in modern science sure, but it is not itself science.
Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control "science", and leave the real science to us scientists.