User Controls
Posts by Meikai
-
2020-10-20 at 3:35 PM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace This is just plain not true and is stupid as fuck.
Science can prove that water alleviates human thirst. Tell me how that is 'proving something wrong'
Science can get you infinitesimally close to 100% proof but it can never bridge that gap to 100% certainty. The only thing that can bridge that gap is faith.
Also, water doesn't alleviate human thirst and I have experimental data which proves it. I drank sea water once, it did not help. -
2020-10-20 at 3:05 PM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Uhhhhhhhhh
Truth can't be falsified (kinda by its very nature - if it's possible to prove something wrong, it isn't 100% guaranteed to be true). So science can't tell you what is true, only what is most likely to be true by process of elimination. Science can tell you what is wrong. And when you do that over and over and over, you're left with a relatively accurate reflection of capital-T, guaranteed "Truths". -
2020-10-20 at 2:59 PM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Again… the mistake you make is thinking people trust 100% in Science.
People trust in *established* science which has been tried and tested and proven.
I think the vast majority of people place a lot of trust in science, including traditionally religious people. And yes, they don't all trust in it 100%. But there is a particular subset of people who do have unquestioning faith in science, and for whom the fact that science can change (and that actual scientists often delight in finding out they're wrong) is an afterthought; a get out of jail free card like "god works in mysterious ways".
You don't have to be smart or reasonable to have the right opinions. And when stupid unreasonable people get ahold of science, they treat it stupidly and unreasonably and believe in it to a stupid and unreasonable degree. The PopSci industry probably couldn't exist without people like that, who want to know the latest "facts" and believe in them just as deeply as they do something as rigorously tested as the standard model of physics (until it turns out they're wrong, and they start believing the new thing which is okay because god works in mysterious ways).
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace You know what happened when the flat earthers try to prove their theory right? They fail.
And you know what that makes them? Better scientists than some guy who just believed in the established facts without critical thought, skepticism, or the gathering of empirical data to support their belief. As long as they adjust their worldview to match the facts as established by their observations, proving themselves wrong is commendable. -
2020-10-20 at 2:38 PM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by Kev narcissists.
for the record, i dont think gadzooks is one to a clinical degree, hes just a product of the times he was raised in. they gave him the right tools and materials but taught him the wrong attitude.
Yeah, I wasn't really referring to gadzooks. He's one of the most level headed people around here, and he's definitely more willing to reflect on things than vast majority of human beings. If there's a cult of middling IQ normies who have themselves holed up in what they feel is the Unassailable Bastion of Truth and Knowledge known as Science!, Gadzooks is in a farming village outside the bastion's walls. -
2020-10-20 at 2:20 PM UTC in YouTuber Count Dankula speaks out about media attempts to ruin his life
For a guy who insists he isn't a racist, he sure does keep some strange company. -
2020-10-20 at 2:19 PM UTC in YouTuber Count Dankula speaks out about media attempts to ruin his lifeExtry, extry, read all about it: Bigot Yob Who Taught Dog To Be A Nazi Admits "I am literally the world's worst Nazi" During Youtube Moan About Daily Record's Coverage Of Him
-
2020-10-20 at 2:13 PM UTC in Douchebag posters with equally douchey avatarsI can only assume my avatar saved me from being placed on this list.
-
2020-10-20 at 2:07 PM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by Kev gadzooks, im afraid you dont get how it works at all despite your tenure at the university.
your biggest problem is your obsession with certainty and being right, which science cannot and will not ever do, it can never prove something to be right, no matter how many times you replicate the result. you can replicate it a billion fucking times and still not be absolute.
see the white swan fallacy, no matter how many times you bring me a white swan, it will never prove they are all white. but guess how many times i have to demonstrate a black swan to send your theory to the fucking grave? ONCE.
science is not knowledge, science is not "facts", its a PROCESS and it can only prove whats wrong.
thats what nobody in this estrogen self-absorbed special snowflake age ever wants to be, fucking wrong about something. scariest fate ever!
continue with this attitude and youll always be gullible to junk science.
I don't know what to call them, but there is a certain subset of the population who are öbsessed with "Science!" and that obsession does seem to stem entirely from a crippling fear of being wrong or seen as stupid. Confronting these people with the reality of how little they actually know has much the same result as an atheist confronting a hardcore evangelical. -
2020-10-20 at 1:31 PM UTC in Life only matters for Republicants until you are born
Originally posted by WellHung He is going to give you a lecture about personal responsibility.
Children are in no position to be personally responsible. If the parents are fuck ups the completely innocent child suffers for it, and republicans are 100% okay with that/will support no policy to remedy the child's suffering. -
2020-10-20 at 1:22 PM UTC in Life only matters for Republicants until you are born
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Well no, your parents tend to take care of you
Not everyone can afford to properly take care of a child. If someone living pay check to pay check gets pregnant and has a kid, that kid is going to suffer for it. Republicans are against abortion but also against welfare and against free healthcare for the child - they literally do not support a single policy which is good for children after that 9 months is up. They want children to be born and to suffer. They also support the death penalty when that poverty baby inevitably ends up involved in shady shit. Life is sooooo important to them -
2020-10-20 at 3:07 AM UTC in Right wing political views = severe mental retardation
-
2020-10-20 at 1:48 AM UTC in Asking God to help youShit in one hand and pray for money in the other. See which hand fills up faster.
-
2020-10-20 at 1:42 AM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
-
2020-10-20 at 1:37 AM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by gadzooks I agree with the majority of your points.
I have take minor issue with your use of the word "faith" to describe what you're describing, but I'll concede in the interest of not splitting too fine a hair.
I'm also not super comfortable with the term dogma here, but I'll concede this point too because it's probably still trivial difference in our terms.
Oh come now, I think we both know I used the words "faith" and "dogma" with every intent for you to disagree with their usage. I see science as a religion (the best one yet, credit where it's due) and myself as one of its most orthodox practitioners - if one has no empirical evidence for something (read: first hand, personally experienced, data gathered from one's own observations), they should not treat it as something that is known. At best all anyone can do is have faith in a thing for which they possess no empirical evidence. With science that faith is just a little more well-founded than with other religions.
Originally posted by gadzooks I did not mean to insinuate that you believe in any crazy theories.
I just used the examples that I did to illustrate a point.
If I seemed a little unnecessarily aggressive there, it wasn't because I felt personally attacked. More that I was frustrated with your unorthodox heresy, that you would compare being aware of the limitations of the extent of your own knowledge with being a conspiracy theorist. Shameful, really. You secular types. smh -
2020-10-20 at 1:23 AM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
-
2020-10-20 at 1:20 AM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by gadzooks It's still reasonable to put a certain degree of trust into the scientific knowledge base just on the face of it.
It's about putting trust in the integrity of other scientists within the community who act as peer review or in some other relevant capacity.
Yes, having faith in science is usually a safe bet.
Originally posted by gadzooks There's a reason that false science is always ultimately uprooted.
That's mighty optimistic and idealistic of you, and doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can really prove is true. It's kind of a tautological line of reasoning - it's more accurate to say that when false science is discovered it is uprooted. Eventually. Usually.
Originally posted by gadzooks Once somebody publishes a research study, the entire community of that particular field will be scrutinizing it (first during peer review, and then afterwards by others).
Peer review panels consist of a tiny fraction of the field, and the only people interested in any given study are going to be people to whose own research it is relevant.
Originally posted by gadzooks Then other scientists try to replicate the study.
Ideally, eventually this happens yes.
Originally posted by gadzooks If they can't replicate the same results, shit hits the fan.
If one study fails to replicate something that is accepted as dogma within a given field, it's going to take more than that for shit to hit the proverbial fan. At that point you've got 1 point for and 1 point against.
Originally posted by gadzooks To distrust scientific knowledge is equivalent to positing a conspiracy theory.
To distrust something is not the same as positing a completely alternate, unfounded theory. Simply saying "I don't trust that" is not equivalent to saying "actually this is true instead, it was revealed to me in a dream sent by fucking liserd men". -
2020-10-20 at 1:09 AM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by gadzooks I get what you're saying, and in turn, I guess I now get what that teacher was trying to say…
But, that explanation he gives is just plain shitty.
At least use an analogy, like pieces of a pie or something, if you want to explain remainders.
The way he explains it is incredibly confusing.
I actually used to tutor kids in math way back when, and I can think of so many better ways to explain it over that trainwreck the teacher gave.
To be fair, this looks like a test. Analogies are useful for teaching, but if they're testing to see if the kid has a grasp on the concept of "making 10s", throwing an analogy into the mix to make it easier to solve isn't going to show if a kid is struggling with base concept.
Common core math is just anathema to the way we learned to do math. It's also ironic that America decided to adopt a system of teaching math which essentially turns every equation into the metric system, but they still insist on using imperial.
Originally posted by gadzooks Also, note that he adds 3 to the 10 at the end.
As if it wasn't confusing enough.
Yeah, that was unnecessary/had no real relation to the initial question which adds to the confusion a bit I guess. On the other hand, the teacher could have just been trying to show how - after getting that 10 - you'd reach the result of the equation. *shrug* -
2020-10-20 at 12:58 AM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Science IS skepticism. If you question the world around you, trust in science
Trust in the scientific method, sure. Trusting the results other people claim to have gotten whilst following the tenets of the scientific method isn't very skeptical of you though, bro. -
2020-10-20 at 12:48 AM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?It's literally just a different system for handling remainders.
Like if we were adding
0008
+ 05
We'd get a 3 in the first column and add a 1 to the "ten" column. With common core you're just adding a 1 to the 10 column and then adding the remainder (3).
Originally posted by gadzooks You're giving that teacher WAY too much benefit of the doubt.
It's literally just common core math. It's a whole system and not unique to this one teacher. The kid just didn't really understand the question or the underlying principle, which is probably the teacher's fault. But the teacher is right - to make 10 when adding 8+5, you add 2 from the 5.
?_? -
2020-10-20 at 12:42 AM UTC in Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
Originally posted by aldra
lulzar
the entire point of reforming math like this appears to be to make the methods and answers less objective so that you're not just either 'right' or 'wrong' and that points can be awarded for attempts.
The point of teaching math like this is to make it easier to solve more complicated equations later in life. This is clearly being taught to young children to help them form a basis for doing this with larger numbers. 113 x 57 is a bitch to solve in your head but if you break it down into smaller chunks, it becomes manageable. Maybe you just do (113 x 50) + (113 x 5) + (113 x 2). That's the kind of math common core is all about.
