-->
@Wylted
Do you have any evidence or reason for making these accusations? Or do you naturally craft bollocks at whim.
How to defend and spread the truth in this age of misinformation and gullibility
Posts
Total:
57
-->
@Benjamin
Op basically states in a long winded way "if you disagree with the most popular opinion, than you are being unscientific"
I think it's natural to make some assumptions about your way of thinking based on that.
-->
@Wylted
Quit lying. My argument has nothing to do with popularity. I am saying that if you deny the scientific facts you are being unscientific. Notice how that is true by definiton.
-->
@Benjamin
lying. My argument has nothing to do with popularity. I am saying that if you deny the scientific facts you are being unscientific. Notice how that is true by definiton
Do you know what the scientific process is?
Do you know that it is possible le for 1% of scientists to be right and 99% wrong?
Do you know that just because the media and government have joined together to sell a single "scientific fact" to sell their narrative, it doesn't make it true.
You can't tell me what a scientific truth is, because that isn't even how science works. To say somebody is denying a truth is ridiculous. You create a hypothesis and you test it. A lot of these so called science deniers have probably read more studies on things than you have. Aka, experiments that test a hypothesis.
Google the scientific method right now, and stop claiming what you believe has anything to do with it. You instead just through proxy, use the fallacy of authority.
The authority fallacy looks like this.
"John is an expert, so that makes you wrong and him right"
It's bullshit, because experts can be wrong. They can be wrong due to a myriad of reasons. Some unintentional, and some motivated reasoning and logic.
6 months ago, the experts were saying the Wuhan lab leak theory is wrong. Now they are saying it is correct, though admittedly encouraging each other to be quiet about it behind the scenes, since a lot of scientists are cooperating with the Chinese and want to keep the relationship in good standing.
Back when lead was first determined to be dangerous, it was the minority of scientists saying that, at least until people started dropping dead.
Tldr
Scientific thinking is not "derp expert say something so automatically true derp"
Scientific fact is the stupidest thing I have read in a while. It doesn't exist
-->
@Benjamin
I don't agree with Wylted blindly on things at all, in fact we have clashed on certain things significantly but he is spot on here.
-->
@Wylted
You can't tell me what a scientific truth is
Scientific: based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
To say somebody is denying a truth is ridiculous.
I deny your notion that truth cannot be denied. Either I am denying a truth, making your claim false, or your claim is false and I affirmed the truth by denying your claim.
Do you know what the scientific process is?
Did you read my inital post? I literally explain why the scientific method is the best way to arrive at truth and discuss problems science education faces.
-->
@Benjamin
Benjamin, if you're arguing that there needs to be science that's officially published in articles and textbooks, that happens already.
If you're saying you want to completely silence conspiracy theorists, that's the bullshit I won't stand for.
-->
@RationalMadman
Let me cite the idea as oromagi originally put it:
I would like to a see an international, science-backed project on the scale and order of the IPCC working to present a single, vigorously curated and comprehensively verified source of factual information readily and freely available online. Something like a Wikipedia but sticking strictly to thoroughly verified, peer-reviewed and consensus factual information.
Again -- there is no censorship or even calling out wrong information. All it does is make it easier to find correct information about different subjects.
If you're arguing that there needs to be science that's officially published in articles and textbooks, that happens already.
The argument is that the factual content of the most credible scientific literature should be made easy to navigate through for an average person in a format like a wiki.
-->
@Benjamin
Easier than what? Wikipedia already exists.
If you're saying you want to completely silence conspiracy theorists, that's the bullshit I won't stand for.
Funny that you should mention conspiracy theories. I holeheartedly support the idea of intelectual discussion and the avoidance of groupthink to facility new creative solutions and perspectives. However, I still hate conspiracy theories. Crazy theories are one thing, conspiracy is some next level accusation. The idea that everyone else is dishonest and untrustworthy is, to put it mildly, bollocks. The fear of an establishment, victim mentality and superiority complex are dangerous too. So while I don't support censorship or shaming of unfortunate victims of conspiracy theories, I certainly cannot respect them like I do other beliefs.
-->
@RationalMadman
Wikipedia is flawed in many ways, as it trades quality for relevance and size. I hope you know the difference between peer-reviewed studies and the average wikipedia article. The idea was to collect as much as possible of the highest quality knowledge into a wikipedia format. That way, the source would be extremely reliable.
-->
@Benjamin
-->
@RationalMadman
Both I and Oromagi know scientific literature and journals. The problem arises when the masses due to ignorance or laziness never navigates this landscape. The idea presented would serve a crucial role in making the science more accesible to rather large majority of the population. Nobody claims science itself needs of such a site.
-->
@Benjamin
The fear of an establishment, victim mentality and superiority complex are dangerous too.
You would make a great North Korean citizen.
"Supreme leader always right, distruating the scientists he puts on TV is dangerous. Never contradict the estabkishment"
-->
@Benjamin
Crafting bollocks.
Love that expression.
I will aim to utilise it in future.
-->
@Wylted
There is a difference between state propaganda and the undeniable facts. Resisting oppression is a good thing; denying independently verified facts is not.
The more someone says "I was wrong about A, B, and C" the more confident you can be that they are probably right about X, Y, and Z.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Correct. Thats also why we can have more confident in science than any other source.
-->
@Benjamin
Hard to disagree.
Not at all what I had in mind but still accurate.
If you’re unsure about the science and you’re not an expert, listen to the consensus, and try to learn. A simple rule.
When it comes to political news, you need to learn to distinguish between opinion and raw facts. Also read/listen to a variety of sources.
-->
@Reece101
Yeah I very much agree. Politics and other issues are free for all to debate and disagree on. But science, well established facts, shouldn't be denied by non-scientists.
How to determine what you think is truth is actually truth, or does it matter at all even?
-->
@Intelligence_06
It's called science, and it matters immensely.
-->
@Benjamin
“How to fight misinformation” typically means you’re just spewing about how the other side is misinformation. Typically rife with ad homs as well.
Truth doesn't matter, how you feel matters. If the truth hurts your feelings you will just reject it. Truth doesn't matter.
"Most people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth." The truth is always exposed when the lie doesn't match reality. How you feel about that IS IRRELEVANT.