that wouldn't mean I hated you 😄

Yeah. lol

because you know, I'm able to separate hate from disagreement

Ur all stupid and ignorant for not agreeing with me
JUST LOOK AT THE SCIENCE YOU IDIOTS

taylor swift gets bullied for not openly stating her political values, and thats WEIRD as shit to me

I know. lol

are you saying she gets hated on for NOT HAVING AN OPINION

lol

When people pull the science card it pisses me off

science changes every 5 years as we get new data..

Everyone on every side of the spectrum does it

Science isn't an entity

so while, yeah, science can be used, my god, it's not set in stone

@LotheronPrime Science changes every second as we get new data

exactly

We form theorems which contain a set of statements that back each other up inside of such theorem

@Christopher Yactayo So you're saying science is like wikipedia?

science =/= statistics though

too many people are quick to find a cause for ANY statistic, good or bad

They aren't always true in the sense of reality we just choose the theories that best match observations

its like the pseudoscientific health articles "eggs are bad for you mmkay"

because some people reacted bad to eggs

For example, special relativity vs traditional Newtonian physics

Techinically science is like wikipedia. Anyone can make a scientific study or display new data. Then that data is tested and retested to assure whether it is true or not. So yes, like wikipedia

Special relativity superseded Newtonian physics completely, giving a completely new set of supporting assertions and observations

Newtonian physics is great for the simple interactions we have on Earth with negligible difference in results to special relativity so they are both usefu

What I'm getting at is that you need to explicitly state which theory you are pulling from instead of just calling whatever shit you say "scientific fact"

Because you can't mix and match

or if you do

that's a new theorem entirely

a theorem is a hypothesis with a huge amount of supporting hypotheses surrounding it

which must stand up to scientific scrutiny before beingcited as example

and tend to stick

I mean we have thousands of University professors to figure this shit out, anything you come up with is most likely not new and has already been classified or thrown out

Peer review culture is the best we are going to get to a system that produces theories that match reality

(for humans at least)

I'm not so sure

on the surface, yes

but the entry to those peer reviewed articles can be low, and its jsut the same bubble that peer reviews each other, so very little scruteny

Well you might have objections to a lot of acedemia and I do too but they come from areas with very low peer reviews and citations

one study can be unanimously decided to have been executed to the best methods available, but its still only one study