Message from @ping
Discord ID: 407301676924665857
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Special relativity superseded Newtonian physics completely, giving a completely new set of supporting assertions and observations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
Physics, psycology, engineering, etc are extremely difficult to bullshit
Psycology less than others since they are based on less concrete observations of extremely complex systems
jbp ont he subject
But still waaaaay harder to bullshit than history or sociology