I’m gonna have to read on him

Use a source other than Wikipedia.

It’s got “raging Jew” all over it.

I think its commonly agreed that the police are one of the worker's true enemies

Will do.

I need to buy more books but i know i’d never actually read them

Fugg :DDDD

Wikipedia’s good for things such as the sciences but is absolutely abysmal at politics relating to WWII in terms of clinical/neutralized tone.

Read: Not supporting your worldview

>Implying science is even ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

I outright reject all science except physics, mostly due to physics being separated from all opinions.

Based

How is chemistry subject to opinions?

How is biology subject to opinions?

Mongolite is like one of the coolest people here wtf

@Light Chemistry makes meth

Meth bad

Lmao

Nah but not all sciences are bad, but a lot of them are inflated with political shit from liberals

Not really, honestly

A lot of science is based upon fringe views on life, and are not easily proven by scientific method.

Some are just developing fields, or more fragile

Scientific method cannot prove all things. That’s why i respect people like Einstein because he understood this.

Howso?

Physicists are truly the most chad scientists

Theoretical stuff, I suppose

But even then, in theory, it could still be proven

@Light I mean, you can more or less distinguish who writes what between the two categories of my aforementioned topics. The former is typically written by a science student or graduate who incorporates 10+ footnotes in a single paragraph supporting the facts of which, the latter sounds more like the raging boner of some soy who somehow manages to make an even longer article have less citations.

There’s a very clear distinction in quality.

"aforementioned topics" being "hard" and "soft" sciences, I presume?

My view on it is that the conclusion part of the scientific method can be altered with opinion

Soft sciences are still valid

They're just more fledgling fields, and significantly easier for laymen to interpret

No, I was referencing to my previous claim.

Well before this discussion on the sciences.

Ah, wikipedia stuff

As i’ve said, John Money, the creator of Gender abused two biological boys because he believed on could be turned into a female through social changes. He considered it a success, yet both boys ended up committing suicide.

I mean, a handful of sources make sense in some cases

David Reimer’s story was absolutely awful.

He suffered.