Message from @Deleted User

Discord ID: 661438453124431882


2019-12-31 05:14:55 UTC  

>Implying science is even ok

2019-12-31 05:15:26 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:15:33 UTC  

Based

2019-12-31 05:15:53 UTC  

How is chemistry subject to opinions?

2019-12-31 05:16:00 UTC  

How is biology subject to opinions?

2019-12-31 05:16:00 UTC  

Mongolite is like one of the coolest people here wtf

2019-12-31 05:16:10 UTC  

@Light Chemistry makes meth

2019-12-31 05:16:12 UTC  

Meth bad

2019-12-31 05:16:15 UTC  

Lmao

2019-12-31 05:16:45 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:17:21 UTC  

Not really, honestly

2019-12-31 05:17:29 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:17:43 UTC  

Some are just developing fields, or more fragile

2019-12-31 05:18:06 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:18:21 UTC  

Howso?

2019-12-31 05:18:28 UTC  

Physicists are truly the most chad scientists

2019-12-31 05:18:43 UTC  

Theoretical stuff, I suppose

2019-12-31 05:18:54 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:19:37 UTC  

@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.

2019-12-31 05:20:16 UTC  

There’s a very clear distinction in quality.

2019-12-31 05:20:31 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:20:38 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:21:00 UTC  

Soft sciences are still valid

2019-12-31 05:21:12 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:21:13 UTC  

No, I was referencing to my previous claim.

2019-12-31 05:21:23 UTC  

Well before this discussion on the sciences.

2019-12-31 05:21:28 UTC  

Ah, wikipedia stuff

2019-12-31 05:21:39 UTC  

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.

2019-12-31 05:21:49 UTC  

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

2019-12-31 05:21:52 UTC  

David Reimer’s story was absolutely awful.

2019-12-31 05:21:56 UTC  

He suffered.

2019-12-31 05:21:57 UTC  

Scientific method is not always the solution to problems

2019-12-31 05:21:58 UTC  

Especially if you're looking at individual stuff

2019-12-31 05:22:11 UTC  

John Money... what?

2019-12-31 05:22:19 UTC  

@Deleted User May he rest in peace. Lord knows he deserved none of what was brought to him...

2019-12-31 05:22:31 UTC  

John Money has been criticized in recent times

2019-12-31 05:22:34 UTC  

Quite a bit

2019-12-31 05:22:38 UTC  

He also wasn't the "creator"

2019-12-31 05:22:40 UTC  

Rightfully so

2019-12-31 05:22:46 UTC  

of said fields of study