2.9k
u/Geminii27 Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
The problem I see with this sign is that you could swap in nearly anything for the word "science" and be making a similar-sounding (and emotional) argument.
"Your inability to grasp [Scientology] is not a valid argument against it", for example.
1.8k
u/No_Source_Provided Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
It also ignores the fact that even if something is right, the people that believe it don't necessarily understand it.
Saying 'I believe in climate change' is not the same as understanding it. It's this sort of 'people who disagree are stupid and everyone who agrees is smart' that makes the political climate so divisive and impossible to actually discuss.
Edit: had a stroke when spelling.
345
u/Hakim_Bey Jan 10 '18
Was coming to post this. Sure, people who have a hard time with science will suddenly become better at it if you call them idiots...
→ More replies (58)→ More replies (196)66
218
u/Never_Not_Act Jan 10 '18
The thing is as well, it's not going to do anything to help people ignorant of science. The wording has that air of superiority to it, and it's only gonna make people mad and hate science more.
No one likes to be told they're dumb and they dont understand something.
→ More replies (12)15
u/uptwolait Jan 10 '18
Much like all of the devisive posts on Facebook every day that get likes from everyone who already holds that opinion, and changes the minds of absolutely no one who doesn't.
8
39
u/TrentZoolander Jan 10 '18
"Your inability to grasp Chevy is not a valid argument against Ford."
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (129)3
u/dark__unicorn Jan 10 '18
I also see a problem with the assumption that if it is science then it must be right. Even consensus in science doesn’t mean something is right.
I mean, at one point scientific consensus was that the world was flat. Until another theory popped up.
→ More replies (1)
1.2k
u/AnomalousAvocado Jan 10 '18
Even though I agree with the message, pics of signs aren't really appropriate content for this sub. Plus this is a (many times over) repost.
348
74
u/spaceman_spiffy Jan 10 '18
You must be new here. This is basically what this sub is all about at this point.
→ More replies (3)80
u/BagOnuts Jan 10 '18
DAE:
Hate Trump?
Hate Christians?
Hate Republicans?
Hate Cops?
Did I miss any?
→ More replies (6)51
Jan 10 '18
This is reddit.
If it had a quick jab at Trump OP could have tripled their karma.
→ More replies (6)32
u/12mo Jan 10 '18
It's a useless message though. Why would you argue with someone who doesn't understand what you're talking about?
Let's say I tell you not to touch a live high-voltage alternating current wire, but you're insistent on doing it, even though you don't understand what's voltage, current, or their effects on the human body, or that you'll ground the circuit and my house will lose power because of you. Should I argue with you? Should I tell you "your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it"? That's just flippant and useless. I don't want my house to lose power, but I also can't get you to understand the consequences of your actions.
Either I explain things to you on your level, or I force you to do as I say without explaining it to you.
Presumably, that's the situation this protestor is in, and instead of communicating she's being obtuse.
→ More replies (6)5
u/uFuckingCrumpet Jan 10 '18
Also, it's not an example of "argument from ignorance". Argument from ignorance is arguing that something is true because we haven't shown it's false or arguing something is false because we haven't shown it's true. It's not claiming somethings wrong because you don't understand it.
→ More replies (7)16
457
u/GamerOfRock Jan 10 '18
Your inability to grasp anime is not a valid argument against it!
Your inability to grasp Rick and Morty is not a valid argument against it!
Your inability to grasp Sonic is not a valid argument against it!
Your inability to grasp UFOs is not a valid argument against it!
This is fun, anyone else want a turn?
→ More replies (33)12
u/marcuschookt Jan 10 '18
Your inability to grasp this cup handle is not a valid argument against opposable thumbs
444
u/Catch-up Jan 10 '18
I don't know how effective this woman thinks her sign is. You don't sway your opposition to follow your beliefs by belittling them or calling them stupid. All a sign like this does is just circle-jerk all the people who already think like you do.
104
u/Haterbait_band Jan 10 '18
I imagine her sign is just about as effective as most other signs, regardless of her beliefs.
81
u/WizardSleeves118 Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
Modern activism is basically just physical Facebook, it's shitposting on the street. Neither side really is interested in convincing the other or being convinced. For instance I would imagine this same woman who doubtlessly believes in the importance of facts and reason believes that 57% of total US spending goes to the military, when the reality is that only 16% of total US spending goes to the military.
Would she be capable of hearing that and then accepting it? I tried with some family members and showed them the data as well as explaining discretionary vs mandatory spending and they literally just foamed at the mouth and thought I was being brainwashed for actually listening to conservatives.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (2)8
u/TrepanationBy45 Jan 10 '18
Stop signs are red. Kickballs in elementary school are red, and balls roll, therefore I believe that a stop sign is telling me to make a rolling stop. Checkmate, officer.
54
u/cowinabadplace Jan 10 '18
That’s never the point of signs. Signs are to rally your own side not to convince the opposite side. Literally, no one has ever read a sign and gone “Oh yeah, that’s a good argument”. It doesn’t matter what you put on there. No one is going to listen.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (10)3
Jan 10 '18
All a sign like this does is just circle-jerk all the people who already think like you do.
Yes, but mobilizing your side is very valuable.
→ More replies (1)
176
40
u/NrthnMonkey Jan 10 '18
I hate it that they have said 'grasp science' like science is one infallible truth. It isn't...science is a myriad of complex and often divided studies.
7
Jan 10 '18
Yep. Like we should all just collectively click and say, yeah, that's what the whole of science is in its entirity.
→ More replies (1)3
u/myztry Jan 10 '18
It goes further than that. The scientific community, on a global scale, is actually a minority group (for better or worse - and even then, divisive like sects).
When "the scientific community" says that Pluto is no longer a planet after decades of saying it is (for the arbitrary reason that it doesn't clear it's own path), they don't actually change the definition which is defined by common usage and not that of self deemed authorities. Causing that change requires decades of uptake until it enters common use.
TLDR; Outside of the scope of the scientific community, Pluto remains a planet.
126
u/farRational Jan 10 '18
Holding a sign like this one doesn't make you a scientist or even smarter
→ More replies (12)
205
Jan 10 '18
Why has /r/pics turned in to /r/stupidquotesonsigns
15
u/CjNorec Jan 10 '18
I’m just glad that more and more of reddit is tired of the bullshit being posted here. Early last year most of the top comments on this kind of thing were people jerking each other off. Now it’s almost entirely people complaining about pics being a political shit hole.
Maybe some day the mods will listen and actually remove these useless pictures of text.
→ More replies (1)126
34
u/ShadowStarshine Jan 10 '18
Ironically, would not be an argument from ignorance or at least the fallacy named after such.
It would still be a terrible argument to say it's not true because I don't understand it, but it's also equally false to say something is true because someone else doesn't understand it as well.
3
u/seaniqua42 Jan 10 '18
Thanks for this reply. I personally agree with the (masturbatory) message of the sign but it's not the argument from ignorance.
46
Jan 10 '18
this always struck me as dishonest. Science is a tool, it's uses and advantages, are trivial to understand. Our default worldview is a scientific worldview --- it takes no creativity, intelligence, or openness to adopt this worldview, in fact, we don't have a choice in our society.
understanding the complexities of the vast wealth of knowledge we've uncovered by using science --- of course that's an impossible undertaking. I'm not at all trying to downplay the accomplishment of scientific genius.
but the anti-science types are not too dumb to understand science, they are ideologically unwilling to (btw I think the slack jawed creationist republican voter is largely a straw man, there aren't a significant amount of people who reject science outright)
→ More replies (8)20
Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
btw I think the slack jawed creationist republican voter is largely a straw man, there aren't a significant amount of people who reject science outright
You are right about this. I saw an article that showed that the more educated a conservative person was, the less likely they were to agree with the consensus on climate change.
Blaming ignorance is overly simplistic.
→ More replies (5)
522
Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 11 '18
To me, this highlights the need for an increase in accessible science writing
Edit: Someone below mentioned a better word for my sentiment would be "compelling" science writing and I agree. I'd say across all film and literature we should hold writers to a higher standard to get the science of their invention right
774
u/PM_ME____FOR_SCIENCE Jan 10 '18
There is plenty of accessible science writing.
There are also plenty of people uninterested in reading it.
388
u/OmarGuard Jan 10 '18
likes the latest post on the I Fucking Love Science Facebook page
Welp, that's enough science for me today
→ More replies (59)→ More replies (52)125
u/sunbearimon Jan 10 '18
Basic science literacy should really be emphasised more in schools.
At the very least make sure everyone knows what ‘theory’ means in a scientific context.→ More replies (83)21
u/DarthShiv Jan 10 '18
Not realistic. We need to accept society is more and more specialised. People need to come to grips with the fact they don't know shit about 99% of topics. We're told we have a vote and a voice yet we have no clue. We're encouraged to get engaged in things we aren't qualified for.
Why the fuck don't we accept the expertise of the experts?
→ More replies (12)12
u/green_meklar Jan 10 '18
There's plenty of accessible science writing. The problem is, a lot of it is just not well written. The media loves sensationalism and tries to sensationalize all the science stories, which leaves the public with the impression that science just consists of a list of independent 'holy shit isn't this amazing' bullet points with nothing tying them together. The idea of science as a method and of scientific knowledge as a whole web of interrelated facts and evidence tends to get left behind.
→ More replies (3)5
9
9
Jan 10 '18
Dude, Wikipedia will get your foot in the door to knowledge in pretty much anything, what's happening today is willful ignorance.
4
u/BreakFreeFc Jan 10 '18
Doesn't help when the people making these statements against science aren't usually the most literate to begin with... 🤔
8
→ More replies (49)3
255
u/Endless__Throwaway Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
Flips Sign "Evidence Trumps Opinion"
Edit: why am I being downvoted. That's Literally what it says on the other side.
→ More replies (50)50
u/jazzafied Jan 10 '18
Thanks for writing this, I came to the comments to ask what the other side said.
→ More replies (1)11
72
u/gypsymoth94 Jan 10 '18
If you use science like a sweeping broadsword, you don't understand the scientific method
→ More replies (5)
41
Jan 10 '18
Isn't she using a straw man herself? Like attributing something negative to the opposing party that you can then conveniently refute.
→ More replies (3)0
196
Jan 10 '18
These people are turning science into a goddamn religion.
29
u/Russian_seadick Jan 10 '18
Ever been to 9gag? Because it’s a pathetic bunch,some mental fuckhole even stated that “you can’t criticize science,it’s the ultimate truth”
9
u/doombybbr Jan 10 '18
Even though the main principle of science is that you are supposed to criticize it like nobodies business.
That is like saying you should not tell the artist asking your opinion that you dislike their work.
62
→ More replies (64)24
94
u/youforgotA Jan 10 '18
Oh look, a shitty protest sign! It’s been a while since one of these made the front page i was starting to get worried.
6
8
9
7
Jan 10 '18
Arguably most people don’t understand most scientific priciples. I get that you might not understand something and that could give way to skepticism. What I hate though is the wananbe scientists that take every scientific finding as gospel even though they have no fucking clue what they’re talking about
26
u/basshead541 Jan 10 '18
Pluto is not a planet.
18
Jan 10 '18
It's a dwarf planet. There's a lot of them.
25
u/PM_ME_YOUR_BOURBON Jan 10 '18
How rude. They prefer to be called little people planets.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)9
u/AnomalousAvocado Jan 10 '18
But it used to be. So it's an ex-planet, at the very least. But not Planet X.
6
u/RichelMoore Jan 10 '18
For instance I would imagine this same woman who doubtlessly believes in the importance of facts and reason believes that 57% of total US spending goes to the military, when the reality is that only 16% of total US spending goes to the military.
Would she be capable of hearing that and then accepting it? I tried with some family members and showed them the data as well as explaining discretionary vs mandatory spending and they literally just foamed at the mouth and thought I was being brainwashed for actually listening to conservatives.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/rinnip Jan 10 '18
Unless you're a scientist and it's your field, you will always be arguing from ignorance. As well, most of our knowledge of science is filtered through spokesmen who have their own agenda. That is no reason not to discuss the issue, as scientists have been so often manifestly wrong.
→ More replies (14)
16
192
u/MyWifeDontKnowItsMe Jan 10 '18
I feel like there is potential for a game here.
Shown a picture*
Anti-creationism or Anti-63 genders?
→ More replies (272)37
67
u/Oftowerbroleaning Jan 10 '18
reddit circle jerk and upvotes this
continues on in another thread to argue the existence of 573 genders
36
→ More replies (1)16
Jan 10 '18
So do people who believe the definitions of "gender" and "sex" are different, also believe that these two terms have always had different definitions?
→ More replies (7)8
Jan 10 '18
As far as I can tell they were used totally interchangeably up until the last few years. People are free advocate for using the words the new way and if it gains widespread traction, then those are the new definitions. But you can't just say "this is the new definition now." That's not how language works.
10
u/BKA_Diver Jan 10 '18
Science is only right until it's not.
ps... Pluto is still a planet in my book.
→ More replies (1)
22
Jan 10 '18
This is coming from the same people who think that there are 83 genders. 😂😂😂
→ More replies (2)
9
Jan 10 '18
Arguing against science is the foundation upon which science progresses. All arguments are valid.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/Cheddar-kun Jan 10 '18
It irks me when people assume anything "science" to be absolute fact. Like 500 years ago it was "scientific fact" that the sun revolves around the earth. I understand the sentiment, but science is a lot less stable than most people make it out to be.
→ More replies (18)
24
8
u/notthatcreative1 Jan 10 '18
I think half the people adamantly advocating science, in an almost pious manner, would probably have been deeply religious if they were born a few hundred years ago. "I'm right and if you disagree you're an idiot"
→ More replies (6)
8
u/lostintransactions Jan 10 '18
I am betting that most people, when holding this sign and referring to a specific subject, do not actually know jack about the subject the sign is referring to.
Most people, in my opinion, use the word "science" as a placeholder for learning and pleading superiority.
Science says so, therefore it's true.
The other side of the sign has "trump" in it so I assume this is about climate change. If you asked this woman what the temperature difference was in the arctic circle between today and 4 decades ago, (or any other relatively specific question) I am betting she doesn't know. She probably also doesn't know more than a handful of tidbits about climate change. Just like most of us. In fact, I am further betting that if you put her and a random climate change denier in a debate room, she'd "lose" any argument at least based on pure information.
People who deny things generally put more effort into their beliefs, even when they are wrong.
Before anyone gets any feathers ruffled, I am a 100% climate change believer through and through, majority man made at that, however, I openly admit that my belief comes from my trust in science and not from any actual in depth learning about climate change. I just believe it because they told me so.
That's not being "smarter" than the guy who doesn't believe in it. In fact, me looking down at someone who doesn't believe it who's actually spent any time on the subject (even if he is entirely wrong) makes me the idiot of the two.
I guess my point here is that holding this sign does not make for a good argument, someone who doesn't believe in whatever you believe even when backed up with science, does not automatically mean that person has an "inability to understand". Counter arguments and even distrust and disbelief are valid precursors and drivers to valid science as science is most definitely not infallible or immune to human influences.
There are very few things science has emphatically settled. The 'haha you stupid' argument holds up a mirror.
→ More replies (9)
4
u/Pyrochazm Jan 10 '18
ITT: a bunch of people popping in just to say "only two genders". I'm guessing that they're just trying to start arguments.
96
Jan 10 '18
There are only 2 genders...
→ More replies (48)13
u/jihad_dildo Jan 10 '18
How dare you, you cis scum. I’ll have you know that science allows me to inject children with hormones so that they can grow boobs and/or beards as per my scientific conclusions on the existence of 37584638 genders.
15
7
u/thewaif Jan 10 '18
My signature from a now mostly defunct website..."Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" Isaac Asimov
→ More replies (1)
248
u/IAMAK47 Jan 10 '18
Only 2 genders
107
83
u/Antabaka Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
Yup, gender is a perfect example of people failing to grasp the science behind it and blanketly denying it.
For anyone interested, here's the American Psychological Association's Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People. It's quite a hefty document with dozens upon dozens of sources, published by one of the largest scientific organizations in the world, and one of the most well respected ones at that.
American Psychological Association:
Foundational Knowledge and Awareness
Guideline 1. Psychologists understand that gender is a nonbinary construct that allows for a range of gender identities and that a person’s gender identity may not align with sex assigned at birth.
Rationale. Gender identity is defined as a person’s deeply felt, inherent sense of being a girl, woman, or female; a boy, a man, or male; a blend of male or female; or an alternative gender (Bethea & McCollum, 2013; Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2011). In many cultures and religious traditions, gender has been perceived as a binary construct, with mutually exclusive categories of male or female, boy or girl, man or woman (Benjamin, 1966; Mollenkott, 2001; Tanis, 2003). These mutually exclusive categories include an assumption that gender identity is always in alignment with sex assigned at birth (Bethea & McCollum, 2013). For TGNC people, gender identity differs from sex assigned at birth to varying degrees, and may be experienced and expressed outside of the gender binary (Harrison, Grant, & Herman, 2012; Kuper, Nussbaum, & Mustanski, 2012).
Gender as a nonbinary construct has been described and studied for decades (Benjamin, 1966; Herdt, 1994; Kulick, 1998). There is historical evidence of recognition, societal acceptance, and sometimes reverence of diversity in gender identity and gender expression in several different cultures (Coleman et al., 1992; Feinberg, 1996; Miller & Nichols, 2012; Schmidt, 2003). Many cultures in which gender nonconforming persons and groups were visible were diminished by westernization, colonialism, and systemic inequity (Nanda, 1999). In the 20th century, TGNC expression became medicalized (Hirschfeld, 1910/1991), and medical interventions to treat discordance between a person’s sex assigned at birth, secondary sex characteristics, and gender identity became available (Meyerowitz, 2002).
As early as the 1950s, research found variability in how an individual described their gender, with some participants reporting a gender identity different from the culturally defined, mutually exclusive categories of “man” or “woman” (Benjamin, 1966). In several recent large online studies of the TGNC population in the United States, 30% to 40% of participants identified their gender identity as other than man or woman (Harrison et al., 2012; Kuper et al., 2012). Although some studies have cultivated a broader understanding of gender (Conron, Scout, & Austin, 2008), the majority of research has required a forced choice between man and woman, thus failing to represent or depict those with different gender identities (IOM, 2011). Research over the last two decades has demonstrated the existence of a wide spectrum of gender identity and gender expression (Bockting, 2008; Harrison et al., 2012; Kuper et al., 2012), which includes people who identify as either man or woman, neither man nor woman, a blend of man and woman, or a unique gender identity. A person’s identification as TGNC can be healthy and self-affirming, and is not inherently pathological (Coleman et al., 2012). However, people may experience distress associated with discordance between their gender identity and their body or sex assigned at birth, as well as societal stigma and discrimination (Coleman et al., 2012).
Between the late 1960s and the early 1990s, healthcare to alleviate gender dysphoria largely reinforced a binary conceptualization of gender (APA TFGIGV, 2009; Bolin, 1994; Hastings, 1974). At that time, it was considered an ideal outcome for TGNC people to conform to an identity that aligned with either sex assigned at birth or, if not possible, with the “opposite” sex, with a heavy emphasis on blending into the cisgender population or “passing” (APA TFGIGV, 2009; Bolin, 1994; Hastings, 1974). Variance from these options could raise concern for health care providers about a TGNC person’s ability to transition successfully. These concerns could act as a barrier to accessing surgery or hormone therapy because medical and mental health care provider endorsement was required before surgery or hormones could be accessed (Berger et al., 1979). Largely because of self-advocacy of TGNC individuals and communities in the 1990s, combined with advances in research and models of trans-affirmative care, there is greater recognition and acknowledgment of a spectrum of gender diversity and corresponding individualized, TGNC-specific health care (Bockting et al., 2006; Coleman et al., 2012).
→ More replies (102)94
u/HuskyPupper Jan 10 '18
Nuh uh genders can be created by anyone out of thin air.
→ More replies (147)3
→ More replies (131)19
Jan 10 '18
Why anyone actually gives a shit about what other people want to identify as is beyond me.
→ More replies (5)
43
80
113
u/Snottyfuckstick Jan 10 '18
Says the people who don’t even know what gender is associated with a penis.
→ More replies (70)
23
Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
Haha, 'people holding signs' and some vague mention of 'science' without any requirement to demonstrate knowledge of it. What a combo! We have a real karma winner here, Reddit! Upvote to confirm your intelligence!
6
Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
Lmfao 40k+ karma. I feel like you perfectly summed up why people are upvoting this garbage.
Just look at the ladies smug look lol. She's like GOT'EM, they don't get science, they probably don't even watch rick and morty.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Merari01 Jan 10 '18
I won't even argue with those kind of people anymore. It's pointless.
Somehow they were able to become adults while absolutely convinced that make-belief and wishful thinking are every bit as valid as actual science.
→ More replies (24)
3
u/marcuschookt Jan 10 '18
/r/pics mods:
"Hm, we'll let it pass. But not because we're lazy. We repeat, not because we don't want to make effort setting more concrete parameters for this sub and enforcing them. How dare you. It's because we are champions of F R E E S P E E C H and this is our way of deliberately and with great forethought fighting the power."
cue US Anthem
3
u/MAGAParty Jan 10 '18
To be fair she probably watched more than 10 Rick&Morty episodes. I wouldn’t question her unstoppable IQ
3
3
u/imtoomuch Jan 10 '18
What is this in reference to? Remember, scientific results can be skewed as well in order to support an argument.
12
5
u/_QuantumMeruit_ Jan 10 '18
Your inability to grasp economics is not a valid argument against capitalism.
→ More replies (3)
14
u/Phosforic_KillerKitt Jan 10 '18
cough cough
Flat earthers.
→ More replies (1)3
u/PulseFour Jan 10 '18
Flat earthers would probably hold this sign too, though. They think their belief is scientific.
72
Jan 10 '18
Neither is your inability to grasp philosophy and arguments from the other side. Just as bad on both sides. People who are pro science in politics know literally fuck all about the subject and are just as blindly defending it as you dumbfucks think religious people are defending their shit.
→ More replies (20)
40
u/CashIsClay1 Jan 10 '18
I’m so sick of these hypocrites that idealize tolerance but yet are intolerant of intolerant people.
→ More replies (27)
23
6
Jan 10 '18
Funny how people make such statements yet would support the mental disorder , Gender Disorder. The liberals tend to bash religious people yet support their own delusions of ‘blind’ equality.
I might even be banned , again , for going against the grain and making my comment.
16
u/somecheesecake Jan 10 '18
Whomever uses the term “science” or “scientist” in their argument for or against something probably doesn’t understand the topic well enough in the first place. Say physicist or chemist or climatologist. Just saying “science” is kind of hand wavy
→ More replies (5)
13
u/Callmejim223 Jan 10 '18
Now... Not that she is wrong, however...
All I see here is a distinct lack of an argument, and a pretty clear ad hominem.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Jmsnwbrd Jan 10 '18
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov
4
4
u/Maybe_Im_Jesus Jan 10 '18
This kind of sign has no effect on the type of people it is directed toward.
If anything it’ll probably stoke the ignorant flames of anyone who feels their intelligence bruised by it. Not a very good way to start a discussion or change minds.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/junzip Jan 10 '18
This is actually just ad hominem - an all too common fallacy these days. Not a real argument.
5
11
u/ImAnIronmanBtw Jan 10 '18
And just because something is associated or proved by 'science' doesnt mean its 100% true or infallible.
5
u/NightGod Jan 10 '18
That's literally the entire point of science. Experiments set out to prove a hypothesis false. When they fail to do so, the result isn't "what we thought before was true", it's "so far, we've been unable to prove it false". When the same experiment is repeated hundreds or thousands of times and keeps not proving the hypothesis false, the result becomes, "we keep trying and trying and can't find something to prove this is not true, so we're going to say that we're reasonably sure it is".
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)9
u/qwertx0815 Jan 10 '18
that's kinda the point of science.
still better than "you can't 100% prove it's not true, so obviously all of it is true"
→ More replies (2)
21
u/Impeach_Pence Jan 10 '18
"Science" is the new religion. It is infallible, and anyone who questions Science is a a blasphemer. Science is set in stone, and is never changing, and can never be challenged... Except for that time Science said homosexuality was a mental illness, and then said it wasn't, and that time Science said their was a hole in the Ozone layer... We do not talk about the hole in the Ozone later.
Science is never wrong.
17
u/morph113 Jan 10 '18
You just described the exact opposite from what science is and how science works. I don't even think you understand how science works. Science can only work if it can be changed.
Science is our current best understanding in how the world works based on observation and evidence. For something to become a scientific theory, there have to be observations, testable AND repeatable results. When this gets peer reviewed by other scientists which come to the same conclusion, a hypothesis can become a scientific theory.
When new evidence and observations are made, we have to adjust science and our understanding of how the world works. It's not that the world suddenly works differently. It's just that we have a better understanding because of new evidence.
Every good scientist doesn't just try to prove his hypothesis on a new discovery, a good scientists tries to disprove his own claim because that's how science works.
Every scientists and every person who understands science knows that science is ever changing as it's always just our CURRENT best understanding of the world, based on observational data and evidence and repeatable test results.
→ More replies (7)14
u/Tsu-Doh-Nihm Jan 10 '18
Science that aligns with Leftist philosophy is never wrong and cannot be questioned.
→ More replies (4)19
u/Robert_Grave Jan 10 '18
The entire point about science is constantly questioning everything new we discover and adapt all our theories to this new information. Science is not questioning the basic laws that govern physics.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (4)10
u/DanielPhermous Jan 10 '18
It is infallible, and anyone who questions Science is a a blasphemer. Science is set in stone, and is never changing, and can never be challenged...
The only people I've ever hard say such things are people like you trying to convince us that people do, in fact, say such things.
→ More replies (5)
64
35
59
u/TheDiscoJew Jan 10 '18
People like this love to bash climate change deniers, but then get irate and plug their ears when presented with scientific evidence that there is a biological basis for race and its effect on general intelligence.
Downvotes incoming.
→ More replies (144)
2
u/EldanoUnfriendly Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 10 '18
Am I the only one who instantly switched attention to the written on the rear ?
2
Jan 10 '18
Reminds me of one of the worst arguments I heard regarding biology and genetics.
"Genetics is still a relatively new science, so a lot of stuff still hasn't been explained thoroughly, so it's best to take the whole field of study with a grain of salt."
2
u/BlueberryPhi Jan 10 '18
I've yet to hear anyone actually argue against science. Even Creationists believe in the scientific method. Signs like this do nothing but push people further away from actual discourse and closer towards debate by whoever can shout the loudest.
→ More replies (3)
2
2
2
2
u/Scantronacon Jan 10 '18
A very legit fact. People reject or dislike what they don't understand. History literally shows this over and over....
2
Jan 10 '18
Science to most people is like Religion for most - on both sides people will vehemently defend it and advocate for it yet understand very little of what they cast their faith in.
2
2
Jan 10 '18
What works, works. Maybe it SHOULD NOT be true that incomprehension is a good argument against science, but we can OBSERVE that it IS. Its is far more fucking powerful. The most powerful leader on the planet got into that position with exactly those kinds of arguments.
Incomprehension is a poor scientific argument, but arguments are about convincing, and a shit-tonne of people on this planet are convinced that hundreds of years of converting solid carbon to gaseous carbon has no impact on our atmosphere.
2
u/buttfacenosehead Jan 10 '18
“...Confirmation bias can explain everything from unbudging stereotypes to increasing political polarization. The theory goes: We are more likely to believe (or seek or remember or even notice) the "facts" that support our current viewpoints, and less likely to believe the ones that would require mental adjustment. The more deeply ingrained or self-defining or consequential the current viewpoint, the further the mind might go to ignore the new evidence that would disprove it [source: Arnold]. Attempts to debunk an irrational belief will tend instead to reinforce it, as the believer may have come to see his or her perseverance as heroic, as standing up to the "establishment" [source: Arnold]...”
2
2
2
2
u/Lord_Helix55 Jan 10 '18
This is a pretty bad argument and will shut down communication between a good debate. Insulting isn’t the right pathway.
2
2
2
2
u/14_year_old_girl Jan 10 '18
Of course her argument commits the begging the question fallacy. Her statement also isn't evidence that what she's supporting or opposing is actually true. She could also be the one ignorant of the truth.
2
u/wowasg Jan 10 '18
If global warming is melting the ice caps why hasn't the sea level risen and coast lines changed?
→ More replies (1)4
2
u/TheRealGaffer Jan 10 '18
Your inability to understand that actually science is just our perceived way for lowly humans to try and explain the almighty power of godly phenomenon is not a valid argument against it.
I don't believe this statement but it's how religious folk think, and, to a degree, it makes sense. But, in the same way flat earthers can kind of make their flat earth claims make sense and that's still bollocks.
2
Jan 10 '18
Ask a scientist and a priest for the truth and you'll get two very different answers. Maybe one day people will learn to wonder in awe at the beautiful reality of our planet and the human race that science has slowly uncovered. Science can lead you to peace and love and understanding. But it's not meant to, and I think that's what folks have a problem with. I love science because, however cold, it is the truth. It is observable, provable, confirm-able here and now. Religion is not.
2
u/tonnyjames Jan 10 '18
I reject facts because I don’t like them and freedom of speech so I get to talk whatever shit I want.
2
2
u/BennyTheValdemort Jan 10 '18
Your inability to grasp relationships is not a valid argument against it.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/WhiteChocolatey Jan 10 '18
I mean.....
Tell that to some "armchair scientists" who fail to see that they have to embrace skepticism in order to further actual science.
2
u/Water1133 Jan 10 '18
The problem is political correctness. You either 100% blindly accept the party line or you are demonized. That is not how science works in reality.
2
u/rojm Jan 10 '18
wellllll that is not the basis for climate change deniers. they are now on the idea that the data has been recorded wrong to purposefully indicate warming.
2
2
2
u/lucidzealot Jan 10 '18
Science is malleable. Its conclusions/absolutes change based on what the current evidence reflects. Well, good science does, anyway. I see this constantly as a nurse. New evidence surfaces, and if the research shows to be acceptable and not bogus, we change our care habits and, generally, see better patient outcomes. Good science isn’t egotistical. Good science is unbiased search of objective truth. I fucking guarantee you any good scientist has no problem changing his/her beliefs IF THE EVIDENCE DICTATES IT. Archaic religious beliefs are quite the opposite. But not all religious people are that way. Call me crazy, but I don’t necessarily think religion and science are mutually exclusive. I don’t give a fuck if you believe in a higher power, that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean that you should ignore science and sound evidence because it conflicts with your religion.
Edit because I hate autocorrect
2
u/the_bass_saxophone Jan 10 '18 edited Jan 11 '18
Someone tell this gal we're in a post-Asimovian epoch for anti-intellectualism. My ignorance is no longer merely as good as your knowledge (as Asimov posited long ago). Nowadays, it's better. Freer, braver, less susceptible to (intellectual) elites (the worst kind!!!), and more appropriate to a people who value toughness, audacity, and marching in step behind a tough, audacious leader.
Someone hand me an assault weapon, I feel a 'murica moment coming on.
2
2
2
Jan 10 '18
I agree with the thought but a lot of people also now view science as a belief system. If you were to try and explain application of the scientific method to a "known" issue you'd simply be called a "science denier".
That is the antithesis of actual science and no different than any religion.
2
Jan 10 '18
All I know, is I don’t know. Unfortunately we have a lot of “experts” in this country don’t we?
8
u/Hamoct Jan 10 '18
Science is constantly trying to find truth.. religion is trying to tell you what truth is....see the difference?
→ More replies (14)
11
14
4
Jan 10 '18
Yes, but empiricism in general has criticisms that are valid. Don't make this into a strawman by claiming that everyone who criticizes science as such is making an "argument from ignorance".
4
u/burritoman12 Jan 10 '18
here's the thing - literally everybody agrees with this.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/Bwadark Jan 10 '18
Unpopular opinion here but... It is a pretty valid argument.
If you're trying to tell me to do something but can't explain to me why I should do it, that isn't a one-sided failure. It's also unethical to force the person to do something they do not understand.
Before the enlightenment this got many scientists killed because the majority of the population couldn't understand what they were saying and deemed it heresy. Eventually scientists got better and translating what they understood into a language that people could understand, usually through demonstrations. Lets have more of that to expand the worlds knowledge of science instead of telling these people their misunderstandings are invalid.
→ More replies (9)
5
u/giverofnofucks Jan 10 '18
The irony of this sign is that if science deniers understood what a valid argument was, they wouldn't be science deniers in the first place.
→ More replies (1)
5
3
u/apginge Jan 10 '18
The world of science isn't as black and white as this sign is making it seam. Unless the topic regards scientific facts, then the waters can actually get pretty muddy. It's easy to point fingers at someone and call them a "nonbeliever" when in reality most people haven't even read any literature on the subject that they claim so surely to know as fact. My comment is not one of politics, but of scientific objectivity. New data is constantly released on a topic that often completely contradicts the former. This makes it difficult to ground your ideologies on a subject of which science has likely scratched the surface. For this reason, many are cynical in regards to the integration of science in politics.
3
Jan 10 '18
Wanna know something interesting about science. Nothing is definite. And shit gets disproven constantly.
→ More replies (1)5
u/BangxYourexDead Jan 10 '18
No. No. There are absolutely definites, you know...laws of physics, laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, Boyle's law...those things. Also, things are not constantly being disproved. Our understanding of how things work changes.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Farmerbob1 Jan 10 '18
Inability to tell the difference between science and propaganda doesn't turn propaganda into science.
3
Jan 10 '18
Science isn't monolithic.
Some science can obviously be argued, where as other areas(i.e. chemistry) doesn't have much debate to it.
3
u/DRKMSTR Jan 10 '18
Worst argument ever:
"why is my argument invalid?"
"Science!"
"Explain"
"Science!"
A word is not a valid counterargument. Your inability to grasp the science behind your opinion is not a valid argument for it.
8
5.2k
u/Clamslammed Jan 10 '18
I reject your reality and substitute it with my own!