"Science has been wrong before" is a pitiful line only parroted by those who have zero understanding of the scientific method. It really only displays a special level of ignorance and lack of education. If you think something that has been proven via the scientific method hundreds of times is incorrect, then perform the experiment or analyze the data and come to a different conclusion or get a DIFFERENT outcome that disproves it.
But you won't, and you can't, because that one liner that "science has been wrong before" is kind of a wild card "herpdederp I'm going to use this as a license to not believe anything because I don't understand how it works."
Nice strawman. As usual, you're missing the point. In this thread we have seen several posters continue to prop up their arguments with studies under the guise 'science proves my argument.' Of those posters, a few of them have repeatedly ignored the possibility that their studies could be erroneous. They have in essence, insisted that science is infallible. That anything 'scientific' couldn't possibly be incorrect.
Now here you go making a post where you accuse me of using 'science has been wrong before' to dismiss anything I disagree with because if I disagree with it, I must be 'incapable of understanding it.' Seriously? The fact that you would make such a post shows that you have no interest in an honest discussion about anything. At no point did I say (or even imply) that because science has been wrong before, that we can just dismiss all science.
Contrary to your inane strawmen, I'm one of the first people to support science in any related discussion. I'm someone who has always and will continue to support science as well as the work scientists devote their lives to because I believe science is the most useful tool we have as humans. It improves lives in all areas and makes possible the quality of life we couldn't have without science.
However, I'm not some imbecile who just blindly agrees with everything that falls under the banner of 'science.' A wise man apportions his belief to the evidence, and like a wise man, I apportion my beliefs to the evidence instead of just blindly believing everything published. Furthermore, the discussion we've been having about studies and science has not been about whether science or studies are generally believable, but whether these specific studies represent what the people posting them want them to represent.
The greater issue we've continued to bring up in response to these studies is the disconnect between a study representing something in a specific scenario and the people using it to represent a counter argument in a broad discussion. It's an issue that reflects on the general attitude and poor aptitude of the people pushing said studies in a way that muddies the conversation we're trying to have because we have to keep taking time to make posts like this in order to dispel the rhetoric of people like you.
Rhetoric we could do without.
Originally Posted by Jevlin
Why? Because fuck you, that's why.
Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.