Growing anti-science stance in "skeptic community"

[Techno-Druid]

I work in a science field (geology).

Skepticism is not only good for science- it is actually the whole force that drives science.

Science is not about proving something because if you think about the size and scope of the universe (and all the situations that can arise) it is sort of impossible to actually prove anything.

So, what we have in science is: "This is our understanding based on the current set of available data."

Enter Stage Right: "The Skeptic"

The skeptic does not agree with the current "understanding." So what the skeptic does is then designs their own experiment and collects data. This data is then added to the original data set. Our data set is larger and now we have more information in which to understand the phenomenon we are studying.

Thank you, skeptic.

You should be careful about targeting "skeptics," or targeting anyone really (which is exactly what your thread is about). Just look at the second comment right under the OP, dangerously close to extreminism.

Skeptics play an important role in our society, not just in science (sit down and think about it for a second).

I would be more woprried about the "absolutists" because they are dangerously close to facists.

That's what could be labeled as true skeptics, those who criticize and question with the use of the scientific method.

These self-identified "skeptics" tend to not mostly make videos in response to SJWs. Although as one person pointed out a lot of them use to make anti-religion videos.

[Mormolyce]

idk where to look for shit like that, so i won't.

the only reason it's being studied at all is because of retarded brats that got into the college while never being told that fucking fairy tales don't exist or that the world isn't a magical place that conforms to what you want.

there's two sexes, each sex is inclined to certain things that the other one might not be. that's just a fact of life, that's all there is to it.

That damn college, filling their minds with ideas.

Rational skepticism at work again!

[Spectral]

We can stay away from the topic of race for this: I think there can be some justification for an immigration policy based on IQ. It correlates with a fair chunk of other characteristics that are desirable in people and doesn't depend on being a bigot or making others out to be subhuman.

As an addendum to this, the rhetoric flung at Nicholas Wade and Charles Murray for writing about these sorts of topics is insane. There's a school of egalitarianism that believes (or at least acts like they believe) that noticing the hereditary nature of intelligence is so dangerous and so bad for society that it really doesn't even matter if it's true.

[Aggrophobic]

The world is filled with uneducated, stupid people. Big surprise.
You make youtube clips to get views. What is actually in the clips does not matter. Triggering people works really well.

[derpkitteh]

That damn college, filling their minds with ideas.

Rational skepticism at work again!

i mean, unless it's a college for art and performance, it's probably not a good idea to fill their minds with fantasy.

this is the real world. it would be nice if you could simply hide in your hugbox and never be heard from again, but sadly it leaks out.

[Mormolyce]

i mean, unless it's a college for art and performance, it's probably not a good idea to fill their minds with fantasy.

this is the real world. it would be nice if you could simply hide in your hugbox and never be heard from again, but sadly it leaks out.

I don't want to frighten you but those scary gender identities exist in the real world. Watch out behind you! It's a genderqueer!

[derpkitteh]

I don't want to frighten you but those scary gender identities exist in the real world. Watch out behind you! It's a genderqueer!

no, they don't exist. it's delusions of children not taught when to leave fantasy behind.

[Mormolyce]

no, they don't exist. it's delusions of children not taught when to leave fantasy behind.

And your rational skeptic study that proves this bland assertion would be...?

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

And your work to disprove their theories is where?

Have they been found to actually be theories?

The term theory is over used quite a bit, and now is banded about.

For something to be labeled a theory in it's scientific form, it has to undergo an arduous process.

[derpkitteh]

And your rational skeptic study that proves this bland assertion would be...?

i'm sure they exist. i'm not gonna be the one to look for them though.

i don't play that.

[Powerogue]

Skepticism doesn't really work as a community in my experience because communities tend to form hiveminds and hiveminds tend to be the things you're least willing to question. (as you have a vested interest, communal acceptance, in maintaining incorrect views)

If you're confronted with things that challenge your key worldviews and overwhelming evidence for them, but still don't accept it, well you're not a very good skeptic then, are you?

[Tijuana]

I imagine most familiar with the "anti-SJW" community are familiar with the situation that occurred with German-Swedish Youtuber Rage After Storm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFHa4db3hA0

Without getting too much into it because race threads are forbidden. She cited the Daily Stormer and when a few other fellow Youtubers tried to open up dialogue with her, she accused them of "virtue signalling" (a word that has lost all meaning).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI

A decent video on the examination of human genetics and diversity.

We all know conservative and certain "libertarian" "skeptics" have been climate change denialists (all while claiming to be playing devil's advocate), but I'm also starting to notice a reemergence of evolution-denial increasing in the comment section of various "anti-SJW" Youtubers.

@Theodarzna @Yvaelle @Skroe @Connal

Now I mostly disavowed myself from most "anti-SJW" Youtubers a while ago, I still watch the Amazing Atheist, Kraut and Tea and Chris Ray Gun from time to time but metaphorically speaking, I spit the red pill out before realizing I was never really in the Matrix to begin with.

My major fear is that'll we'll see a emergence of a more right-aligned "Skeptic community" and a reemergence of a more authoritarian-philosphied conservative movement.

(Mods feel free to lock this if this thread goes against the rules or if it becomes ridiculously toxic)

I find the left to be the side that is anti-academics. They are anti-biology with transgenders. They are anti-economics with their tax plans. They are anti-sociology in regards to admitting incentives impact human behavior. They are anti-mathematics in their spending plans. They are anti-history, in regards to the history of the Democrat party's racist past and present. They are anti-psychology in supporting childhood transitioning. The list goes on and on...

The left only supports science when science supports their issues. Don't get me wrong, the right is no better. Both sides do this.

[Tijuana]

Yeah sadly you will see more and more of this. The right wing has opened their arms wide to the anti-sjw movement as a means to dismantle liberalism in general and convert people to conservatives because people who are liberals and hate SJWs find themselves every day being pushed farther away from the left as the left gets crazier and crazier.

I say fuck that though. SJWs don't get to steal liberalism and turn it into some authoritarian marxist bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -


History, economics, and math are not science.

Fair point. I amended my post.

[s_bushido]

I find the left to be the side that is anti-academics. They are anti-biology with transgenders. They are anti-economics with their tax plans. They are anti-sociology in regards to admitting incentives impact human behavior. They are anti-mathematics in their spending plans. They are anti-history, in regards to the history of the Democrat party's racist past and present. They are anti-psychology in supporting childhood transitioning. The list goes on and on...

The left only supports science when science supports their issues. Don't get me wrong, the right is no better. Both sides do this.

I like how all of your examples of "science" are things that have a strong helping of subjectivity. Meanwhile, the actual science deniers refuse to acknowledge things like evolution and climate change, sciences that are easily demonstrable.

This is, of course, ignoring the obvious: that there have been indications that biology plays a role in gender dysphoria, and Republican shitheads refuse to accept that the two parties basically switched positions on social issues in the 60s. But keep up that projection. It's cute.

[Tijuana]

I like how all of your examples of "science" are things that have a strong helping of subjectivity. Meanwhile, the actual science deniers refuse to acknowledge things like evolution and climate change, sciences that are easily demonstrable.

This is, of course, ignoring the obvious: that there have been indications that biology plays a role in gender dysphoria, and Republican shitheads refuse to accept that the two parties basically switched positions on social issues in the 60s. But keep up that projection. It's cute.

I don't support science denial of either side. But I also don't support bad science.

If climate change is so easily demonstrable, why do the models never predict what actually happened? Al Gore predicted we would be suffering a huge calamity in 10 years, yet here is about to re-release his propaganda film 10 years later, and no calamity. Also, when exactly was climate not changing, and what is the perfect climate? What is the ""right" temperature of the planet?

[Akainakali]

I find the left to be the side that is anti-academics. They are anti-biology with transgenders.

So how exactly is someone wanting to make their outside match the inside (metaphorically speaking) match, anti-biology? Does that make getting a face lift or implants or any of the myriad ways people change their bodies to suit themselves anti-biology? This is basically nonsense.

They are anti-economics with their tax plans.

So trickle down economics has been a budget deficit disaster whenever it has been tried and guess what giving more money to people who already have more money than they need doesn't help the economy. Likewise a refusal to pay for the services that a society needs is a "conservative" economic policy that is one of the major reasons we are running the deficits that we have been. Keynesian economics which the right hates, DOES work and has been proven repeatedly to work.

Who's anti-economics again?

They are anti-sociology in regards to admitting incentives impact human behavior.

Nice strawman you got there, be a shame if reality happened to it.

They are anti-mathematics in their spending plans.

Are you a hay farmer?

They are anti-history, in regards to the history of the Democrat party's racist past and present.

It's getting hard to see your arguments through the field of strawmen you have out here.

Nobody who knows anything thinks the democrats weren't the party of racists, before the Civil Rights movement.

Just like only the ignorant think that the Republican's HAVEN'T made a specific and conscious decision to appeal to and have in fact become the party of racists.

Explain to me please, why do you think the "Solid South", which was Democratic from reconstruction, started going Republican immediately after Johnson rammed through the Civil Rights acts in the Sixties and is in fact pretty much solidly Republican, much as it was once solidly Democratic, back when they were the party of racists.

I have a sneaking suspicion the location might some how factor into this.

They are anti-psychology in supporting childhood transitioning.

Sorry I couldn't make out what you were saying here, too many strawmen in the way. Your obsession with how "wrong" transgenders are, speaks volumes.

The left only supports science when science supports their issues. Don't get me wrong, the right is no better. Both sides do this.

No they don't. This is a flat out lie. The left has nothing comparable to the anti-science bias of the right. The only thing that really even comes close is the anti-vaxers and they cover all political beliefs. I seem to recall Trump supporting the anti-vaccine BS.

[Underverse]

I don't support science denial of either side. But I also don't support bad science.

If climate change is so easily demonstrable, why do the models never predict what actually happened? Al Gore predicted we would be suffering a huge calamity in 10 years, yet here is about to re-release his propaganda film 10 years later, and no calamity. Also, when exactly was climate not changing, and what is the perfect climate? What is the ""right" temperature of the planet?

Gore was wrong on some things and right on others. I'm not sure what the calamity is that he predicted, but there have been some pretty negative effects of climate change already. Bleaching coral, intense heat waves, droughts, increased hurricane strength, increased sea level rise - these things are already happening. At what point would you consider calling it a problem?

'When exactly was the climate not changing?' - this isn't a counterargument. The climate was always, changing (obviously) and the degree of change is what's important (obviously).

'What is the perfect climate/right temperature?' - this is irrelevant, but it's probably the temperature at which people around the equator don't die from 120F+ heat waves. As to why it's irrelevant, any global heating cycle would end in the widespread destruction of human artifice. Coastal infrastructure and farming resources are probably the two most susceptible categories. Losing a good chunk of both would be devastating. If we can stop this from happening, we should try. And since the vast majority of evidence points to humans as the source of these very recent, rapid changes, there's something we can do about it.

[Gatsbybutters]

I think the skeptic community increasing so much lately is more interesting in a slight change of dynamics within the group. This thread alone sums up why people are looking elsewhere, it's a shit show. With republicrats living in denial and throwing shit at each other just to throw shit at each other who can blame them.
Maybe when the skeptic bubble grows large enough to where the smaller bubbles start to clash (flat earth vs. hollow earth riots should be funny) it will be neat to watch.

[Endus]

I don't support science denial of either side. But I also don't support bad science.

If climate change is so easily demonstrable, why do the models never predict what actually happened? Al Gore predicted we would be suffering a huge calamity in 10 years, yet here is about to re-release his propaganda film 10 years later, and no calamity. Also, when exactly was climate not changing, and what is the perfect climate? What is the ""right" temperature of the planet?

That post is as counterfactual and anti-science as flat-earther or young-Earth creationist nonsense.

1> The models are highly accurate, and have been since the beginning. If anything, they've been generally overly conservative.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cli...termediate.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/climate...u-thought.html
The nonsense about "models" pretty much always boils down to people, like yourself, who either don't understand what uncertainty is in a model, or dishonestly and maliciously exclude that uncertainty to misrepresent the model.

2> Hurricane Sandy was exactly the calamity predicted. If you mean the bit where he was talking about a hypothetical situation where the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets collapsed, that wasn't a "prediction" in the first place.

3> The climate has never changed as rapidly as it is currently, in response to natural cycles.

4> It isn't about what's "right" for the planet, it's about what's "right" for human civilization, which has been established in an era of relatively stable climate. The rapid and sudden changes that are occurring and which will only get worse from here on out are a direct threat to that.

But you know all this already. Or you're deliberately providing us a self-satirical example of exactly the kind of misrepresentation that goes on in the supposed "skeptic" community, for some reason.

[Tijuana]

So how exactly is someone wanting to make their outside match the inside (metaphorically speaking) match, anti-biology? Does that make getting a face lift or implants or any of the myriad ways people change their bodies to suit themselves anti-biology? This is basically nonsense.



So trickle down economics has been a budget deficit disaster whenever it has been tried and guess what giving more money to people who already have more money than they need doesn't help the economy. Likewise a refusal to pay for the services that a society needs is a "conservative" economic policy that is one of the major reasons we are running the deficits that we have been. Keynesian economics which the right hates, DOES work and has been proven repeatedly to work.

Who's anti-economics again?



Nice strawman you got there, be a shame if reality happened to it.



Are you a hay farmer?



It's getting hard to see your arguments through the field of strawmen you have out here.

Nobody who knows anything thinks the democrats weren't the party of racists, before the Civil Rights movement.

Just like only the ignorant think that the Republican's HAVEN'T made a specific and conscious decision to appeal to and have in fact become the party of racists.

Explain to me please, why do you think the "Solid South", which was Democratic from reconstruction, started going Republican immediately after Johnson rammed through the Civil Rights acts in the Sixties and is in fact pretty much solidly Republican, much as it was once solidly Democratic, back when they were the party of racists.

I have a sneaking suspicion the location might some how factor into this.



Sorry I couldn't make out what you were saying here, too many strawmen in the way. Your obsession with how "wrong" transgenders are, speaks volumes.



No they don't. This is a flat out lie. The left has nothing comparable to the anti-science bias of the right. The only thing that really even comes close is the anti-vaxers and they cover all political beliefs. I seem to recall Trump supporting the anti-vaccine BS.

Trickle down economic is not an actual theory. Not one single economist, or political candidate, has ever suggested doing this, or anything of the sort. Supply side economics, the actual theory painted as trickle down, does NOT rely on taxing the rich less, it relies on taxing EVERYONE less. The goal of the economic theory, is to create more revenue, via growing the economy. The method for this is reducing regulations, and leaving more money in the economy, and out of the hands of government. It has nothing to do with "tax cuts for the rich while everyone else gets fucked". You are literally falling for 30 year old liberal spin, that wasn't even believed by those who spun it that way 30 years ago.

Also, this theory is 4-0, in American history. Every time it was tried (Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush2), it resulted in MORE revenue to the government, and an economic boom.

- - - Updated - - -

That post is as counterfactual and anti-science as flat-earther or young-Earth creationist nonsense.

1> The models are highly accurate, and have been since the beginning. If anything, they've been generally overly conservative.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cli...termediate.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/climate...u-thought.html
The nonsense about "models" pretty much always boils down to people, like yourself, who either don't understand what uncertainty is in a model, or dishonestly and maliciously exclude that uncertainty to misrepresent the model.

2> Hurricane Sandy was exactly the calamity predicted. If you mean the bit where he was talking about a hypothetical situation where the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets collapsed, that wasn't a "prediction" in the first place.

3> The climate has never changed as rapidly as it is currently, in response to natural cycles.

4> It isn't about what's "right" for the planet, it's about what's "right" for human civilization, which has been established in an era of relatively stable climate. The rapid and sudden changes that are occurring and which will only get worse from here on out are a direct threat to that.

But you know all this already. Or you're deliberately providing us a self-satirical example of exactly the kind of misrepresentation that goes on in the supposed "skeptic" community, for some reason.

Why can't you discuss this topic without flaming and name calling the posters you are supposed to be moderating? I don't recall ever calling you names, in any thread, ever.

This is why I never want to discuss things with you. You get all angry, and next thing you know my post from 3 days ago, in some dead thread, magically gets infracted.