WTF is Happening in Texas? 666 New Laws in Effect Today

[Santti]

Nobody likes to read 5+ pages on people arguing about sources and their validity.

Instead, you decided to go with "because I said so". Because that's much better.

Thanks, but I'd rather we discuss the validity of sources, rather than try to one-up each other with nuh-uh's, and everything-proof-shields.

[Specialka]

I don't care about other people enough to engage in such a thing as forum performances.



You would do well to read the quick links you googled.

The first article already points out in it's first paragraph that modern day science is ruled by an ideology, not by objective findings:



Some of the other articles also seem entirely taken by an ideological or even religious conviction rather than basing their opinions on anything measurable as fact.

It just says that any study is biaised because Humans are biaised by nature. So even studies that fit your agenda are biaised.

And Science is just not one scientist saying a thing and it becomes a truth. Science is based on consensus.

[Specialka]

Which just means it's even more vulnerable to social pressure and ideological biases.

That would go both ways so your position is just as shaky. And again, since it based on consensus, it tends to alleviate those issues because all those scientists that do agree do not necessarily have the same political views.

That is why, usually, you need several studies from several organisations to validate a theory for instance.

[Dezerte]

You would do well to read the quick links you googled.

The first article already points out in it's first paragraph that modern day science is ruled by an ideology, not by objective findings

This is the opposite of what you'd expect to find in an dogmatic belief. A dogmatic belief would not admit that there can be a bias.

[Shadowferal]

Which just means it's even more vulnerable to social pressure and ideological biases.

I find such arguments pointless. You are after all using science every day, even every hour. And really...quite a bullshit derail. This thread is about Texas after all.

[Shalcker]

That would go both ways so your position is just as shaky. And again, since it based on consensus, it tends to alleviate those issues because all those scientists that do agree do not necessarily have the same political views.

That is why, usually, you need several studies from several organisations to validate a theory for instance.

Except often majority actually does have similar political views and thus can labels everyone outside of them as "fringe"/non-consensus?

[Darththeo]

I hate to break it to you, but ever since the neo-mythology created in the aftermath of WW2 there are entire areas of science in which actively researching or measuring anything objectively is highly discouraged or socially not even allowed. I could drop several names of researchers against which the criticism levied never is based on any objective data or anything that was observed and measured, but entirely on the socially acceptable narrative.

Science today is not free or honest. It is controlled by a certain ideological narrative. Any scientific findings that go against that narrative are summarily dismissed. There is a new religion that lives in many people's hearts and minds today, they just are very convinced of themselves that it's not a religion but 'true science and facts'... which obviously isn't true. They are faithful worshippers of the post WW2 mythos, most people are.

I hate to break it to you.

Not everything you read on the internet is true.

Because in the words of Luke Skywalker:

[Specialka]

Except often majority actually does have similar political views and thus can labels everyone outside of them as "fringe"/non-consensus?

And that is not how scientific consensus work, since there is more than that, but maybe except in ex-USSR, old habits die hard.

[Shalcker]

And that is not how scientific consensus work, since there is more than that, but maybe except in ex-USSR, old habits die hard.

How exactly do you think "scientific consensus" works when studying certain things is considered "unethical"?

[Jastall]

I find such arguments pointless. You are after all using science every day, even every hour. And really...quite a bullshit derail. This thread is about Texas after all.

There's even the derailer-in-chief partaking now. I guess when you can't defend the actions that are the point of the thread, going off on pointless platitudes and wild tangents is the next best thing.

[Shalcker]

How exactly do YOU think things being unethical in anyway says anything about sciences ability to produce a consensus?

It allows certain dogmas to remain unquestioned for longer regardless of factual backing behind them.

Scientific consensus works best when alternative theories are explored and proven to be worse then existing one.

Those who seek alternative theories/explanations also help to show limits within which existing explanations work as they seek out those edges to justify value of their own theories.

[Draco-Onis]

That is true. It's going to be difficult to convince religious zealots through an internet forum, especially when their main Bishop is around throwing out the usual empty "where are your reliable sources"-sermons.

Yea how dare people ask for proof facts when they say things for example I can say that your eyes are actually an dimensional portal to hell since I don't have to provide proof in your world I am right.

- - - Updated - - -

It allows certain dogmas to remain unquestioned for longer regardless of factual backing behind them.

Scientific consensus works best when alternative theories are explored and proven to be worse then existing one.

Those who seek alternative theories/explanations also help to show limits within which existing explanations work as they seek out those edges to justify value of their own theories.

But alternative theories are often explored it's basically the best way to get a Nobel prize and be recognized by your peers. Should I list the number of counter theories to Einstein's relativity? or even gravity? of course a theory is just that a theory so until it is proven through the math the validity and weight of it will vary.

[Katchii]

That is true. It's going to be difficult to convince religious zealots through an internet forum, especially when their main Bishop is around throwing out the usual empty "where are your reliable sources"-sermons.

In a discussion about science you're seriously going to try and say that someone asking for reliable sources is somehow in the wrong?

You're welcome.

Nobody likes to read 5+ pages on people arguing about sources and their validity.

Then provide a source so the discussion can be more productive.

[Draco-Onis]

How exactly do you think "scientific consensus" works when studying certain things is considered "unethical"?

I don't think you need science to know that putting $10,000 blood bounties on pregnant rape victims is wrong.

[Shalcker]

People are encouraged to explore alternate hypotheses. Pretty much the only limit is human experimentation, and even that’s acceptable given enough prior experimentation to prove it’s likely safe for humans. So what exactly are you talking about?

Things like this.

William Darity, a professor of public policy at Duke ... wrote, such investigations were at best futile:
“There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research.”

[Katchii]

Which just means it's even more vulnerable to social pressure and ideological biases.

You have no idea how it works if this is your take. You're an ignorant outsider looking in, pretending you know what's going on and spinning it in a negative light to make yourself feel better for being left out and not being able to participate.

If anything it makes it MORE robust.

It's not about a political or social census or agreement, it's that the subject matter and the data from whatever the study was is agreed as being "good" data that supports the conclusion, that's literally it. When something is peer reviewed, it's typically not just done by close friends and people in the researchers inner circle, it's reviewed by MANY people...all of whom are TRYING to find something wrong with it. That's the entire point of peer review.

[Shalcker]

I don't think you need science to know that putting $10,000 blood bounties on pregnant rape victims is wrong.

There is no question that it can be effective at what it aims to achieve, even if what it aims to achieve might be wrong.

[The Stormbringer]

No, it's to avoid the pitfalls of liberalism and the abject failure it has become. You can wave around your rainbow flags all you want, it's meaningless if you keep ignoring actual real issues in the world people need to suffer through because of your academic worthless shit.

Real issues like global pandemics, or the increasingly terrifying crisis of climate change, or the bending over backwards to appease authoritarian powers like China, or the ridiculous and laughable state of wealth* inequality, right? Those things which are becoming more and more concerning with every passing day, right?

Oh wait... conservatives don't care about any of those things. They care about shit like women not being able to get abortions, or minorities being forced to jump through ten times as many hoops to vote, or getting as much money as possible by kissing China's boots, or tax cuts for the rich. Weird!

*(EDIT: accidentally said 'welfare')

[s_bushido]

There is no question that it can be effective at what it aims to achieve, even if what it aims to achieve might be wrong.

And what do you think it "aims to achieve?" Because if your answer is anything other than "suffering" the effectiveness of policies like this is questionable, at best. But you already know that.

[The Stormbringer]

Actually there’s some suggestion that infertility is increasing in animals because of global warming.

And what’s the root cause of global warming? Conservative economic policy.

Don't forget part of the infertility is (I believe) because of the rise of micro-plastics getting into the life cycle due to all the trash being dumped into the oceans.

Who exactly tends to push for dumping trash in the oceans instead of recycling, or creating more bio-friendly materials, or literally reducing our ridiculously wasteful consumer society's amount of trash by getting people to buy and use less? Oh, that's right! Conservatives!