They constantly go on about “oh, but this study” or “look at that poll” or “oh my God, the consensus says this.”
This wasn’t the case in the past. People were reflecting on stuff and understood that a “study”, or a “poll” or a “consensus” isn’t worth anything if just repeated unreflected. I can make a study showing “90% of American blacks are racist” by asking whether they have dating preferences and which “race” they prefer less in dating. It’s just bs.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
corbettreport.com
twitter.com
because they didn't do enough of it in school.
Appeal to Authority.
Trivia Saturation.
Content Drip.
Replace journalist and politician with a single word to describe them both, and you will have your answer..
Even in 2100 Facebook will still have over 6 millions living holocaust survivors
Because facts have a liberal bias.
this guy doesn't love SCIENCE, quick kill him!
because they have nothing of substance to actually report about.
none of it is important.
its just to keep stupid people doing the same stupid things and ask no important questions
I notice you didn't say "truth" but went with a word that can easily obfuscate.
>why do journalists and politicians love the word “study” so much?
Because normies are oblivious to the fact that “research studies” are bought and paid for by private and corporate interests.
>I can make a study showing..
but you didn't, and therefore you can't prove it.
this. they use studies that support whatever narrative they want to push, to bolster their authority, doesn't matter if they're fake. Like those polls during the last election.
It's an easy way to write quick clickbait articles.
>Study says 40% of the population repressed homosexuals
>Study finds nine out of then white males have problematic racist attituedidoos
>This wasn’t the case in the past. People were reflecting on stuff
No, people were not reflecting on anything. In the past newspapers were full of rubbish, just in a different package.
>shock....in the year 3000 facebook could have 100 bn dead users !
> shock ...in the year 3000 african population will reach 200 bn persons
stop extrapolating
Kek
I think you'll all ignoring the fact that this article is claiming that Facebook will still be around 80 years from now. Are you fucking for real?
Term they use when they want to launder some money.
Our culture takes Science as gospel. Science is our religion, regardless of whether or not it is even good science (this is true in the case of vaccinations, where terrible terrible faulty science is touted as gospel.) So using the word "study" invokes religious truth into the story. It is complete gospel.
It's a way for them to shoehorn their heavily weighted opinions as "science".
This. That shithole is basically dead now. Who uses it but boomers and white trash at this point?
Use of the word “study” makes them sound like they are “data driven” and can actually think. Unlike “maybe we should have that conversation”? Which just makes one sound retarded and too stupid to realize that was exactly why the journalist asked you the question. For you to converse. As in a conversation. That you tried to avoid because you realize you are too retarded to even be in this interview.
Unironically, this fucking song explains it better than I ever can.
Well you have to admit that it's much worse now, even if the idea of information works fundamentally the same way.
There's much less standards now, since everything needs to be just clicked, instead of bought from a place away from your house. There's degrees of inhibition that don't exist anymore.
>New study says that "Using the word STUDY in headline actually works", proves to be true
>and thats a good thing
The first one most of all. We don't listen to priests anymore, we don't listen to elders, where does intellectual / philosophical authority come from? The universities.
do they seriously believe this shitty website will be around for another 70 fucking years?
The most ridiculous thing is that 99% of journalists don't even read the shit they're citing. Often if you check their sources, it's just a game of broken telephone. Sometimes journalists report the opposite of what their sources say
as if facebook could last for a century. myspace didn't even make it a decade.
This is actually a stark existential problem when you think about it. How will humanity and other civilizations look back and evaluate these types of online archives? Just like how we study archeological artifacts, ancient written texts, etc. civilizations of the future will parse through the Internet with whatever ML tools they have to learn about how people of the 21st century lived. This isn't even withstanding issues of the electricity and physical hardware used to store all of this data which are almost certain to deteriorate across time and the elements.
Their "study" was most likely just mathematical projections of the current population, birth and death rates, the number of users on Facebook, and the average growth rate of Facebook (which is probably negative at this point).
The educational system was strategically co-oped to concert the interests of the world oligarchs,
corbettreport.com
>faceberg existing in 2100
LOL
>facebook
>existing in 2100
That fad has about 10 more years, tops.
wtf
What?
Imagine thinking some shitty social network site is going to exist in 2100