Do you guys believe in science?

32 per cent of respondents were skeptical about it. That was up from 25 per cent the previous year.

30 per cent of the skeptics said they only believed science that aligned with their personal beliefs.

"It moved from one person out of four to one person out of three," Chartrand said. "It's difficult for us to understand why."

Attached: Screenshot_20190924_014937.jpg (1080x1092, 330K)

Other urls found in this thread:

>scumbag leftists corrupt science to push their fuckery
>trust in science falls
>"It's difficult to understand why."
Fuck. You.

So you don't belive in science? And why science pushes the left wing agenda. Science is mostly attacked by the left, not in cahoots with it.

>It's difficult to understand why.
Perhaps if we broke up the respondents by ethnicity, we might gain a better understanding of the problem?

"Believe in science" is a very broad and frankly nebulous turn of phrase.


Either you believe in the soundness of the methodology or you don't. Which is it?

I'm a fucking biochemist you retard. I can actually tell the difference between actual science and pozzed bullshit politicized science.
And apparently so can a lot of other people.

I don't believe in science. It's all part of the select Elite to misguide us, run us with fear. They want us to be scared.. but fuck em.. there's a arising, we will be woke.

All of our technology keeps making the world worse and worse. Maybe if Science suggested saving Western Civilization to prevent the Chinese from becoming an unstoppable plague upon humanity I would listen. Maybe if Science suggested races are distinct and important and we should stop murdering fetuses people would actually listen.

anyone else have to watch "an inconvenient truth"?

weve been 5 years away from annihilation for as long as i can remember according to (((scientists)))

>Getting browner
>Education starting to break down.

Hmm, surely science would give a good answer if the two were related. One that wouldn't get disavowed due to political bias?

>pozzed bullshit politicized science
Give me an example. Say, in genetics. Or your own field, biochemistry.

While I do believe in science (and you'd have to be a mongoloid not to) scientists have become massive elitists who don't seem to be interested in "explaining" so much as "telling" and sneering at those who ask questions/are skeptical. Modern, cutting-edge science is incredibly complicated and often counter-intuitive so you have to be a good communicator to teach the average person about it.

I used to be in the sciences and was often DISCIPLINED for writing reports in a jovial, easy to understand style (I wasn't writing in the buzzfeed "informal" style, just making dense science easy and more fun to read) because scientific reports/papers are apparently supposed to be arcane and boring. I told them that this might make more people interested in the sciences (maybe even wamenz), and they said that these reports aren't for the unwashed masses, but the enlightened few capable of comprehending the intentionally convoluted and complex vocabulary. It was crazy to me, watching institutions of learning become more and more like the fucking Ad Mech from 40k. I fucked off and never came back.

Attached: Math and Reality.jpg (1600x557, 107K)

dumbass, the way people refer to it can mean 'institutions which perform scientific activity' or 'the collection of all scientists'. regardless, you can't really 'believe' in science, just perform it.

It's true that scientists would steer clear of that. But that's because the wider culture in which they work is corrupt. It's not because of any inherent failings of the scientific method itself.

Scientists are fucking nerds.

Science is a methodology. Get a dictionary. I'm not interested in discussions with people who have their own made up dictionaries in their head because they were too lazy to ever open a real one.

Kek, left doesn’t believe in genetics, in twin studies (which prove behavior and iq is 99% genetics), and push a new climate catastrophe every 10 years. Meanwhile the only real danger to the earth is another extinction level asteroid but we are too busy giving out dysgenic gibs to explore space and save ourselves.

Yeah no shit.

That said though scientists are supposed to be self policing in preventing cultural inclinations from deterring scientific discovery. Same as ethical concerns relating to their research.

>left doesn’t believe in genetics, in twin studies (which prove behavior and iq is 99% genetics)
Cite the twin studies that prove this. I've read quite a bit on this topic and I've never heard of anything so extreme.

Let me just cite some studies with bullshit stats by someone you consider of ill repute, and then you can do the exact goddamn; gosh i wunder

I believe in science, but I wish government and media would stay out of it.

I actually believe science is the perfect system for understanding our universe, but human biases muddy it up.

I wonder if the rising percentage of has anything to do with the rising percentage of immigrants.

>Yeah no shit
Well no one else seems to share this view.

And no, science not supposed to be self policing against cultural inclinations from deterring scientific discovery. It's a methodology for discovering the truth. It has no inherent moral dimension. Individual scientists might, but science does not.

>I wonder if the rising percentage of has anything to do with the rising percentage of immigrants
This was my first thought.

How about the obvious one in hard sciences?

> Canada
> Science

No scientists, not science as a whole.

Like saying war has the responsibility for the lives lost in, it's the soldiers not the battle.

What I'm saying if cultural boundaries are repressing or falsifying facts it's a responsibility of scientists to actually call it out.

Like a lot of the bullshit gender scientists claim.

when people are confronted by uncomfortable truths from science, they turn to religion, where its all sunshine, fantasy and everything will be fine in the end

Read James Damore's full paper. It summaries the mainstream scientific literature on the subject of gender. It was so offensive to Google and its leftist ideology that he was fired for it. The science on gender has not been corrupted by politics. But its findings have been suppressed by leftists liberal arts professors and their graduates who are decidedly not scientists.

I trust in facts and working models which aid in discovering more facts (I'm 12)

There are degrees of trust, ranging from "extremely high" in mathematics to "below zero" in social sciences.

>What I'm saying if cultural boundaries are repressing or falsifying facts it's a responsibility of scientists to actually call it out
Well the topic of discuss is science, not scientists. But even if it were, you'd still be wrong. There is no requirement that scientists get involved with how the public understands their work. The job of the scientist is to practice science, period. If a scientist like Carl Sagan wants to volunteer to do public relations, he can, but it is not part of the definition of the term scientist and it is not part of any covenant that scientists are required to sign.

>Like a lot of the bullshit gender scientists claim.
Such as?

>social sciences
This is not science. Not even economics. They are not part of this discussion.

The left is bringing about a new dark age where they attack legitimate studies that go against their equality cult. They will twist all education to fit their narrative and censor what they cannot corrupt. They believe that there is no biological difference in race and gender and attempt to bend reality to fit their insane religious belief.

The left is completely anti-science and intelligent people are starting to get wise to it.

>there's a arising, we will be woke
inspiring words leaf

>Believe in science
>Like it is a religion rather than as a method of testing and observation
Fuck. Off. It's people like you who muddy the waters and treat it like a religion to push your (((social sciences))) like their fact while denying factual scientific methods of testing that proved differences between the races and differences between the sexes. Fuck. Off.

Attached: 1527597695037.png (661x473, 99K)

>I'm a fucking biochemist you retard

I trust the Lord and his plan for me

Attached: 15.jpg (750x886, 162K)

I believe in the objective shit, when there's a 5.2 magnitude earthquake or the overnight low was 42 degrees, I'll believe that shit because it's quantifiable; but when they tell me I need to quit eating meat because the overnight low was 42 degrees I just vote Republican

You're confused

I don't believe in science.
It's not a faith, not a religion.

>too dumb to understand science
>failed STEM so went to trade school
>blame leftists whenever too dumb to understand
literally niggers

>The job of the scientist is to practice science
Is what I mean, it's not to kowtow to make subjects unquestionable. As for an example of bullshit gender science. Take your pick from wage gap, US campus rape claims or anything to do with treating gender dysphoria (though that's the realm of psychiatry)

You may say that those all do get discredited, but there's such a populist push it makes researching what's actually going on without a conforming opinion professional suicide for those in lower positions of the academic hierarchy.

I may blame scientists as a whole but it's more those that pontificate and bully others.

I believe in the scientific method and empirical evidence. I just don’t trust the “authorities” anymore

>only belive in science when it backs up their personal belive
>dont buy into the msm narrative because "science says" has become an overused meme

There are only two genders.
Genders are determined in the brain during foetal development based on whichever chromosome you have, XX or XY.
The hormones you're getting in the womb determines the wiring based on that.
Now sometimes the hormonal soup goes wrong.
That still leaves only two genders.

>muh science
Why do people think there's some monolithic institution of science? Its mostly eggheads arguing over topics that no one will be able to explain to the general masses without giving false impressions.

You should be skeptical.

>computational phylogenetics PhD candidate.

>leftists liberal arts professors
>and their graduates who are decidedly not scientists.

In spirit, they certainly get the paper and the funding that says otherwise.

Yeah looking through the thread, I realize that now. "Believe in science" is unironically a trigger for me. Sorry about that. :/

"believe in science" refers to the scientific method, and do you trust in it(hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, in short)

what the article is trying to say is "oy vey goyim eat bugs, buy our overpriced electric vehicles and don't have white babies or you will all die"

>muh science is NEVER tainted by agenda or paid pushing or social justice and anyone who says it is must be stuuuuuupid!
t. Average leftist faggot

If it believes in me.

I believe he's talking about the Minnesota Twin Studies.

>50% of scientific studies were unreproducible
There is good reason to be skeptical of science, but it’s not ideology or god, it’s ego

What the fuck?
Science isn't a fucking belief, it's a process

>I don't believe in science.
>It's not a faith, not a religion.

Well neither are facts, but you "believe" in facts, I presume. You (and this guy ) need a dictionary. Look up belief. It doesn't necessarily involve any hocus pocus. It's simply the acceptance of a claim as true. (e.g. 2+2=4. If A then B. If B then C. Therefore if A then C. etc.) The level of discourse in this thread is hilarious.

>they certainly get the paper and funding that says otherwise

Probably why trust in science is falling

Now it's only a matter of time

Attached: aynRandSerious.jpg (266x190, 7K)

There's your problem Christcuck. These two words aren't fit to be together. You don't believe in science, you either confirm it or dismiss it via scientific method.

The entire field of genetic science is denied by the left. But there just so superior the right?

as soon as someone says, do some research, the science says, or some other braindead shit then I stop listening to them.
Nigga I'm not going to read through a bunch of shit until I have the same opinion as you

The are the social sciences (especially social psychology), not the hard sciences. Social science aren't real sciences.

This is completely wrong
Science is now memery
t. Geologist

Science is inherently good but the institutions have been hijacked by Marxist charlatans, starting with Franz Boas and his Jewish cronies. So much for "veritas". How do they get away with it?

then drop your phone and computer and stop posting here, all of those items are scientifically created apparatuses, they might manipulate you into becoming a leftist, the computer screens might be bombarding you with leftist light technology to turn you into a faggot

Because the IQ of society is lowering therefore what we really need is to turn everywhere into a Capitalist DisneyWorld for Adult Children

Attached: 1568840374791.png (613x611, 422K)

What if B is wrong though? Why do you just accept that it is true?

Could also be down to fraudsters like that faggot who wrote the founding paper on social psychology.
75% of all studies in that field were based in some way on that paper, and the paper was wrong about literally everything.
Gone goes the field. Just like that.

>There is good reason to be skeptical of science, but it’s not ideology or god, it’s ego
It arguably is ideological/god, just on the other side, science has become a religion and people are sick of "just listen and believe" bullshit.

For those aspiring to god like powers, study biochemistry, sound waves and holography. Do it on the dl where possible.

>not knowing the definition of "if"

kek did she do no panties or what

Not when 60% of results are unrepeatable in a lab

Science has turned into a pop culture religion, fueled by corporate monopolies. At best, they get high off their own farts. At their worse, they actively lie or skew studies to serve their own bottom line.

Such is life, post-meritocracy and critical thought.

Attached: 1531688108592.png (750x561, 484K)

You’re wrong. The “Hard” sciences still produce experiments that are not consistently reproduced. Let’s look at abiogenesis—the entire atheistic explanation of life—has never been successfully reproduced. People that take this “scientific” explanation for our origin are making a massive leap of faith to do so.

Whered you get that statistic from?

> (You)
>>there's a arising, we will be woke
>inspiring words leaf
I can't even troll without checking what I write. .. FML.

Point of personal order ! Point of personal order ! When you all agree that we are in a progressive space where we will speak our opinions, I get worried a space collapser may come through the door, and we'd be colonized all over again. Can you please stop pretending our progressive space is just in this room? It should extend over all school grounds and beyond, and we should say that. Thank you, I need to breathe now, and be centered.

Typo. Meant to say:
>The crisis of irreproducibility affects the social sciences (especially social psychology), not the hard sciences. Social science aren't real sciences.

You are the one with the issue. You are supposing that B is accepted as proven fact. I am supposing the hypothetical in which it is not. If B is not correct, then we can no longer say that we know C and that any logical progression from understanding B is incorrect.
To state any of science is proven, is to make a leap of faith. Science can never prove anything, only disprove. Science has become corrupted because people have lost sight of this and treat it as a new religion instead of methodology for experimentation and learning.

No scientist claimed to have "produced" life from inorganic matter. Ergo there cannot be a problem of irreproducibility. You are talking about a hypothesis. Not being able to verify it in a lab because of a current lack of technology is not proof of its falsity.

Should be for

>scumbag leftists corrupt science to push their fuckery
This. Plus all the quotas and diversity hire that are fucking with scientific research, theory comprovation/replicability etc

Response is here

>Point of personal order !
It's "Point of personal privilege" you dirty goyim.

It's just the most parsimonious explanation for what we see. By far.

Well it's illegal to express scientific fact in Canada, what did you expect?

There's only two genders.

A shitty add on to the elitist narrative...whose funding you, the Koch Brothers, Russia?

He's talking about the crisis of irreproducibility. But it's a problem with the social scientists (especially social psychologists, which is where he's pulling that 60 percent figure from). Google it. It's shocking how much crap science is coming from social psychology. The problem is with the scientists, not science. These guys are just using really sloppy methodologies and many are lying outright about their results. Thankfully, the hard sciences like physics and chemistry are fine.

Scientist ARE elite, by merit. Leftists just found it hard to slime into this little club, besides humanities. But they trying HARD to pozz tech right now. Not very successful.

>Science can never prove anything, only disprove.
Key insight here, folks

False. That claim has been made that proteins were synthesized and through the abiogenesis of those proteins more complicated organic compounds formed eventually leading to life. The initial experiment that created the proteins in question has never once been replicated though.
Atheism also requires a leap of faith akin to any religion.
>this experiment is infallible and proves something forever and can never be questioned
This is not how science works.
>we have proven my belief in the lab, but one day we will
This is pure faith and speculation.

it's not a hypothesis, it's a theory
you know there's a difference
they've found "proof" for this one
enzymes form some strange soup some scientist made to show the possibility of abiogenesis

This is precisely true. What are point are you attempting to make with you snark?

>social "science"
Doesn't surprise me
I still stand by what I said, science is a process. If it's not repeatable that's not science.

It's illegal to dissent with scientific fact in some countries too.
>you simply can't cremate 6-11 million people in 5 years with that many crematoriums
I think Canada wants to make climate denial illegal too.
In reality the science is irrelevant, it's dissenting against the state ideology that's being punished.

Why would anyone trust modern science?

You assert that the problem is with the scientist in those fields, yet, simultaneously, reject any possibility that there may be errors with the scientists in other fields?