@Boomerman

Oh no, I said something I realized was wrong and deleted it so I dont put wrong information out there.. how horrible of me.

@Bro-Drillard

@freemo @Bro-Drillard
>retard tries to dunk on people with retard meme
>get immediately BTFO
>deletes things to look like less of a retard
>i-i was ju just stopping the spread of misinfo
Hahahahahqhahahaahahah

@freemo @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard
very smart and intellectual of you, just like the science that changes 180º every week

@Ivan_Ivanovich

The day someone creates nuclear power without using science then maybe I will take you seriously.

@Boomerman @Bro-Drillard

@freemo @Ivan_Ivanovich @Bro-Drillard
What is science please enlighten us

@Boomerman

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich
Lol what is that where is the actual method you know the thing science actually is.

@Boomerman

That is the definition of science. The actual method is quite nuanced and depends on the field. The process you use to prove mathematical ideas doesnt really resemble the process used in, say, biology, for example.

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich
The scientific method is universal you troglodyte

@Boomerman

Hahaha, what a moron. No the scientific method is specific to natural sciences only. It only applies to experimentation and since math is not a discipline that is a natural science nor does it use experimentation it does not employ the scientific method.

Thanks for showing you dont even understand the most basic ideas of the things you judge, about what I'd expect of that pea brain of yours.

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich
Fucking retard doesnt understand that the whole point of science is observing a hypothesis and forming a theory around your observations and doesnt undestand how you can do that with math hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha

@Boomerman

Again thats natural sciences... that is not all of science. Jesus christ your stupid. Read a god damn dictionary.

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich
The fucking definition you posted is wrong dumbass science is only the scientific method using said method means youre engaging in science this can range from wiping your ass and observing theres no shit on the paper too complex equations on how light travels through space but youre a fucking retard who thinks science is a job where you mix chemicals and shit youre the fucking retard in science hell who doesnt get shit and were forced to live with you.

@Boomerman

Of course you think you know better than professional linguists writing the dictionary as well.

Classic Dunning-kruger, you are right about everything you pull our of your ass as long as it sounds right to your uneducated brain.

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard
love how ironic it is that at this point talking about duning kruger is only done by those with that "condition"

@Ivan_Ivanovich @freemo @Bro-Drillard
>The smart people agree with me so youre wrong and im smart
These are the idiots accusing you of dunning kruger

@Ivan_Ivanovich

Which explains why you are discussing it as well.

@Boomerman @Bro-Drillard

@freemo @Ivan_Ivanovich @Bro-Drillard
You brought it up dumbass it wouldnt even be a topic without you

@Boomerman

And you continued it, by your own assertion that makes you a victim of dunning-kruger. I agree with you.

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich
>muh appeal to authority
They added shit like BIPOC to the dicitionary faggot just because they rewrote the definition doesnt mean i accept it and again youre showing how retarded you are youre literally engaged in unscientific thinking

@freemo @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard
the process to determine you're fat and bald isn't that nuanced, I just have to look at your ugly mug for instance

@freemo @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard
what does that have to do with anything lmfao

@Ivan_Ivanovich

It shows science clearly isnt as inept or constantly wrong as you imply if it gives rise to highly advanced and complex technologies that have huge impacts for society.. things flat earthers and science deniers could never hope to produce or even approach.

@Boomerman @Bro-Drillard

@freemo @Ivan_Ivanovich @Bro-Drillard
It also creates things like child drag queens and people cutting holes in their crotch

@Boomerman

Are you trying to be a moron or does it just come naturally to you?

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich are you saying hormone therapies dont require science?

@freemo @Ivan_Ivanovich @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard you're old so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your disbelief, but science, as it is shown to the public writ large, is heavily politicized and largely a means of justifying whatever project they want to foist upon the public. it is not trying to find the facts or truth of the matter.

There is still real science being done, but it is ignored by the powers that be. Climatologists who can demonstrate that the global warming/climate change hysteria is just that - hysteria, except for something like the "grand solar minimum" (which is out of our control entirely) are ignored utterly. Instead, we get fake means of "combating climate change" that enrich the global elite (jewish/non-jewish dynasties, israel, NGOs, trans-national corporations, international finance/capital), rather than really solve problems of pollution people face. This is just one example.

People outside of the technocracy (i.e., the fake side of science being used to justify public policy) can see how it has morphed into a materialistic cult.

Daily reminder that the FDA approved fentanyl.

@lichelordgodfrey

Of course science, as it is shown to the public, is politicized and often wrong. The media in generally is horribly biased and anti-factual, that includes both liberal and conservative media (no media seems impartial in the USA).

There is a big difference between the actual science, and the science the general public thinks is science, which is largely just a narrative trying to use science to sell it.

That said your specific examples are completely incorrect.. climate change **is** real, though you wont get even a basic understanding of why by either side of the media, for example.

@Boomerman @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @lichelordgodfrey @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich
Holy fucking shit were hitting levels of self awareness i didnt even know were possible can you be negatively self aware?

@freemo @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich I didn't say climate change isn't real, I said there is a hysteria to it that is presented to the public. Have you never even heard of the "Club of Rome"? They have hijacked that science to make shit up to justify their micro-management of the populace.

@lichelordgodfrey

Yes I can agree with that. While climate change is serious and acting over short periods, it is often overhyped to induce fear as well.

@Boomerman @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich

@freemo @lichelordgodfrey @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich pray tell now that you admit this couldnt the powers that be change definitions of things? Could they say equate a method of doing things with a field of expertise or a certain job?

@Boomerman

Are you seriously complaining about the fact that languages change over time... Yea I'm pretty upset we dont still speak latin too ::rolls eyes::

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich @lichelordgodfrey

@freemo @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich @lichelordgodfrey
Calling a cat by any other name doesnt stop making it a cat retard. science is a method of doing things you can bastardize the word as much as you want but at the end of the day they arent doing science theyre just calling it that.

@Boomerman

The scientific **method** is a method for doing things.. science is not the scientific method, which is only a set of principles that exists within natural sciences as a process for doing experimentation.

How would you even apply the scientific method to a math proof?

Honestly im done here, its one thing that your an idiot, it is another that your an idiot who doesnt know it.

muted

@Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich @lichelordgodfrey

@freemo @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich @lichelordgodfrey the scientific method is the fucking root of science retard you cant do science without the scientific method because if youre not using that method youre not doing science you fucking idiot. if you cant figure out how it applies to math then youre a total fucking retard

@freemo @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard @lichelordgodfrey
the old "language changes over time" argument lol

@Ivan_Ivanovich @freemo @Bro-Drillard @lichelordgodfrey
"Listen bro i know we have this thing we call the scientific method and its the whole basis of what we call science but words change so you can actually do science without thw thing its based on"
t. Some internet retard.

@freemo @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard @Ivan_Ivanovich No, there is a deliberate redefining of things. Biggest example right now is the WHO attempting to surreptitiously re-define what "herd immunity" means with regard to a specific pathogen. They changed it on their website from being, and I am paraphrasing to be fair, "A population with enough natural and vaccinated immunity that a disease can not spread through it" to "A population with enough vaccinated immunity to prevent a disease from spreading through it."

This bizarre re-defining of phrases and words is something typically known about from corporations attempting to massage bad results and the "soft sciences" with their extreme mental gymnastics to avoid talking about the biological side. It has been creeping into the more hard sciences, slowly.

@freemo @lichelordgodfrey @Boomerman @Bro-Drillard
do you think the "actual science" as you call is impervious to being politicized or otherwise incentivized towards ulterior motives?

@Ivan_Ivanovich Nope, we have examples where it has been. But it happens far less so than when science isnt imposed (ie, systematic rigor). So while it reduces politicization it is hardly immune to it.

@freemo
Ah yeah I'm sure that using science as the primary tool through which political narratives are justified to the people makes science that much less politicized. Makes perfect sense.

@Ivan_Ivanovich Remove science then they just lean on people pulling whatever nonsense out of their ass to justify political messages. Hardly an improvement.

@freemo
Bro you're literally saying that using science as a political tool does not politicize science but not using it does. Do you fucking understand what you're writing?
What does "impose science" even mean to you, anyway? What is a scientific government in your view?

@Ivan_Ivanovich Actually I said very much the opposite but your just not too bright and totally misunderstood what I said.

What I said was that using science as a political tool does politicize science, but the nature of science makes it more resistant to it than if we didnt have science and instead people just pulled whatever opinion they wanted out of their ass, which would be far more susceptible to politicization.

@freemo
>The nature of science means that when nobody even cares about it, it's politicized, but when it's used politically, then it's almost perfectly neutral and objective

@Ivan_Ivanovich muted because you are either too much of an idiot to hold a conversation where you understand what is being clearly stated, or intentionally act like an idiot because you think it makes your argument stronger... either way, muted, bye.