🇳🇱
Oh no, I said something I realized was wrong and deleted it so I dont put wrong information out there.. how horrible of me.
very smart and intellectual of you, just like the science that changes 180º every week
The day someone creates nuclear power without using science then maybe I will take you seriously.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
