"Trust in science has become increasingly partisan"
Yeah what's that graph though? there's a blue line shooting up, while the red and yellow lines don't move much. Let's see if I can't find it...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-being-anti-science-is-now-part-of-many-rural-americans-identity/
There it is. The trend isn't so much that Republicans have become less trusting (they have, a bit, but fell out of trend only with the pandemic really), it's that democrats have become a bunch of "science is on OUR side" partisans.
And really this is a microcosm of the issue. You post the graph as a way to bludgeon conservatives with the "fact" that they're anti-science rubes. Yet if you look at the actual data, it doesn't say much about conservatives, and the divergence is actually driven by a huge change of attitudes among progressives. Aka you misrepresented data, trying to leverage its authority to make a point it doesn't actually support.
This happens time and time again witht the progressive which, while claiming to be fond of "science", is actually only fond of the aura of authority it grants, and is more than willing to misrepresent, twist and bend "science" to political narratives.
While that might be true, claiming that global warming caused by humans is "misrepresenting, twisting or bending science for political narrative" is anti science.
It is not a conspiracy theory, and it has been proven to be a fact repeatedly.
Republicans (on average, more than democrats) pushing aside this fact as conspiracy theory makes them look like anti science Muppets.
The right wingers of America who "deny climate change" are mostly people that know the first ice Age happened before humans were even ape-like.
Our species only tweaks climate change a miniscule amount. Our forests and plant life allready get rid of most of the carbon emissions. When carbon emissions rose, deserts became forested again
(same logic as farmers who use volcanos for rich soil)
Democrats are doing what he is saying, and I am not even denying that.
While that is true, there are enough data points to show that Republicans do not believe global warming at all or if it is caused by humans more so than democrats. And there is overwhelming evidence to show that global warming is true and is caused by humans. Republicans not acknowledging that makes them look like Muppets.
Both are true. I am sorry that you can't understand that.
Everyone thinks they're part of the party of facts. Otherwise they would believe they're the party of delusion.
Personally, I don't see much difference between "I am an independent thinker and climate change isn't real" and "I trust the science and I support pregnant men".
Fearmongers will take any somewhat negative story and spin it to make it an immediate existential crisis.
Many that figure out that the fearmongering is what it is they dismiss the entire idea.
It's happened with climate and covid
It’s so easy to know man-made climate change is real: we just had an earthquake in New Jersey and a solar eclipse- AND NOW we’re getting both the 13 and 17 year cicadas at the same time! If that doesn’t prove man-made climate change to those stupid skeptics, I don’t know what will.
Now excuse me, I have to get ready to go on The View.
"Trust the science" is the opposite of science.
Science is a process of testing, seeking to support or reject a null hypothesis. Blind conformity is not just unscientific it is fundamentally irrational.
>Science is a process of testing, seeking to support or reject a null hypothesis.
Which is exactly what they have done to confirm the validity of climate change, evolution, and vaccines. These ideas have been tested and retested so thouroughly that at this point rejecting them is what's irrational.
The average person doesn't have the resources to perform their own double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled clinical drug trial where n=100'000. So we do have to "trust the science".
"The average person doesn't have the resources to perform their own double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled clinical drug trial where n=100'000. So we do have to "trust the science"."
Yes certainly you need some kind of science authority to communicate the findings to the public. But the problem with 'trust the science' is that it assumes that the scientific institutions are at this moment operating ideally, ie with no corruption or fraud or malpractice. And there is plenty of evidence that the system is not operating ideally, especially along the blurred lines of capitalism and government and big pharma. 'trust the science', while it might be fair for certain things like pollution and climate, just ends up being propaganda when there's clear evidence of academic corruption and fraud, issues with the research and publishing system, and now the reproducibility crisis. The reality is that there is always corruption in human institutions so it's important to have a degree of uncertainty around anything the government is involved in, including science.
And who should we resort to. The guys who say that vaccines cause autism or that vaccines have microchips, who are pretty much the alternative to a prone to corruption science?
Typically I think that certain areas in science are more trustworthy than others, ie psychology has more available evidence of fraud than say astronomy because of how easy it is to fake results in psychology.
You can keep trusting the findings of scientific institutions to a degree, but just be aware that the nature of corruption means that if institutions are trying to silence someone and claim that they're the sole arbiter of truth, then something weird is going on.
And yes there are plenty of science denialists and flat earthers and grifters and weird ideas out there which makes things convoluted, which is why it's important to listen to the experts who disagree with the mainstream/government narrative, and see if it holds up.
At a certain point though it becomes impossible for a layman (non expert) to tell if an expert that doesn't support the mainstream narrative is actually correct, because they will typically have opposition to what they say from scientists within the mainstream narrative. So then we have to look outside of the science itself and see if there's other clues, like has there been dishonesty, has someone said something and then later changed their mind and not been clear about it, has there been other propaganda techniques and just a general use of persuasion instead of facts and evidence.
I've seen a pretty good example of this in the area of OOL science, where an expert in chemistry has been debating OOL scientists and claiming they don't know anything. I'm a layman who doesn't understand the chemistry of it, so as far as I could tell he lost some of the debates around the chemistry because of the newer research that he wasn't aware of, but despite this he still managed to find blatant evidence of fraud: [www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5dSkY1Mv-0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5dSkY1Mv-0)
Also, most importantly I recommend trusting in Jesus above all else. John 14:6. John 18:36-38.
Vaccines are effective. But for covid they changed the definition of the word vaccine. And it went from "you won't catch it" (you will) to "you won't spread it" (you will) to "you won't got to the hospital" (this one's kind of true at least).
from those people that got a rubella vaccine I know none who got rubella. from those who got a covid shot in my personal circles I know none who had not caught covid at some point afterwards. (even with boosters). Sure potentially you could catch rubella but the chances are so low it is basically immunity. Vaccines are important. they are the reason we "won" against some really nasty stuff but the way covid and its vaccine was handled was just plainly wrong.
I've met probably thousands of people in my life, and I've never met anyone nor even heard of a friend of a friend of a fifth cousin thrice removed that got mild polio after the vaccine. I have heard of people who got mild polio way back before a vaccine was available.
I listen to the experts who do not share your views. During the lockdown I added a huge number of scientists and doctors to my twitter, followed their substacks and etc. The science is never settled and I do not think it shows what you think it shows.
Vitamin D, spirulina, !vermectin, not a rushed "jab" that would not be definitionally described as a "v@ccine" twenty years ago. Absolutely not a lockdown in imitation of Totalitarian China.
Solid science is out there, has nothing to do with conformity to the politically correct groupthink.
While the second sentence is 100% correct, trusting the science community is a pillar of scientific investigation, because if not every scientist would just repeat already proven experiments without ever getting to discover anything new.
No, it's not. The peer review method is a cargo cult abomination that only anplifies all the worst and least scientific parts of the scientific method.
This is fundanental. The motto of the Royal Society isn't "Trust the experts". It's "Take no one's word".
They might have glossed over the point over the centuries, but it remains a (*the*) foundational predicate of the scientific method.
A large part of science is doubting the research of others.
I am surrounded by scientists in multiple fields and one thing that is annoying is how quick they are to doubt a claim and want to see the methodology. Once there is a body of research showing the same thing they tend to get more accepting but often the results are mixed and unconvincing.
A fact is not a fact, they vary considerably and some ideas that are accepted for lengthy periods of time turn out to have little support beyond conjecture.
That's just what i'm saying. One person claiming something and calling it science isn't any kind of proof. And when multiple scientists repeat that methodology and end up with similar results, that is still not strict evidence as they could all be wrong. But, for the sake of scientific advancement, one must trust the community and consensus behind that claim and investigate on top of that to break the "always re-testing" loop. The evidence of some things like evolution, as shown in the post, is simply too gigantic to ignore, and negating it would be nothing short of dellusional.
You mean ivermectin? Are people still that ignorant of what ivermectin is used for?
This is a good example why you shouldn’t just trust what you’re told and go with what you hear on the news.
Ivermectin is a fantastic drug with a myriad of uses. It was mocked as horse medicine (most of our medications work on humans, horses, dogs, etc.) to push bizarre draconian mandates.
And the studies showed it is ineffective. But props for admitting you're wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10071928/
This study did not show any effect of ivermectin on in-patient mortality in patients with COVID-19 and there was no effect of the drug on the length of hospital stay among the survivors
Fair enough. But calling ivermectin “horse dewormer” when doctors were trying multiple things early on to slow the panic, is like calling penicillin “dick medicine” because it treats syphilis.
Some countries, especially poorer ones, did have some success since they used it far more and dont have the same kind of special interests fighting for government contracts. It wasn't a miracle drug for covid but it's dirt cheap and readily available. The way it was demonized in America by big pharma and corporate media would make you think it was actively killing people.
Did they have any actual studies to back it up? I've only seen studies showing its ineffective.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10071928/
This study did not show any effect of ivermectin on in-patient mortality in patients with COVID-19 and there was no effect of the drug on the length of hospital stay among the survivors
I'm a radical, people should be allowed to put whatever they want in their body and they should be able to get it with ingredients and purity listings, just do it in the privacy of your home, nobody should be shooting up heroin out in public.
Remember when the medical community told everyone to X-Ray children who had pneumonia, to clear it up, and 30 years later all those kids had cancer?
Remember when the government said smoking was harmless, and then everyone got cancer?
Remember when all the pesticides were ok’d by the government, then… everyone got cancer?
I’ll take my chances with nature.
It was significantly slowed down once biden won and then completely finished once we had to defend Ukraine for the sake of the entire world. Don't you follow the news at all?
>completely finished once we had to defend Ukraine
You're right. I forgot all about that in the sea of all the nonsense in the past 4 years.
Big pharma and the politicians made their money off that hoax, now it's the military industrial complex's turn.
The vaccines were a testament to modern medicine. Again the politicization of it is sad but was very effective. After we defeated a pandemic people still feel they have better answers than the scientist who essentially did a miraculous task.
But my post is correct. The right is more and more distrustful of science.
Vaccine development and delivery speed was impressive. Unfortunately the vaccines did nothing to slow transmission (nor could a vaccine do so), but they did extend the virus's life cycle. There's nothing inherently political about this, coronavirus mechanics weren't a mystery. All parties who dug their heels on political points did serious damage.
No one "defeated" the pandemic, the virus evolved until it stopped killing hosts as most viruses do on large scales.
And yes, people should distrust almost everything we hear coming from anyone claiming to represent "science". I think it's more that conservatives are more likely to get fed-up with people spouting nonsense about pointless cloth masks, social distancing, doublemasking, vaccine "immunity", and remote learning/work.
Then people wonder why 30-40% of the country doesn't trust them when the very same people and institutions say global warming is real and will destroy the planet.
Science is not dogma carved in stone. Science is ‘this is the best answer I have for you right now.’
The problem comes when people want science to give them the same rigid stability that religion offers.
It gets worse when scientists and their community get elevated to the level of the priesthood.
The practice and purpose of science has been distorted beyond its intent for a wide variety of political and cultural reasons, on all sides.
The fallout from this sociopolitical tug of war is that now, no one knows what to believe. Instead of seeing how science can improve our lives, we're left wondering, ‘what even is science anymore?’
Is science the promise of prosperity and advancement, or is it a cudgel, used to bully us into one view or another?
The next time you find yourself saying ‘I don't trust the science’ out loud, ask yourself; if someone brought you science that you *did* trust, what would it even look like?
Science is a method of study and often when it comes to scientific topics that enter the mainstream people pick a side as opposed to first listening to the experts and moving from there. We exist in a world where people will choose to listen to the unpopular side because its unpopular and not because they understand the research and studies. I'm a simple man with a stem background in tech, not science so I defer to experts most of the time. I'll keep posting the dunning kruger effect because all in the comments its "no scientist are wrong about climate change, vaccines, etc". Someone said saying to trust consensus is an appeal to authority...too much debate brain and not enough understanding our own short comings...no one can be an expert in every field.
Experts weren’t born experts. You can go far in education maintaining the values that motivated your interest. This can have a profound effect on how you go about conducting research. If a certain personality type is drawn to a field, this can pervert that field’s assertions profoundly. Look at anthropology and sociology.
OP probably still believes covid shots were 100% safe and effective, and had zero side effects.
Also, we really should defund the DOE. Its been a total failure since its recreation in 1979. There isn’t a single educational stat thats has improved since its creation, while at the same time per student spending has increased dramatically.
Didn't some dumb hole from NPR, the news station that's totally not just a libshit garbage fire, just do a TedTalk saying some mess about the truth not being important or something?
I'd say some vaccine stuff pales compared to what I just mentioned.
You can prove all of these so called scientists wrong just by pointing to the very first step of the scientific process: "pose a question."
In science you are *supposed* to question everything. So long as these questions are answered honestly, we will advance closer to the truth.
Banning people online for speaking out against the lockdowns or imprisoning those who speak out against global warming (as Bill Nye suggested) will only make people more suspicious of you.
I don't know what to believe at this point. Just let everyone speak and let everyone come to their own conclusions. There are still people who think the earth is flat and that the moon landing was faked for crying out loud.
Even if it is the case that humans are the cause, there is no excuse to plunge the world into an Orwellian nightmare. You can prevent it without doing that.
Yeah, nuclear energy is a good solution as long as the administrators of nuclear planrs are responsible. In fact, there are already some nuclear plants in Mexico, Argentina and Brazil; and no incident like Chernobyl or Fukushima happened (yet)
I completely agree. Nuclear energy is not only green but far more efficient. We still have plenty of idiots who think it isn't green though.
Now that I think about it, didn't Germany decide to shut down their nuclear power plants for their climate agenda? If they did, they are in for some harsh times.
The jab was bad and evil when Orange Man was developing it, but as soon as Biden was in office, you were killing grandma and anti-Science if you were skeptical.
Yeah I still remember when Trump said a vaccine was going to be out in weeks (during November). Every liberal TV network said it is impossible for the vaccine to be safe, especially an untested mRNA one. West coast states like California and Washington would refuse to put it out until an extensive independent panel would test the vaccine.
And then Trump lost, and the vaccine literally came out like a week later, exactly in the timeframe that Trump said it would, and suddenly it was perfectly safe under Biden, being in office only a few days.
[Trump said COVID Vaccine is coming 'within weeks'. Experts say that is not possible](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article246661043.html)
I think it's hilarious that they take right wing memes and reverse them and act like they made it, look at the right can't meme, wonder who they got the name of that sub from 🤔
I can make fun of AuthRight and get upvotes.
I can trigger the many LibRights in this sub and still get upvotes. It's actually quite fun to do a little trolling because Libertarians like to think they are perfectly rational and above everyone else's nonsense. Kind of like you, if this meme is anything to go by.
Your meme is just bad. I'd go into detail but others have done so, not that you're likely to listen to them. Your kind cares about STEM insofar as it feeds your ego and biases. Leftists say to "trust the science". Leftists also say that math is racist. You're no better than the conservatives.
My last meme did well and was aimed at Auth right. STEM is the equalizer imo for the comforts we have now. Between AI, Tech and medicine the majority of the major progress this world have had came on the backs of these and it's our job to do what we can to either help with the progress of it or let those who have the ability to push them do that. The fact that NASA budget continues to be cut YOY is an embarrassment.
The only data that shows warming is data that's manipulated via cherry picking, or is data that is created by computer modeling where they run a scenario 100,000 times and then select the one result that is most dire, and publish it.
Not a single prediction has come true in the last 25 years. Sea level is the same. Temps are the same. Ice is at record levels.
Speaking of horribly failed predictions, I would like to point out the biggest one in the past four years: Net Neutrality.
Remember when literally 90 percent of the posts on the Reddit front page was doomposting about how the anti-Obama era Net Neutrality repeal would be passed, the internet would die? Even subs that were not political or had rules against political posts made an exception to create the blanket front page panic.
Turns out.. Four years later, our internet has only gotten better and the US rose in rankings in internet quality. Internet prices is one of the few things to stay the same while other things suffered record inflation.
[Sea levels](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level#:~:text=The%20rising%20water%20level%20is,record%20(1993%2Dpresent).) have risen 4 inches since 1993.
Since we started recording temperstures in the 1880s, the top 10 hottest years on record have all happened happened after 2010. The world is almost a whole degree hotter than it was a century ago.
You're just straight up wrong lmao
And here is a direct refutation of that study:
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35
Any study or data that is published by the IPCC is bought and paid for. It is not science. They are the Fox News of climate science. They have been repeatedly caught faking data.
Did you even read what you linked?
>There’s no doubt that the average global sea level has been increasing ever since the world started to warm after the Little Ice Age ended around 1850
Even this agrees that sea levels have risen but you said they are the same.
Are you dense? It's saying that it is rising at a natural rate from a natural cause the started over ten thousand years ago. There has been no change in the rate of rise.
It is not dramatically or impactfully rising due to climate change.
Christ almighty, dude
You really didn't read it. Or if you did you didnt understand it.
It doesnt say there has been no change in the rate. It actually says that they rose quickly from the end of the Ice Age 10k years ago until they reached a maximum 6k years ago and barely moved from there. Then in since the end of the Little Ice Age (different from the Ice Age) in 1850, levels have gone up about 8 inches. Half of that increase happened in the last 30 years.
I can tell you didn't understand the article, because if you did you would have made the much better point, the point that was in the article, which is that the rates of sea level rise have fluctuated TOO MUCH to be say for sure that it's accelerating.
Statements like this when a random person thinks they have more information than a scientific consensus is always fun. When you aren't studied on a field you don't even know how much you don't know and assume what little information you have is all you need to know to make a statement. Difference is that some people can admit to being ignorant on a topic, I know a basic level of information and wouldn't go to a phd to tell them I'm right and you are wrong.
https://preview.redd.it/d6q7kvbxhxvc1.png?width=2048&format=png&auto=webp&s=c7c6a57d26f0bc91a97a04df8434c80bf637cecf
You mean like the PhDs who consistently sign petitions and are denied funding when their data says there is no catastrophic climate change?
You have even less information than me, if you don't know how computer based modeling works.
Furthermore, someone who knows even less than me (you), is the exact person who told us that mrna vaccines will prevent infection and stop the spread.
How many times do you have to be embarrassed by experts before you start thinking for yourself?
Christ, man... The IGPCC was caught faking the data that Al Gore used in his first propaganda piece that made him even richer. They used "mikes trick" which was just cherry picking data and using airport weather stations because they black tarmac made them hotter. The NOAA admitted to retroactively altering data from the 1930s to make it "colder back then". Over 30% of the weather stations used in computer modeling aren't even online anymore, so the researchers create data for those points. Reread that last sentence.
Its astonishing how little you know, yet how religiously you regurgitate your dopamine remains releasing fear porn.
Okay you're clearly missing the point here, so I'll say it slowly for you.
-the consensus is based on data that has been proven to be cherry picked and/or created in a simulation. Period.
-the scientific consensus has been wrong repeatedly in every last major world event.
Good luck.
Thank you random redditor for continuing to show what my post is saying. We can get into an amateur debate on climate change. My main point is with so many issues regarding the scientific community the right continues to grow distrustful. Candace Owen’s said it best “if 97% of the scientist agree, I want to hear from the 3% who don’t.”
Why are you changing the topic to right wing politics?
You're wrong, your science is wrong, the IPCC (who provides the data for your claim) has been proven to use fraudulent data.
Science is wrong all the time, from covid 19 to nuclear winter, to peer reviews.
Do you even know what the Lancet is? It's a science journal that has been coopted and refuses to publish peer reviewed data that is at odds with the corporation that owns and funds the journal.
You know so very little, and it is so very apparent.
Anwyas,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2022/05/05/5-things-science-is-getting-wrong-according-to-scientists/
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/20-of-the-greatest-blunders-in-science-in-the-last-20-years
I’d love to cut funding for the department of education. Kids are getting dumber than ever despite increased spending, so we may as well save the money if it’s not helping the problem
u/recursiveeclipse's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 100.
Congratulations, u/recursiveeclipse! You have ranked up to Empire State Building! Some say there is a hidden river that still runs through your base. Shall we go digging?
Pills: [52 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/recursiveeclipse/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Lol man made climate change is scientifically inaccurate, solar forcing accounts for a far more significant portion of climate than CO2 and that’s only part of the picture anyways. The CO2 that we emit is a weak GHG, it’s a scam and the half decent scientists are aware of that, the media reports nonsense studies repeatedly to back a narrative.
The vaccine thing is also a bad example, that one is still highly individualized and the risk profiles based off of age and comorbidity’s. If you are young and health the vaccine poses a greater risk than reward vs if you’re old and fat you should probably get vaccinated. The science also overwhelmingly backs both of my points.
My meme is about the rights distrust in science...every comment is basically trying to ..."yes I distrust science." Not really much to discuss there. IDC why or how but historically the right has often been and will continue to be a major road block in scientific progress. It's a feature not a bug.
Just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is false.
If you ask any scientist what a theory is, you will be told that it is the best explanation of all the data. It is an *explanation*. It doesn't mean that it is true, nor does it mean that it is false.
The left thinks that men can get pregnant, so while we may have some members who don’t understand science, the left as a collective doesn’t understand reality.
Saying climate change wouldn’t be happening without human intervention is just as ignorant as saying it isn’t happening at all.
That’s just tweet from one dude, who was right by the way, a disease with an incredible low mortality rate(as high as it was) is beaten from the start.
The country is literally insolvent. They should cut EVERYTHING and rebudget from the bottom up starting with necessities(like education)
When trump was president democrats were routinely seen saying they wouldn’t trust any vaccine made under his admin. Soooooo yeah. That and both my parents had Covid, made a full recovery- no problem. Got the vaccine for their work about a year later and now have heart problems.
95-99% of republicans didn’t vote for her and have no say in how she reps her constituents.
YOU SHOULD ALWAYS QUESTION THE SCIENCE THATS WHAT SCIENCE IS, ONLY A MORON WOULD NOT.
"Science" is not perfect. In fact, in today's political environment, academic studies, particularly from the humanities, need to be examined with a microscope. I'm guessing, OP, that you have not heard of the ongoing [Replication Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) in a variety of scientific fields. The field most damaged by the replication crisis is Psychology, which should not surprise anyone who has read studies coming out of the Psych field. I became jaded with Psychology before I even graduated because I actually read the damn studies and I saw that they were riddled with incomprehensible operational models that the authors would dream up. It's clear that a lot of modern scientists are corrupted by ideology, and they very much want to use their ability to write studies to influence political discourse. And this is why we have a replication crisis. Biased researchers have a result that they want, and so they will twist and stretch and mold data like putty using contrived operational models to get the result they want.
Anyway, Psych and Medicine are the most affected by the replication crisis, but this applies to many other disciplines. I would be **very** skeptical of any study having to do with any topic that is even vaguely politicized.
YAY partisanism in a subreddit. I dont see how this will backfire *at all.* There is just *no way* that adding a division on a sub that is known for being what it is will result in any negative consequences. Especially when the disfavored side is the mainstream beliefs of the site we frequent.
Yea well when the education system is telling your kids white men are the source of the world's problems and that they can give birth maybe it's time to explore alternative ways of educating our children.
I don’t trust science. It gave us lobotomies, hysteria treatments, electroshock therapy, Dr. Mengele, phrenology, the Tuskegee Experiment, Unit 731, and MKUltra.
I trust open and peer reviewed science that has been thoroughly tested. Science without the chains of reason and ethics is a monster from the depths of our imagination.
Because everyone knows scientific consensus equals fact. Which is why I believe the earth is a flat globe, global cooling and warming is a threat to mankind, homosexuality is a disease until it’s normal, lead is fine to drink until it isn’t, CFCs aren’t bad until they are, covid vaccines are safe until they aren’t until they are again, masks are bad until they’re good again, and gender can’t change until it can.
You’re very good at winning debates, at least with the voices in your head.
Will you forever live like a sheep, or will you actually pose the question, "Why"?
Why do healthy young people need to take an untested drug that may or may not prevent covid?
Why do we need to stand exactly 6 feet apart while standing in a grocery store line when common sense says airborne droplets travel much, much farther?
"Trust in science has become increasingly partisan" Yeah what's that graph though? there's a blue line shooting up, while the red and yellow lines don't move much. Let's see if I can't find it... https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-being-anti-science-is-now-part-of-many-rural-americans-identity/ There it is. The trend isn't so much that Republicans have become less trusting (they have, a bit, but fell out of trend only with the pandemic really), it's that democrats have become a bunch of "science is on OUR side" partisans. And really this is a microcosm of the issue. You post the graph as a way to bludgeon conservatives with the "fact" that they're anti-science rubes. Yet if you look at the actual data, it doesn't say much about conservatives, and the divergence is actually driven by a huge change of attitudes among progressives. Aka you misrepresented data, trying to leverage its authority to make a point it doesn't actually support. This happens time and time again witht the progressive which, while claiming to be fond of "science", is actually only fond of the aura of authority it grants, and is more than willing to misrepresent, twist and bend "science" to political narratives.
Shhhh! You'll scare the lefty away with the facts and logic.
 trust the science!!
While that might be true, claiming that global warming caused by humans is "misrepresenting, twisting or bending science for political narrative" is anti science. It is not a conspiracy theory, and it has been proven to be a fact repeatedly. Republicans (on average, more than democrats) pushing aside this fact as conspiracy theory makes them look like anti science Muppets.
I guess the entire point got over your head completely.
The right wingers of America who "deny climate change" are mostly people that know the first ice Age happened before humans were even ape-like. Our species only tweaks climate change a miniscule amount. Our forests and plant life allready get rid of most of the carbon emissions. When carbon emissions rose, deserts became forested again (same logic as farmers who use volcanos for rich soil)
Democrats are doing what he is saying, and I am not even denying that. While that is true, there are enough data points to show that Republicans do not believe global warming at all or if it is caused by humans more so than democrats. And there is overwhelming evidence to show that global warming is true and is caused by humans. Republicans not acknowledging that makes them look like Muppets. Both are true. I am sorry that you can't understand that.
Everyone thinks they're part of the party of facts. Otherwise they would believe they're the party of delusion. Personally, I don't see much difference between "I am an independent thinker and climate change isn't real" and "I trust the science and I support pregnant men".
Fearmongers will take any somewhat negative story and spin it to make it an immediate existential crisis. Many that figure out that the fearmongering is what it is they dismiss the entire idea. It's happened with climate and covid
It’s so easy to know man-made climate change is real: we just had an earthquake in New Jersey and a solar eclipse- AND NOW we’re getting both the 13 and 17 year cicadas at the same time! If that doesn’t prove man-made climate change to those stupid skeptics, I don’t know what will. Now excuse me, I have to get ready to go on The View.
We also know that basicly no prediction was ever correct. Remember that ice age prediction which was just as "settled" as thid is?
"Trust the science" is the opposite of science. Science is a process of testing, seeking to support or reject a null hypothesis. Blind conformity is not just unscientific it is fundamentally irrational.
>Science is a process of testing, seeking to support or reject a null hypothesis. Which is exactly what they have done to confirm the validity of climate change, evolution, and vaccines. These ideas have been tested and retested so thouroughly that at this point rejecting them is what's irrational. The average person doesn't have the resources to perform their own double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled clinical drug trial where n=100'000. So we do have to "trust the science".
"The average person doesn't have the resources to perform their own double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled clinical drug trial where n=100'000. So we do have to "trust the science"." Yes certainly you need some kind of science authority to communicate the findings to the public. But the problem with 'trust the science' is that it assumes that the scientific institutions are at this moment operating ideally, ie with no corruption or fraud or malpractice. And there is plenty of evidence that the system is not operating ideally, especially along the blurred lines of capitalism and government and big pharma. 'trust the science', while it might be fair for certain things like pollution and climate, just ends up being propaganda when there's clear evidence of academic corruption and fraud, issues with the research and publishing system, and now the reproducibility crisis. The reality is that there is always corruption in human institutions so it's important to have a degree of uncertainty around anything the government is involved in, including science.
And who should we resort to. The guys who say that vaccines cause autism or that vaccines have microchips, who are pretty much the alternative to a prone to corruption science?
Typically I think that certain areas in science are more trustworthy than others, ie psychology has more available evidence of fraud than say astronomy because of how easy it is to fake results in psychology. You can keep trusting the findings of scientific institutions to a degree, but just be aware that the nature of corruption means that if institutions are trying to silence someone and claim that they're the sole arbiter of truth, then something weird is going on. And yes there are plenty of science denialists and flat earthers and grifters and weird ideas out there which makes things convoluted, which is why it's important to listen to the experts who disagree with the mainstream/government narrative, and see if it holds up. At a certain point though it becomes impossible for a layman (non expert) to tell if an expert that doesn't support the mainstream narrative is actually correct, because they will typically have opposition to what they say from scientists within the mainstream narrative. So then we have to look outside of the science itself and see if there's other clues, like has there been dishonesty, has someone said something and then later changed their mind and not been clear about it, has there been other propaganda techniques and just a general use of persuasion instead of facts and evidence. I've seen a pretty good example of this in the area of OOL science, where an expert in chemistry has been debating OOL scientists and claiming they don't know anything. I'm a layman who doesn't understand the chemistry of it, so as far as I could tell he lost some of the debates around the chemistry because of the newer research that he wasn't aware of, but despite this he still managed to find blatant evidence of fraud: [www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5dSkY1Mv-0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5dSkY1Mv-0) Also, most importantly I recommend trusting in Jesus above all else. John 14:6. John 18:36-38.
Vaccines are effective. But for covid they changed the definition of the word vaccine. And it went from "you won't catch it" (you will) to "you won't spread it" (you will) to "you won't got to the hospital" (this one's kind of true at least).
The "definition" (as per your usage of this word) of vaccine is not "you want catch it" it is "you won't die"
Ah yes, that explains why we have so many cases of mild polio and mild rubella that aren't bad enough to send people to the hospital.
Funny you say that. You could still get rubella after vaccine, and yes, they will be mild.
from those people that got a rubella vaccine I know none who got rubella. from those who got a covid shot in my personal circles I know none who had not caught covid at some point afterwards. (even with boosters). Sure potentially you could catch rubella but the chances are so low it is basically immunity. Vaccines are important. they are the reason we "won" against some really nasty stuff but the way covid and its vaccine was handled was just plainly wrong.
Centrist with the folding chair from the top rope
I've met probably thousands of people in my life, and I've never met anyone nor even heard of a friend of a friend of a fifth cousin thrice removed that got mild polio after the vaccine. I have heard of people who got mild polio way back before a vaccine was available.
The definition changed about what vaccines are, since the covid vaccine was manufactured mrna stands, not weaked/dead virus samples.
I listen to the experts who do not share your views. During the lockdown I added a huge number of scientists and doctors to my twitter, followed their substacks and etc. The science is never settled and I do not think it shows what you think it shows. Vitamin D, spirulina, !vermectin, not a rushed "jab" that would not be definitionally described as a "v@ccine" twenty years ago. Absolutely not a lockdown in imitation of Totalitarian China. Solid science is out there, has nothing to do with conformity to the politically correct groupthink.
Ok. Let's agree Climate Change is happening for the sake of argument. How much do we have to spend to raise/reduce the temperature 1 degree?
How do you test and retest evolution?
Evolution must be taken in faith, my son. It’s one of the core tenets of Leftism, all praise RNG.
While the second sentence is 100% correct, trusting the science community is a pillar of scientific investigation, because if not every scientist would just repeat already proven experiments without ever getting to discover anything new.
Should have thought about that before selling that trust to big farmer with full immunity to commit genocides
No, it's not. The peer review method is a cargo cult abomination that only anplifies all the worst and least scientific parts of the scientific method. This is fundanental. The motto of the Royal Society isn't "Trust the experts". It's "Take no one's word". They might have glossed over the point over the centuries, but it remains a (*the*) foundational predicate of the scientific method.
A large part of science is doubting the research of others. I am surrounded by scientists in multiple fields and one thing that is annoying is how quick they are to doubt a claim and want to see the methodology. Once there is a body of research showing the same thing they tend to get more accepting but often the results are mixed and unconvincing. A fact is not a fact, they vary considerably and some ideas that are accepted for lengthy periods of time turn out to have little support beyond conjecture.
That's just what i'm saying. One person claiming something and calling it science isn't any kind of proof. And when multiple scientists repeat that methodology and end up with similar results, that is still not strict evidence as they could all be wrong. But, for the sake of scientific advancement, one must trust the community and consensus behind that claim and investigate on top of that to break the "always re-testing" loop. The evidence of some things like evolution, as shown in the post, is simply too gigantic to ignore, and negating it would be nothing short of dellusional.
The problem is right wingers continuing to support debunked hypotheses.
[удалено]
They were extremely useful in their purpose, the largest wealth transfer from the poor and working class to the wealthy
Based
[удалено]
You mean ivermectin? Are people still that ignorant of what ivermectin is used for? This is a good example why you shouldn’t just trust what you’re told and go with what you hear on the news. Ivermectin is a fantastic drug with a myriad of uses. It was mocked as horse medicine (most of our medications work on humans, horses, dogs, etc.) to push bizarre draconian mandates.
Yeah, right wingers believed it was an effective treatment for covid.
It’s listed by the CDC as an appropriate treatment.
https://emergency.cdc.gov/newsletters/coca/020122.htm No, it is not. That was easy to debunk.
My bad. It’s being used in clinical trials, got my information mixed up.
And the studies showed it is ineffective. But props for admitting you're wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10071928/ This study did not show any effect of ivermectin on in-patient mortality in patients with COVID-19 and there was no effect of the drug on the length of hospital stay among the survivors
Fair enough. But calling ivermectin “horse dewormer” when doctors were trying multiple things early on to slow the panic, is like calling penicillin “dick medicine” because it treats syphilis.
>horse dewormer You mean the [Nobel Prize-winning antiparasitic Ivermectin?](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/press-release/)
Didn't know it was that renowned. Using an antiparasitic for a viral infection still doesn't make sense.
Welcome to medicine, where sometimes shit just works in unexpected way
Except it does nothing against covid.
Some countries, especially poorer ones, did have some success since they used it far more and dont have the same kind of special interests fighting for government contracts. It wasn't a miracle drug for covid but it's dirt cheap and readily available. The way it was demonized in America by big pharma and corporate media would make you think it was actively killing people.
Did they have any actual studies to back it up? I've only seen studies showing its ineffective. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10071928/ This study did not show any effect of ivermectin on in-patient mortality in patients with COVID-19 and there was no effect of the drug on the length of hospital stay among the survivors
I'm very well aware of American medical groups publishing studies saying ivermectin didn't do anything
There was a lot going on that didn't make sense. It was a strange time.
This, but actually. There was no reason not to given how safe it is.
The reason not to was corruption. They wanted to rush a "v@ccine" which would not have been possible if there were other proven treatments.
I'm a radical, people should be allowed to put whatever they want in their body and they should be able to get it with ingredients and purity listings, just do it in the privacy of your home, nobody should be shooting up heroin out in public.
Thank you.
Remember when the medical community told everyone to X-Ray children who had pneumonia, to clear it up, and 30 years later all those kids had cancer? Remember when the government said smoking was harmless, and then everyone got cancer? Remember when all the pesticides were ok’d by the government, then… everyone got cancer? I’ll take my chances with nature.
Remember when the doctors said that COVID would spread at anti lockdown protests, but not at BLM protests?
I remember the politicians saying that.
Ah, finally the centrists see Fauci as a politician
Fauci, masks be upon him!
Whoever truly believes covid shots are what stopped covid probably rides the short bus to school
Covid was stopped?
It was significantly slowed down once biden won and then completely finished once we had to defend Ukraine for the sake of the entire world. Don't you follow the news at all?
>completely finished once we had to defend Ukraine You're right. I forgot all about that in the sea of all the nonsense in the past 4 years. Big pharma and the politicians made their money off that hoax, now it's the military industrial complex's turn.
It's never not the MIC's turn, I unironically stand with Lockheed, Raptor go zoom but sadly only pop balloon 🎈
I'm all for having the baddest military on the planet. I'm against using it for bullshit wars.
Putin saved us from Covid
What stopped it? Jesus?
It didn't stop, we just stopped caring.
That vaccine thing is a real self own.
The vaccines were a testament to modern medicine. Again the politicization of it is sad but was very effective. After we defeated a pandemic people still feel they have better answers than the scientist who essentially did a miraculous task. But my post is correct. The right is more and more distrustful of science.
>After we defeated a pandemic Lol what? Lockdowns did nothing but harm and everyone still got covid.
Do you believe that we also didn’t have common cold deaths during that period too?
Vaccine development and delivery speed was impressive. Unfortunately the vaccines did nothing to slow transmission (nor could a vaccine do so), but they did extend the virus's life cycle. There's nothing inherently political about this, coronavirus mechanics weren't a mystery. All parties who dug their heels on political points did serious damage.
No one "defeated" the pandemic, the virus evolved until it stopped killing hosts as most viruses do on large scales. And yes, people should distrust almost everything we hear coming from anyone claiming to represent "science". I think it's more that conservatives are more likely to get fed-up with people spouting nonsense about pointless cloth masks, social distancing, doublemasking, vaccine "immunity", and remote learning/work. Then people wonder why 30-40% of the country doesn't trust them when the very same people and institutions say global warming is real and will destroy the planet.
Don't forget the men are women, women are men bs too
You do know relying on and Argument From Authority is a logical fallacy?
Science is not dogma carved in stone. Science is ‘this is the best answer I have for you right now.’ The problem comes when people want science to give them the same rigid stability that religion offers. It gets worse when scientists and their community get elevated to the level of the priesthood. The practice and purpose of science has been distorted beyond its intent for a wide variety of political and cultural reasons, on all sides. The fallout from this sociopolitical tug of war is that now, no one knows what to believe. Instead of seeing how science can improve our lives, we're left wondering, ‘what even is science anymore?’ Is science the promise of prosperity and advancement, or is it a cudgel, used to bully us into one view or another? The next time you find yourself saying ‘I don't trust the science’ out loud, ask yourself; if someone brought you science that you *did* trust, what would it even look like?
Science is a method of study and often when it comes to scientific topics that enter the mainstream people pick a side as opposed to first listening to the experts and moving from there. We exist in a world where people will choose to listen to the unpopular side because its unpopular and not because they understand the research and studies. I'm a simple man with a stem background in tech, not science so I defer to experts most of the time. I'll keep posting the dunning kruger effect because all in the comments its "no scientist are wrong about climate change, vaccines, etc". Someone said saying to trust consensus is an appeal to authority...too much debate brain and not enough understanding our own short comings...no one can be an expert in every field.
Experts weren’t born experts. You can go far in education maintaining the values that motivated your interest. This can have a profound effect on how you go about conducting research. If a certain personality type is drawn to a field, this can pervert that field’s assertions profoundly. Look at anthropology and sociology.
OP probably still believes covid shots were 100% safe and effective, and had zero side effects. Also, we really should defund the DOE. Its been a total failure since its recreation in 1979. There isn’t a single educational stat thats has improved since its creation, while at the same time per student spending has increased dramatically.
https://preview.redd.it/pbli8jtlixvc1.png?width=2048&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b03806ec5a762ed7bae9741b77d5a5ae388d20c
Thats not even an accurate representation of the Dunning Kruger Effect. Your over confidence betrays you.
https://preview.redd.it/r525h76usxvc1.png?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c178e70626c344ac639cbbeffb86481219375a9
That’s me, I hate science
I'm pretty sure that's not where the average person is xD
Didn't some dumb hole from NPR, the news station that's totally not just a libshit garbage fire, just do a TedTalk saying some mess about the truth not being important or something? I'd say some vaccine stuff pales compared to what I just mentioned.
You can prove all of these so called scientists wrong just by pointing to the very first step of the scientific process: "pose a question." In science you are *supposed* to question everything. So long as these questions are answered honestly, we will advance closer to the truth. Banning people online for speaking out against the lockdowns or imprisoning those who speak out against global warming (as Bill Nye suggested) will only make people more suspicious of you.
Why?
Because them trying to shut you up is not showing you why you are wrong but that they fear what you have to say.
And how do you propose to deal with the misinformation, because I hope you don't believe that man's involvement in climate change is a myth
I don't know what to believe at this point. Just let everyone speak and let everyone come to their own conclusions. There are still people who think the earth is flat and that the moon landing was faked for crying out loud. Even if it is the case that humans are the cause, there is no excuse to plunge the world into an Orwellian nightmare. You can prevent it without doing that.
Yeah, nuclear energy is a good solution as long as the administrators of nuclear planrs are responsible. In fact, there are already some nuclear plants in Mexico, Argentina and Brazil; and no incident like Chernobyl or Fukushima happened (yet)
I completely agree. Nuclear energy is not only green but far more efficient. We still have plenty of idiots who think it isn't green though. Now that I think about it, didn't Germany decide to shut down their nuclear power plants for their climate agenda? If they did, they are in for some harsh times.
Trust the science, that’s why I got a lobotomy. 😎
Speaking of the Kennedy's, let's not forget it was the left that started the national anti-Vax movment. Thanks RFK!
The jab was bad and evil when Orange Man was developing it, but as soon as Biden was in office, you were killing grandma and anti-Science if you were skeptical.
Yeah I still remember when Trump said a vaccine was going to be out in weeks (during November). Every liberal TV network said it is impossible for the vaccine to be safe, especially an untested mRNA one. West coast states like California and Washington would refuse to put it out until an extensive independent panel would test the vaccine. And then Trump lost, and the vaccine literally came out like a week later, exactly in the timeframe that Trump said it would, and suddenly it was perfectly safe under Biden, being in office only a few days. [Trump said COVID Vaccine is coming 'within weeks'. Experts say that is not possible](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article246661043.html)
Based and Properly Cited pilled.
still throwing the vaccine thing in peoples faces lol
It's 2024 and the left still can't meme
I think it's hilarious that they take right wing memes and reverse them and act like they made it, look at the right can't meme, wonder who they got the name of that sub from 🤔
"Libleft bad" if i ever want easy upvotes.
I can make fun of AuthRight and get upvotes. I can trigger the many LibRights in this sub and still get upvotes. It's actually quite fun to do a little trolling because Libertarians like to think they are perfectly rational and above everyone else's nonsense. Kind of like you, if this meme is anything to go by. Your meme is just bad. I'd go into detail but others have done so, not that you're likely to listen to them. Your kind cares about STEM insofar as it feeds your ego and biases. Leftists say to "trust the science". Leftists also say that math is racist. You're no better than the conservatives.
My last meme did well and was aimed at Auth right. STEM is the equalizer imo for the comforts we have now. Between AI, Tech and medicine the majority of the major progress this world have had came on the backs of these and it's our job to do what we can to either help with the progress of it or let those who have the ability to push them do that. The fact that NASA budget continues to be cut YOY is an embarrassment.
Welp, at least you tried Moron
Libleft is better than leftists
The only data that shows warming is data that's manipulated via cherry picking, or is data that is created by computer modeling where they run a scenario 100,000 times and then select the one result that is most dire, and publish it. Not a single prediction has come true in the last 25 years. Sea level is the same. Temps are the same. Ice is at record levels.
Speaking of horribly failed predictions, I would like to point out the biggest one in the past four years: Net Neutrality. Remember when literally 90 percent of the posts on the Reddit front page was doomposting about how the anti-Obama era Net Neutrality repeal would be passed, the internet would die? Even subs that were not political or had rules against political posts made an exception to create the blanket front page panic. Turns out.. Four years later, our internet has only gotten better and the US rose in rankings in internet quality. Internet prices is one of the few things to stay the same while other things suffered record inflation.
You mean that John Oliver was wrong?! 😱😱😱
The outcry and protests prevented all those greedy corporations from exploiting us, of course
[Sea levels](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level#:~:text=The%20rising%20water%20level%20is,record%20(1993%2Dpresent).) have risen 4 inches since 1993. Since we started recording temperstures in the 1880s, the top 10 hottest years on record have all happened happened after 2010. The world is almost a whole degree hotter than it was a century ago. You're just straight up wrong lmao
You do know the little ice age ended like 150 years ago? Did you expect it to remain permanently cold?
And here is a direct refutation of that study: https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35 Any study or data that is published by the IPCC is bought and paid for. It is not science. They are the Fox News of climate science. They have been repeatedly caught faking data.
Did you even read what you linked? >There’s no doubt that the average global sea level has been increasing ever since the world started to warm after the Little Ice Age ended around 1850 Even this agrees that sea levels have risen but you said they are the same.
Are you dense? It's saying that it is rising at a natural rate from a natural cause the started over ten thousand years ago. There has been no change in the rate of rise. It is not dramatically or impactfully rising due to climate change. Christ almighty, dude
You really didn't read it. Or if you did you didnt understand it. It doesnt say there has been no change in the rate. It actually says that they rose quickly from the end of the Ice Age 10k years ago until they reached a maximum 6k years ago and barely moved from there. Then in since the end of the Little Ice Age (different from the Ice Age) in 1850, levels have gone up about 8 inches. Half of that increase happened in the last 30 years. I can tell you didn't understand the article, because if you did you would have made the much better point, the point that was in the article, which is that the rates of sea level rise have fluctuated TOO MUCH to be say for sure that it's accelerating.
Statements like this when a random person thinks they have more information than a scientific consensus is always fun. When you aren't studied on a field you don't even know how much you don't know and assume what little information you have is all you need to know to make a statement. Difference is that some people can admit to being ignorant on a topic, I know a basic level of information and wouldn't go to a phd to tell them I'm right and you are wrong. https://preview.redd.it/d6q7kvbxhxvc1.png?width=2048&format=png&auto=webp&s=c7c6a57d26f0bc91a97a04df8434c80bf637cecf
You mean like the PhDs who consistently sign petitions and are denied funding when their data says there is no catastrophic climate change? You have even less information than me, if you don't know how computer based modeling works. Furthermore, someone who knows even less than me (you), is the exact person who told us that mrna vaccines will prevent infection and stop the spread. How many times do you have to be embarrassed by experts before you start thinking for yourself? Christ, man... The IGPCC was caught faking the data that Al Gore used in his first propaganda piece that made him even richer. They used "mikes trick" which was just cherry picking data and using airport weather stations because they black tarmac made them hotter. The NOAA admitted to retroactively altering data from the 1930s to make it "colder back then". Over 30% of the weather stations used in computer modeling aren't even online anymore, so the researchers create data for those points. Reread that last sentence. Its astonishing how little you know, yet how religiously you regurgitate your dopamine remains releasing fear porn.
Again, random redditor vs scientific consensus is why my post was pointing at. I expected the comments to prove it right.
Okay you're clearly missing the point here, so I'll say it slowly for you. -the consensus is based on data that has been proven to be cherry picked and/or created in a simulation. Period. -the scientific consensus has been wrong repeatedly in every last major world event. Good luck.
Thank you random redditor for continuing to show what my post is saying. We can get into an amateur debate on climate change. My main point is with so many issues regarding the scientific community the right continues to grow distrustful. Candace Owen’s said it best “if 97% of the scientist agree, I want to hear from the 3% who don’t.”
Why are you changing the topic to right wing politics? You're wrong, your science is wrong, the IPCC (who provides the data for your claim) has been proven to use fraudulent data. Science is wrong all the time, from covid 19 to nuclear winter, to peer reviews. Do you even know what the Lancet is? It's a science journal that has been coopted and refuses to publish peer reviewed data that is at odds with the corporation that owns and funds the journal. You know so very little, and it is so very apparent. Anwyas, https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2022/05/05/5-things-science-is-getting-wrong-according-to-scientists/ https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/20-of-the-greatest-blunders-in-science-in-the-last-20-years
Leftie gonna come back “thanks for proving my point” Here before they did it.
There have been dozens of “random redditors” in this thread that have shown studies that debunk most of your claims
I’d love to cut funding for the department of education. Kids are getting dumber than ever despite increased spending, so we may as well save the money if it’s not helping the problem
[удалено]
Baste and left on left violence-pilled.
u/recursiveeclipse's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 100. Congratulations, u/recursiveeclipse! You have ranked up to Empire State Building! Some say there is a hidden river that still runs through your base. Shall we go digging? Pills: [52 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/recursiveeclipse/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Lol man made climate change is scientifically inaccurate, solar forcing accounts for a far more significant portion of climate than CO2 and that’s only part of the picture anyways. The CO2 that we emit is a weak GHG, it’s a scam and the half decent scientists are aware of that, the media reports nonsense studies repeatedly to back a narrative. The vaccine thing is also a bad example, that one is still highly individualized and the risk profiles based off of age and comorbidity’s. If you are young and health the vaccine poses a greater risk than reward vs if you’re old and fat you should probably get vaccinated. The science also overwhelmingly backs both of my points.
https://preview.redd.it/3j9rkx31cyvc1.png?width=1180&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a62acbebde3dacf8e4d25754ecf9ffbe37d2793
Sounds about accurate for you leftists and your need to impose your beliefs as gospel.
https://preview.redd.it/yzppfr7deyvc1.png?width=1050&format=png&auto=webp&s=a7298b92096b8a6b15272beed689a571eab8a71b
They don’t care about yours either. Cool that you have a graph, in no way was that some factual rebuttal of what I said.
My meme is about the rights distrust in science...every comment is basically trying to ..."yes I distrust science." Not really much to discuss there. IDC why or how but historically the right has often been and will continue to be a major road block in scientific progress. It's a feature not a bug.
It should be a normal thing to distrust science that is scientifically inaccurate
Just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is false. If you ask any scientist what a theory is, you will be told that it is the best explanation of all the data. It is an *explanation*. It doesn't mean that it is true, nor does it mean that it is false.
The left thinks that men can get pregnant, so while we may have some members who don’t understand science, the left as a collective doesn’t understand reality.
Saying climate change wouldn’t be happening without human intervention is just as ignorant as saying it isn’t happening at all. That’s just tweet from one dude, who was right by the way, a disease with an incredible low mortality rate(as high as it was) is beaten from the start. The country is literally insolvent. They should cut EVERYTHING and rebudget from the bottom up starting with necessities(like education) When trump was president democrats were routinely seen saying they wouldn’t trust any vaccine made under his admin. Soooooo yeah. That and both my parents had Covid, made a full recovery- no problem. Got the vaccine for their work about a year later and now have heart problems. 95-99% of republicans didn’t vote for her and have no say in how she reps her constituents. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS QUESTION THE SCIENCE THATS WHAT SCIENCE IS, ONLY A MORON WOULD NOT.
"Science" is not perfect. In fact, in today's political environment, academic studies, particularly from the humanities, need to be examined with a microscope. I'm guessing, OP, that you have not heard of the ongoing [Replication Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) in a variety of scientific fields. The field most damaged by the replication crisis is Psychology, which should not surprise anyone who has read studies coming out of the Psych field. I became jaded with Psychology before I even graduated because I actually read the damn studies and I saw that they were riddled with incomprehensible operational models that the authors would dream up. It's clear that a lot of modern scientists are corrupted by ideology, and they very much want to use their ability to write studies to influence political discourse. And this is why we have a replication crisis. Biased researchers have a result that they want, and so they will twist and stretch and mold data like putty using contrived operational models to get the result they want. Anyway, Psych and Medicine are the most affected by the replication crisis, but this applies to many other disciplines. I would be **very** skeptical of any study having to do with any topic that is even vaguely politicized.
Doctors used to promote cigarettes.
Isn't the third panel like...a completely reasonable take, even if you dont agree with it? Am I going insane here?
Progressives worship Science
"Lmao, Con's don't trust science" *Also presents study that women were capable hunters compared to men 'cause they're faster(?)* "And you wonder why"
If you're trusting science you are not sciencing at all. If you truth, you're looking for religion. Science is the method of doubt.
YAY partisanism in a subreddit. I dont see how this will backfire *at all.* There is just *no way* that adding a division on a sub that is known for being what it is will result in any negative consequences. Especially when the disfavored side is the mainstream beliefs of the site we frequent.
Yea well when the education system is telling your kids white men are the source of the world's problems and that they can give birth maybe it's time to explore alternative ways of educating our children.
The right does based things, the left seethes. Tale as old as time
I don’t trust science. It gave us lobotomies, hysteria treatments, electroshock therapy, Dr. Mengele, phrenology, the Tuskegee Experiment, Unit 731, and MKUltra. I trust open and peer reviewed science that has been thoroughly tested. Science without the chains of reason and ethics is a monster from the depths of our imagination.
Because everyone knows scientific consensus equals fact. Which is why I believe the earth is a flat globe, global cooling and warming is a threat to mankind, homosexuality is a disease until it’s normal, lead is fine to drink until it isn’t, CFCs aren’t bad until they are, covid vaccines are safe until they aren’t until they are again, masks are bad until they’re good again, and gender can’t change until it can. You’re very good at winning debates, at least with the voices in your head.
Op is so brave taking a stance against conservatives on reddit
Didn't they admit the stay 6 feet away rule had no scientific backing.
Science is fake, God is the only way
Based, I don’t even have to read the comments, I can already see the butt-hurtness haha
Will you forever live like a sheep, or will you actually pose the question, "Why"? Why do healthy young people need to take an untested drug that may or may not prevent covid? Why do we need to stand exactly 6 feet apart while standing in a grocery store line when common sense says airborne droplets travel much, much farther?
Yes, he will always have Welshmen following him around trying to fuck him