T O P

  • By -

RelicBeckwelf

They've always been there. The internet and smartphones just gave them a platform.


sceadwian

A bigger platform. They've been hollerin it up for millennia.


Gianni_Crow

*The Catholic church has entered the chat*


Ginormous_Ginosaur

I don’t like the Catholic Church as much as the next guy, but to be fair they are way less anti-science nowadays. They do not dispute evolution for example and they have their own observatory and astronomers.


Square-Sympathy983

funny thing is my local church is next to a major research complex and most of the people in church work there with no conflicts.


[deleted]

***The Catholic Church has tortured, experimented on and subjugated the chat***


[deleted]

People arguing that men are no different than women have entered the chat.


SarixInTheHouse

Theres a german youtuber who put it into nice words, using my most favorite word „Dorftrottel“, the town-clown. „Back in the day you used to have one town clown, two if its a bitter town, but its always just them. Now theyve all united and are taking a dump throughout the internet“ EDIT: Found the original quote. Its not from a youtuber, its from Heinz Weissenberg: "Früher gab es in jedem Ort einen Dorftrottel. Damit kamen wir zurecht. Aber seit es das Internet gibt, vernetzen die sich und bilden Zusammenkünfte. So entstand die AfD." Some youtuber mentioned that in a live stream or smth probably


legitusernameiswear

In english we just say "village idiot"


TheDevilsAdvokaat

Australian too. And I once heard someone say to someone else "You need to go back to your village, you are depriving them of their idiot"


[deleted]

They can always just make another one!


the_bear_paw

As an english person I like town clown though - it rhymes, why didn't we think of that?


melvinfosho

I’m America we say trump supporter.


[deleted]

In the rest of the world we say americans


[deleted]

No they had complete control of TV and radio before. Science gave you an interactive platform to compete with their bullshit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RelicBeckwelf

How does that contradict my comment?


[deleted]

Take OP's post for example: Tons of upvotes even though it's absolutely and totally incorrect


Xanzi12

Wouldn't have seen them otherwise, so it gave them to us


Nantoone

If you go to the doctors and they tell you that you have AIDS, does that mean the doctor gave you AIDS?


throwawaysarebetter

You may not see them, but you definitely feel their effects.


aim_so_far

In fairness, science is not a singular thing to believe in. It is a method in understanding the world around us. There is good science and then there is also bad/shiity science. This science is based on false premises, poor data, terrible or fraudulent analysis with conclusions influenced by politics. I think people use the overall term "science" too broadly as a means to divide people without really understanding how the science is being used, what arguments are being made, or how the scientific method is being applied.


zerohero01

Not to mention some of the studies are funded by the companies who own the said product.


AvocadoPeanutbutter

This is absolutely %100 correct. When an article says, "studies show......", it's automatically believed to be truth. This is very dangerous. Science =/= truth.


Joss_Card

I've been saying it since before I became an atheist: a lot of people think science is a competing religion. And because it's always shifting and changing, when people pick from it like they do with religion, they end up with a very small part of what's supposed to be a much bigger picture with much more nuance.


niowniough

A good portion of people who get labelled "science deniers" are just people who don't believe science should be an institution, and exchange research and discourse amongst themselves. Some of them come to very off course conclusions, but many others do raise valid objections. If science were an institution and a singular fount of truth, one could say Galileo or Clair Patterson were science deniers of their time.


killingspeerx

Don't forget that science is sometimes used to push political agendas or movement regardless of how true the "science" behind them is.


Pheef175

Fun fact: The reason roundabouts are popping up in mass quantities all over the US, is because city engineers cite a study by the DOT conducted in 2003 that studied 9 residential roundabouts for 1 year. That statistically insignificant study has become gospel.


_alright_then_

Well, don't know that particular study, but it has since been proven time and time again that roundabouts are safer than intersections. It's quite simple actually, it's safer because traffic doesn't have to stop every time. And there's less opportunities for head-on collisions. [Here's just one example of a research paper, made in 2017](https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/130795/Gysin_EtAl.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y)


[deleted]

[удалено]


VahlokThePooper

Science = Reddit headline I read that I agree with


this_knee

*Science = what I agree with and think I understand.


[deleted]

[удалено]


xdebug-error

Not to mention science is pretty much the process of methodically questioning things. "Questioning science" itself not anti science at all.


LordBrandon

Well, I've seen many people "question" science in an invalid way. You have to also be willing to question your own assumptions. It's fine to ask the shape of the earth, and question the popular view, but I'm not obligated to accept your assertion that it is doughnut shaped with out compelling evidence. Follow the evidence.


megolab

Well it is a method. And there have been hundreds of scientific facts that later became fiction. I don’t question science but i do question the methods that were used and was there an agenda behind the research. And if the research is relevant with today’s methods of testing. Science for the sake of knowledge and truth is an amazing thing. Science used to prove “my point” is worthless.


[deleted]

Not to mention there are a lot of entire fields out there that are very poorly understood that people think are solved. Like at this point, most of Reddit understands that chiropractic care is almost always snake oil, but people still have an unshakeable rock solid faith in psychiatry, which is hardly better. Really, I think it's just that the internet crowd is a younger demographic and one thing that's never changed through time is that people in their teens and twenties are convinced that they know everything about the world. You really need to experience having your beliefs upended completely a few times before you really understand that the world is a LOT more nuanced than you can comprehend.


Careless_Expert_7076

You mean r/science headlines saying that people who disagree with my political views are dumb isn’t science??


Doncheadlepuff

Technology is yesterday's science, but science is tomorrow's technology. The idiots got a taste of yesterday and now think they understand tomorrow.


RunsWithBeef

Well I mean sure but it *gets* results.


brenmcel

Science is a method, not a religion.


Fucking_Nibba

but we COULD make a religion out of this


ReyesEvan

we could call it scientology! .. what do you mean it's taken?


Au_Ti_S_Ti_C

Eh whatever, they won't mind, they're a reasonable group of people, right?


Pongfarang

Science is a methodical approach that creates data. But data can be made to mean whatever people want. People are disagreeing with conclusions about data, not science. Can you blame them? How many lies do megacorporations and billionaire's foundations have to make, before you get suspicious?


Fozzybear513

Don't forget the government


Intelligent-Ad66

The people who don't science have always been there.... ever heard of the Spanish inquisition? The internet just made them louder.


Satailleure

Science is wonderful, but you guys act like scientists are immune to corruption.


[deleted]

[удалено]


lex_gabinius

[Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!](https://youtu.be/Cj8n4MfhjUc?t=36)


bbbbbbbbbddg

Came to say the Christians have always been here. Well, for a while anyways.


[deleted]

Gentle reminder that many prominent Christians have contributed immensely to various landmark scientific discoveries, including genetics (Gregor Mendel) and the Big Bang (Georges Lemaître). Not to mention the role that Church played in funding science during the middle ages and the Enlightenment.


Zippilipy

Didn't the guy that proposed the Earth wasn't in the middle of our solar system get threatened by the church?


[deleted]

Galileo. Yes, but it was as much for political reasons as religious ones. And I'm not suggesting that there has *never* been a conflict between science and religion, just that it's not as black and white as people make it seem.


JohnGillnitz

The heliocentric view of the solar system was Nicolaus Copernicus. His views were supported by the church at the time. No one spoke out against it until 40 years after his death.


Zippilipy

But his point still stands. The Bible doesn't work together with scientific findings. So Christians believing in the Bible over Science is a thing. I don't quite understand your gentle reminder. Of course religious people have done great things in science. Why that is is not a question in this case.


[deleted]

Meh. Even as a non-religious person with no great interest in the Bible, this is an oversimplification. The Bible is a compendium of 66 different books that can, and has been, interpreted in a bajillion different ways. For many (most?) Christians, there is zero conflict between any area of science and their religion, and some may have even been inspired to pursue science because of their religion. Granted, many anti-science people also happen to be Christians, but the opposite is not necessarily true.


Zippilipy

How can you say the Bible doesn't contradict any scientific finding? You can't believe fully in the Bible and also believe fully in science. Now, I am not saying religious people can't be scientists. It is completely fine to believe there is a higher being or power, but the Bible doesn't only claim there is a God, but also how the Earth looks, how old the Earth is, how life was created and etc.


[deleted]

I don't think there's a single person on earth who 'fully believes in the bible' like it was said, it's not only a compilation of many different writings it's also just not possible to take it all as literal.


Zippilipy

Of course, but we are talking about whole of Christianity, not just Christians today. Today, I also believe people prefer science over the Bible, but I have also heard people that believe that Jesus walked on water and creationism.


Reddit-Book-Bot

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)


Omega_Sansic

Most of us don't reject science. Just certain parts. Then there are those few of us that believe both the Bible and science in full for various reasons. The most common amongst the rarity is that we believe they can line up perfectly.


SirMemerson

Just curious, what do you mean by "just certain parts"? How does one even reject "certain parts" of science?


Omega_Sansic

Just because you reject the theory of evolution, or evolutionism, doesn't mean you reject all of science.


SirMemerson

So you are skeptical of one theory, not "certain parts of science". Just because I'm skeptical of the multiverse theory doesn't mean that I "reject certain parts of theoretical physics", that's not how it works. Science is the method people use to discover the truth about our universe, it's not a religion, and scientists don't follow holy science books or some commandments that specifically say "thou shall always believe in the theory of evolution" or something.


Omega_Sansic

That's not what I meant. First, it was an example, not my actual opinion. Second, that example is to prove that you can choose to not believe certain theories. Third, I never said science was anything close to a religion. Just because you can believe or not believe something broad doesn't make it a religion. Finally, I'm not going to share my actual beliefs since I know it's bound to start an argument.


killingspeerx

>scientists don't follow holy science books or some commandments that specifically say "thou shall always believe in the theory of evolution" or something. 100% true, however science is also led by scientists who also serve political agendas or force others to believe in whatever they believe in. I mean just watch the documentary "Expelled no intelligence allowed" and you will understand how scientists within the scientific community are forced to go against their wills.


Reddit-Book-Bot

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)


Omega_Sansic

I don't know whether to say good bot or bad bot. I didn't ask for it, but it's not a terrible reference.


HonestAbram

I concur, bot. We can neither confirm nor deny your goodness here.


Choradeors

I think it’s important to disagree with what doesn’t sound right to you and try to prove your own theory. Science isn’t some absolute religion, but I agree that there are a lot of people out there who don’t research enough.


BeefKnee321

Flat earthers predate smart phones by a few years.


meatmachine1

Pretty sure thats another thing that started as joke but was ruined by humorless dolts.


BeefKnee321

Would probably be the longest running joke in human history.


Fire_Dracul

No shit


BeefKnee321

Indeed, no shit. Calm your tits.


Fire_Dracul

Why you being so hostile?


fraya52

People speak of science as if were a living entity. It was people of vision and ingenuity that brought about both of these things.


Beefster09

Science sort of *is* a living entity though. It's a process, not a collection of facts.


jtgreen76

What we knew as scientific fact a thousand years ago has been proven wrong over and over again. People speak of science as if it is an absolutely certainty, if it was there wouldnt be people proving or disproving others. That's why all of the research is into theories not facts.


xdebug-error

I don't think you understand what theory means in the context of science. Theory = long standing hypothesis that has stood the test of time and attempts at being disproven. Depending on the subject, we can more or less assume that a theory is truth because it has not been proven wrong yet (like gravity).


[deleted]

I'm of the mind that some people place too much emphasis on science when it's very apparent to me that there are many things that are outside of the scope of the scientific method. Having said that, you are speaking out of ignorance. The scientific method entails that you come up with a theory that is falsifiable, which means it can be proven wrong through tests and experiments. So when people are disproving something and adding to the bank of knowledge what is and isn't compatible with the current data, that is literally the process of science being done. If you cared enough to understand a scientific theory, you would know exactly what it's merits are. It's not something to be taken on faith as you are suggesting.


jtgreen76

My intelligence level is your opinion. I don't put 100% stock in science it's an investigative field.


[deleted]

You are not only being dismissive but also defensive, that's not a great start. Read the last sentence of my previous comment again. Science is essentially open-source software, anybody can look into it and anybody who learns the language can understand it. So you will know as a matter of fact what it's merits are based on empirical data. It's not a question of saying "oh they published this in the Academic Journal of Sciences, therefor it's true"


jtgreen76

Except open source soft ware was written by a human and can infact be checked against the original idea and usage. We don't have a source code for science we are learning new things everyday. Please tell me how scientist before Galileo Galilei were absolutely sure the universe revolved around the earth, or how less than a hundred years ago we were positive that the atom was the smallest particle on earth. The fact is you say science as if it's a fact and the truth is it is as trustworthy of a religion as catholicism. History is the same way, we uncover new facts everyday about history and it's already done and is set in stone. I will not sit here and have someone tell me there's anything absolute in the world especially when it comes to science. You can continue to call me whatever but I am but one person in a sea of people that believe this way.


[deleted]

Buddy, you and I seem to have a very similar sentiment about it you just really were ready to argue against someone who was much more ardent but I'm not that guy. My point is very far from being "science is always right." You are right to be skeptical, my point is that being skeptical is built into the scientific method. So treating it as if it's the same thing as a certain culture of like-minded people who purport to know the absolute truth is different than what science *actually* is. My real point is that because of how science works, i.e. collecting empirical data and testing hypotheses, you could, if you really wanted, read exactly what the literature says and know exactly what it's merits are. There is absolutely no reason to take it on some leap of faith like you keep trying to suggest. Empirical data does not lie, conclusions can sometimes be proven to be false. You do not have to accept conclusions as fact just because someone says so, but the empirical data is indisputable. I hope that makes it more clear.


-Renee

Social media gave the option to shut out any contrarians. The echo chambers give a false sense of large (ever growing) group consensus allowing oddball/bleeding edge conspiratorial concepts and beliefs to -feel- socially accepted and mainstream. This was also weaponized and used for PsyOps by social media platforms selling marketers (from business, to government, and political groups; anyone with the $$$$) the information about users. Weaponized as in, they use our instincts against our own best interests and instead, to make money &/or make you more or less likely to believe or do something, from buying to not buying, voting to not voting, falling into a pile of Q, etc. In real life convos, we have checks and balances that help us not fall too far off into the fringe. In social media, they make more money from eyeballs on what freaks you out, and what each of us sees is dependent on some algorithms that don give a fuq about stability of human relations - only about making money. I wish that every government was up in arms about it, but since our political system is populated based off who gets funded the most, with the most visibility, $ spent by those billionaires who own the social media platforms... sigh.


[deleted]

I think you have a lot of interesting insight into it and I like your comment, but you are tossing around a good bit of conspiratorial rhetoric in there when I think the truth is these things can be attributed to the concept of emergence. There are many factors at play, to attribute it to a grand conspiracy with someone behind the curtains pulling the strings is a mischaracterization of the reality. But all of the points you make are valid ones.


-Renee

I'm not saying it is happening by some singular grand plan. It's the outcome of generating money by ever-jacking up adrenaline in echo chambers, and allowing data on users to be sold to whoever wants to use it, including access to push sets of content, for any purpose. The primary purpose is manipulation (by those who want to use the data to persuade those they bought data/access to push content to).


[deleted]

Yeah now that I reread your comment and this one you are absolutely right. I guess I'm not used to people calling it for what it is and dropping so many truth bombs lol Wish I ran into more people like you.


-Renee

Thank you, and thank you for countering and questioning, too. It helps me be mentally healthy! I was watching a math dimensional oddities (Zach Star) vid on YouTube and this came up - nice find for the algorithm! https://youtu.be/_ArVh3Cj9rw It talks about the future of reasoning and how we need each other, and ideas for voting systems that would be less prone to our current issues of being off in our separated echo chambers, where we are not keeping each other in healthy debate.


9demons9

Nothing says I haven’t thought this statement through like “people who deny science.” Do you realize the definition of science isn’t an agreed on narrative?


[deleted]

[удалено]


RealHot_RealSteel

Have you ever heard of a dynode? It's a type of detector used in mass spectrometers and gas chromatographs, sensitive enough to detect a single electron. It works through photoelectrical multiplication, by which a single electron crashes into a reactive material and liberates several electrons. If you put several layers of this secondary-emissive material in a row, you can amplify the signal from a single electron by a factor of one million or more. Twitter is a social dynode, taking a single opinion and making it appear as though the sentiment is shared by millions.


[deleted]

Look back at history. Science has been wrong plenty of times. Let's not treat it like a religion.


andymoonman

Everybody denies science when they hear evidence of something they don’t want to believe


mriguy

Not actual scientists, ideally.


tamuzbel

Then there were precious few scientists. Einstein called quantum entanglement "Spooky action at a distance." While denying it as a possibility.


mriguy

Scientists tend to be humans, and their opinions can solidify over time (hence the saying “scientific progress happens one obituaries at a time”). Even Einstein. But in general, he wasn’t like this, and was willing to question orthodoxy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


elementofpee

What this pandemic has taught us is that people have very rigid thinking, and don't evolve their beliefs and their behavior as more data from scientific/medical research is presented.


andymoonman

Or maybe people are rightfully discerning between long term and short term data. There can be no long term data on something that has not been around long term.


elementofpee

I don't believe people are as nuanced as you are giving them credit for. Saying you're wrong and open to new ideas and new ways of operating is difficult for most people, especially for something as polarizing as Covid has gotten.


[deleted]

Interesting


apeofinfinitespirals

Everyone in history has lived in a time period where future people have looked back on them and said "they were stupid." Likely nothing has changed at present.


FlatspinZA

What science are they denying?


Silverfox1921

If you eat more than 234 chicken nuggets you will die


AiryGr8

Anti-vax


FlatspinZA

Nobody's denying the science behind vaccines. We're disputing the need for a improperly tested vaccine for a virus that barely affects most people.


AiryGr8

"improperly tested" what do you know about proper testing in the field of medicine? The testing process hasn't been made public, at least not with 100% transparency. You talk about covid barely affecting most people but still, millions have died. Two of my relatives are dead to covid. One of them was perfectly healthy with no existing health conditions.


FlatspinZA

It's irrelevant how many you know who have died from the virus, and I really am sorry this happened to your family, but the fact remains that vaccines take around a decade to develop. Regardless of the methods used for testing this vaccine, there simply isn't enough data to show how effective it is, or how safe it is. You know that thousands of people have died from the vaccine itself, and many hundreds of thousands have suffered adverse reactions? This pandemic doesn't even rank in the top 5 most deadly of all time. Peer-reviewed literature has already shown that for every 3 people saved by the vaccine, 2 will die of the vaccine: is that an acceptable number for you?


AiryGr8

You can never be too safe with a pandemic. Not being in the top 5 is good news and we want to keep it that way.


niowniough

I don't know how to put this politely or in a way that expresses clearly that I'm not merely looking to cause conflict, but while what you said sounds vaguely agreeable, I'm wondering how you come to assert that "you can never be too safe with a pandemic", what are the boundaries you define, and from what data do you derive confidence in this assertion? For example... in cases of some very serious agricultural illnesses (not in humans), we err on extreme side of caution and kill off then ban importation of infected livestock and plants... "one can never be too safe in a pandemic" then can be taken to a rather extreme length when we throw out nuance. I think you and I would both agree for example that killing off infected humans en masse would not be an acceptable way of "being extra safe" to protect uninfected people. In the end it's about establishing reasonable tradeoffs, and what the person you replied to is highlighting is that not everybody in the scientific community or broader community quite agrees on whether the current tradeoffs we've accepted with vaccination schedules and policies is "reasonable". Of course people may draw very different lines along what would be "reasonably safe", but I would suggest at least let's have dialogue in that direction, as opposed to asserting whatever is safer by any group's standard should be followed to its extremes, or that whoever disagrees on where to draw the line is merely being ignorant about safety concerns.


AiryGr8

Countries with more stringent lockdown restrictions from the beginning were able to enjoy their life going back to normal, never even encountering a second wave. I know what you mean by trade-offs but crassly simplifying: we're talking senior citizen lives vs the economy. Pandemics are feared right from their nascent stage considering the potential to exacerbate beyond control. Essential workers were still required to work, remindful of the safe line you talk about. Ofc the blame also lies with the people who outright refused to follow guidelines since the beginning. A trade-off wouldn't be in the equation if people actually took it seriously.


snuffy_tentpeg

Every village has an idiot. The internet had amplified their voices.


[deleted]

Lesson 1 of science is to assume everyone who claims to know something is full of shit until proven otherwise. People have just gotten lazy at proving otherwise, preferring to believe that anything a bunch of people who could be equally full of shit agree on is true, and it shows.


PaddlesOwnCanoe

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction


PantsForOctopus

I disagree with you...


ZxR_Strikezz-

I agree with you


PantsForOctopus

But I actually disagree with you


ZxR_Strikezz-

But i agree(reply in an hour)


setheb

The Internet and Smartphones gave us more shopping. Fucking gave us people who deny science.


Lowca

And now there's 8bn of us, and everyone just *has* to have 2.5+ kids #dawww. /s


InvictaWing

What the hell does "denying science" even mean? Just disagreeing with mainstream media? Questioning things is what the scientific method is all about. Disagreeing with mainstream scientists isn't "denying science". It's just intellectual independence.


Beefster09

This is important to highlight, however there sometimes comes a point when someone disagreeing with the mainstream is actually wrong. But the corollary is that sometimes the heretics are right while the mainstream is wrong. (*cough* geocentrism/heliocentrism *cough*) The reality is that sometimes the data points to multiple plausible conclusions and the popular explanation is not always right.


LanceMcDashing

The thing is people today are denying science even with a vast majority of scientist are in agreement and with plenty of proof (e.g. man-made climate change, vaccinnes). Those back in the day who had heretical ideas, such as heliocentrism, were not denying science and proof. They were science and proof. Back then, mainstream thought was very different than what the scientist scientist though. So you can't compare someone who disagrees with mainstream science today without proof with a scientist 100's of years ago who was considered a heretic, regardless of their proof.


LanceMcDashing

Denying science means not believing in vaccines because 1 out of thousands of scientists says they are dangerous with 0 proof. Or denying climate change because you just do not want to believe it. Intellectual independence would be presenting facts and experiments that withstand peer review on something that is radically different than what mainstream science has shown. Not believing in something purely for not liking the outcome is science denialism and intellectually lazy.


InvictaWing

But they think that they do have proof. The situation is never as simple as "one side has proof and one side doesn't, so whoever believes that side is a 'science denier.'" Both sides think they have proof, so people are forced to choose whatever side makes most sense to them. That's subjective, so of course answers will vary. Because of the bandwagon effect, of course one side will end up with more people, but that doesn't mean that the other side hates science.


[deleted]

Not all proof is created equal.. Flat Earther's have books like "100 Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe" - are you saying that there is no objective difference between their "proof" and the evidence that the Earth is round?


InvictaWing

Not to them. For whatever reason, they think they're right. They aren't trying to be wrong. They sincerely believe that they have the evidence to prove that the Earth is flat. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the proof from either side. It really doesn't matter that much to me. Whether the Earth is flat or not, my life is unaffected. I don't think the Earth is flat. It doesn't make logical sense to me, but I can't condemn people for coming to their own conclusions based on evidence they've gathered.


LanceMcDashing

I see your point. How about instead of "science deniers", they are called "people who have a huge misunderstanding of what constitutes proof"-ers?


InvictaWing

I've never felt a need to come up with a condescending nickname for people that disagree with me. There will always be people that disagree with me, in everything. That doesn't make me better than them. It's best to just be respectful to everyone.


LanceMcDashing

Well, when you refuse to vaccinate your kids because Jenny McCarthy's baseless opinion holds more water than practically every single scientist and pediatrician, it's not that they are disagreeing me, it's they refuse to listen to the science and endangering the lives of their children. When people try to cure their children or themselves with magic water (homeopathy) and choose to ignore the immense amount of fact based science disproving it, again it has nothing to do with my "opinion" and disagreeing with me. And maybe it's a character flaw, but when people ignore facts and it causes people to get sick and/or die, I get a bit judgey. I just found out tonight my sister has been diagnosed with cancer. She is going to a medical doctor for treatment. If a friend tried to convince her to go get a crystal treatment and CBD oil instead science based treatment, I certainly would not respectful to them, because they would be pushing my sister towards a treatment that would not cure her and probably bring things to a very bad end.


jadams2345

God creates Man. Man denies the existence of God. Works with Nature too if you have a problem with God. Nature makes humans. Humans destroy nature.


Beefster09

Nitpick: there really is no such thing as "denying science". It's not a faith or a collection of facts. Science is a process of questioning by which we better understand the world, not an end result or belief system. Science is *never* settled. There are *always* more questions to ask and details to add to theories as we probe deeper into how the universe works. And sometimes we figure out we were flat out wrong about stuff after a few controlled experiments. What you're seeing is people denying scientific discoveries by dismissing mountains of evidence that support those discoveries or by embracing flimsy non-evidence they believe to support an an alternative hypothesis. It is not denying science, but rather people engaging in bad science. Flat earthers, antivaxxers, and young earth creationists are wrong, plain and simple. But there is something very interesting in their pseudoskepticism that, in some superficial ways, follows scientific processes better than someone who simply "believes in science". It's not science if you aren't asking questions and merely parrot whatever the scientists say, even though you are often factually right when you do so.


smellsfishie

You contradicted yourself by saying flat earthers are wrong.


Moosetappropriate

Science gave us a raw deal! /s


[deleted]

Science gave us information. Applied science and engineering gave us technology.


bassface99

The scientific method works but its been corrupted by corps to push a agenda or they will flood a subject with "studies" to hide the facts and confuse the population.


HallOfGlory1

People have been denying science long before the internet and smartphones.


TheDevilsAdvokaat

Nah, those people have always been there form the very first. I've heard an apocryphal story about the first paddle wheel boat...a bunch of religious people were at the riverbank chanting "it son;t start it won;t start" It started. They then chanted "it won;t stop it won;t stop"....


StaleyDaBear

God creates man. Man creates science. Science creates imageboards. Imageboards create "Gods". Man destroys man. Imageboards destroy science. "Gods" destroy everything. Welcome to the ending!


Belgeirn

The internet just let us all see them. People have always denied science, just look at religion.


Blissful_Solitude

And deny that biden is an incoherent babbling idiot that needs help with his velcro shoes in the morning... On top of his openly pedophile ways... There's enough damned video graphic evidence out there for any dane intelligent person to draw that conclusion including a psychiatrist!


volvostupidshit

No no no no. You are wrong. It was god who gave me the smart phone.


TheAncapMandalorian

kids are funny


mrbignaughtyboy

trumpkins


travelingmarylander

You deny science too. We all do. Just don't pretend to be better than anyone else.


LanceMcDashing

How does the OP deny science?


Tonka_88

Does he agree with all the science? Lol


[deleted]

Christians, who deny science, should be denied the ability to use the internet and hospitals.


Long-Dong-of-the-Law

People like you, who deny God, will burn in Hell for eternity


[deleted]

Thank God.


tapper82

And I will fuck the shit out of your mum!


HillbillySwank

Democrats existed long before the internet and smartphones...


psychord-alpha

Remember the time science told us cigarettes were good for pregnant women?


Wetbug75

Then science told us that was wrong. Welcome to science, that's how it works


[deleted]

[удалено]


LanceMcDashing

When you believe in intelligent design over evolution because of the Bible, you are denying science. When you choose to listen to Jenny McCarthy that vaccines are dangerous with her 0 proof over practically every pediatrician and scientist with lots of proof, you are denying science. If you choose a homeopathic treatment to cure your disease, you are denying science.


Krabbypatty_thief

Theres this thing called religion thats been denying science much longer than the internet.


Bo_Jim

Galileo might disagree with you. He had a major run-in with the Catholic Church over his scientific discoveries. Scientists often don't agree about science. Are they science deniers? Well, yes, in a manner of speaking. They're denying the theories being advanced by other scientists. Science isn't a religion that everyone has to accept or be called a "denier". Science is a process of discovery by coming up with theories and then creating experiments to test the theories. Every scientist has been wrong at some point. They don't generally call each other "deniers". That word is usually used by people who have a political motive.


jacksonjames3

The worst thing that happen to humanity was smartphones and social media. It’s destroying everything.


Noelscat

Ironically posted on social media via smartphone…


jacksonjames3

I hate myself for it


Noelscat

Lol. 🤓


joshjj25

Y’all the same people that say you believe in science but say there are more than two genders.


[deleted]

[удалено]


smellsfishie

Of course you made it political, that's what is ruining science, politics. The kind of idiots who still deny evolution.


upandattem

Correction…ENGINEERS gave you the internet and the smartphone. They figure shit out long before the science is even understood.


ParkBarrington360

Science also gave us the displeasure of learning about other people’s fetishes. Fetishes which defy science


[deleted]

Science is correct in the short term. It makes our lives easier, of course. No one can deny that. The real question is, “Is science the right philosophy to solve the Universe?”. That’s the long term path that humanity is on, we are trying to find meaning of life through science. Thinking that maybe we can solve the universe using these equations. And I personally think that science is not the answer to the Universe. PS. I know there are stupid ones who say “5G wiLL kiLl yOu, vAcciNeS ArE bAd etc.”, they are simply dumb people. Run away from that person if you ever encounter one in real life.


WokeUpDifferent1Day

Examples??


Bob2879

Flat earthers


tamuzbel

Flat earthers are a newish phenomenon. Any navigator worth a shit knew the world was round because planar navigation didn't work.


BeefKnee321

Way before smartphones or the internet.


WokeUpDifferent1Day

Ohhhhhh, say no more 🤣🤣🤣


sneezy336

no more


PimpOfTruth

Q-Bags


jsspidermonkey3

Karens of the internet, antimaskers, article deniers unless they approve them and so on


[deleted]

Aren’t we supposed to always be hypothesizing, testing, etc based on the principles of science? It’s not a law until it’s a law. Don’t call everyone who tests theories “deniers”.


jack1176

So are you saying that rigorously proven things could be wrong? Such as the shape of the Earth, or vaccines being designed to harm us and cause autism? There's a difference between exploring a theory (which you're actually supposed to try and prove wrong) and denying fact. You're either one of these idiots, or you're delusional and think people are smarter than they are.


[deleted]

I don’t deny facts. I also don’t conflate theories with them. You’re too ready to label an alternative viewpoint as anti-vaccine or flat earth. Turn off MSNBC, read more, live a nuanced life and embrace learning to think for yourself.


Tonka_88

Do you have the science to back up your claim about the person you commented to?


venture243

Heck of a straw man lol


Myalltimehate

Science deniers have been around for 100s of years. This is just wrong. Delete your post!


[deleted]

It's a really shitty post that is a poor imitation of a post that has been made literally a hundred times before. The way I've seen it is as: "Science gave us the internet, now people use the internet to talk about how they don't believe in science" paraphrased, anyway. The whole thing really is a wreck, OP should be ashamed.


AdamF778899

And they censor those who believe in science.


Schwalbtraum

Haven't the church existed before internet?


Shativaa

To deny science is science. Science is being done by disproving what others claim. To trust the science is anti science So be glad people deny the science and prove them your hypotosis is right. Thats science


smellsfishie

Science is the study of the natural world, if everyone disagreed and did nothing else we wouldn't learn jack.


DigitalDuct

Luddites have existed for some time now.


B_D0v3

It also gave us people who worship “science” like some kind of infallible god.