JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
ITT crowbrow explains the scientific method so that us proles can finally agree to defer morality to scientists
Whitesnake
Banned
I’d rather not.
Xaero Gravity
NEXT LEVEL lame™
Her boobs though
brap
Banned
Papa
Banned
Rather see Dexter’s ass tbh
crowbrow
Banned
Why are you people not doing science here?
Thanks
Punished Miku
for stepping up! Although i consider Matt like a puppy you have fun with while pretending to fight.
I know this place is full of a cultist don't-question-my-worldview vibe but there are some outside that circle so it's worth it.
Thanks
Punished Miku
for stepping up! Although i consider Matt like a puppy you have fun with while pretending to fight.I know this place is full of a cultist don't-question-my-worldview vibe but there are some outside that circle so it's worth it.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
Alx
Member
Counter-point : there's no need to understand scientific method to trust scientists. As a matter of fact most people trust scientists specifically because they don't have the knowledge themselves for scientific analysis. That's like saying you must know medical procedures to trust your doctors, or fluid dynamics to trust an airline pilot.
I would even go as far as saying that having a small knowledge on the field gives you higher chance of having a false comprehension of a complex situation. That's textbook Dunning-Kruger.
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
Missing the point. Clownbrow frequently throws out appeals to the authority of scientists to bolster his arguments, but it's clear that he doesn't understand what he's citing. Saying "scientists agree with my opinion" should hold no more weight than saying "the prophets agree with my opinion". Asking him to demonstrate his understanding of the scientific method was affording him an opportunity to show that he has at least a modicum of understanding of what he is appealing to the authority of.
As Tess said, it was a lay up that he chewed and screwed.
Alx
Member
Well if he reaches the same conclusions as scientists, then they do support his standpoint, even if he didn't understand how they reached that same conclusion and went a different way. You can claim that he misunderstood the conclusions of the scientists if that's the case, and that in the end they didn't confirm his own opinion, but if they do agree then he's right and you're wrong.
I could throw a wild guess "there is life around Alpha Centauri" and if scientists use their own method to prove that there is indeed life there, then they proved me right. Even if I was lucky and have no idea how they did it.
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
That's not how it works. You don't get to pick and choose studies and find one that confirms your bias and hold it up and say that's what the science says. Scientific conclusions aren't just a module you download into your brain. You still need to understand the underlying methods and discussion. Most fields of science have conflicting viewpoints and data that require advanced stochastic analyses to even parse.
Moreover, your argument is semantically fucked (pardon the French). He claims that the scientists are agreeing with him. They don't know who the fuck he is. Anyone can claim that scientists agree with them for an easy win. What is actually happening is that he is agreeing with the scientists. However, I suggest that he has no fucking clue what the scientists have discussed or concluded and that he's simply wielding the word scientist as a bludgeon to browbeat (crowbrowbeat?) anyone who disagrees with him.
Barsinister
Banned
Alx
Member
That's true, but that's also something that you should trust the scientific community with. Challenging each other is the basis of scientific studies, and you need specific expertise to be able to do so. If you want to counter-argue his selection of scientific sources, you can find a different scientific source that contradicts him. Something that should have been done already when the first source was published in the community anyway (hence peer reviews and reproduction of experiments).
In which case you would also be using your trust in scientists to prove your point.
You're nitpicking. Obviously when he says "scientists agree with me" he won't mean "scientists wrote a paper mentioning some guy on NeoGaf", but "scientists confirm my point". Again if I said "Neil de Grasse Tyson agrees with me that there is life around Alpha Centauri", I'm not claiming he knows my name, just that we have the same opinion.
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
Still missing the point.
Clownbrow's tactic is to use the term "scientist" as a rhetorical device to shut down opposition. Have a look through this thread and look at how frequently he fallaciously throws out the word "scientists" to bolster his argument: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/the-irony-of-all-the-coronavirus-problem-is-huge.1534164/. He's not in a scientific debate -- he's abusing the authority afforded to scientists in a transparent attempt at winning an argument by default. That's what this thread is about.
Seriously, open the link and ctrl+F "scientists". Several mentions, zero citations.
O-N-E
Member
Somebody should start an Altruism cult and sucker the gullible idiots in Hollywood into it.
triplestation
Member
lab reports were the most boring shit
Alx
Member
I browsed through the first page and saw him quote the Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, which seems to be a legit source.
Elektro Demon
Banned
The hell are you people talking about?
mcjmetroid
Member
She does look a bit like a man there doesn't she?
crowbrow
Banned
That's because that is what scientists are saying honey. That scientists have been saying it for decades is a fact, that you choose to live in denial is also a fact.
Viruses expected to increase with global warming – expert
Population growth, loss of natural habitats likely to bring wild animals into more contact with humans, easing way for infectious diseases to jump between species
www.timesofisrael.com
How deadly disease outbreaks could worsen as the climate changes
Environmental destruction risks increasing the spread of deadly diseases including Ebola and malaria, with serious consequences for future public health
www.newscientist.com
Climate change could push Ebola into untouched regions, report warns
A “perfect storm” of climate change, population growth and poverty could push Ebola into previously untouched regions, experts have warned.
www.telegraph.co.uk
I could keep on going, there are countless sources, but you get the drift.
Papa
Banned
That's because that is what scientists are saying honey. That scientists have been saying it for decades is a fact, that you choose to live in denial is also a fact.
Viruses expected to increase with global warming – expert
Population growth, loss of natural habitats likely to bring wild animals into more contact with humans, easing way for infectious diseases to jump between species
How deadly disease outbreaks could worsen as the climate changes
Environmental destruction risks increasing the spread of deadly diseases including Ebola and malaria, with serious consequences for future public health
Climate change could push Ebola into untouched regions, report warns
A “perfect storm” of climate change, population growth and poverty could push Ebola into previously untouched regions, experts have warned.
I could keep on going, there are countless sources, but you get the drift.
And these have absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the Kung Flu.
Your dishonesty here is the perfect example of what I’m talking about.
crowbrow
Banned
My thread was not about the origin of Wuflu
Papa
Banned
crowbrow
Banned
I claimed the origin points towards it being in China in the same thread you are referring to but the origin of this particular virus is not what the thread is about. It is about the increasing dangers of pandemics and the factors that are making this danger increase and how unprepared the current system is to handle this type of crisis because its priorities are all fucked up.Yet you keep injecting propaganda about its origin whenever you talk about it
Papa
Banned
crowbrow
Banned
Oh so I see you're jealous that I'm fooling around with others and not just with you
Sandyman
Neo Member
“Fooling” = CCP propaganda with smug snipes.
autoduelist
Member
Last edited:
Alx
Member
So as usual you deflect to personal criticism when you fail to find good arguments.
autoduelist
Member
There once was a hippopotamus
Who found it awfully hilarious
That a low brow crow
Would be a no show
When asked to define hypothesis
[I tried, lol]
Who found it awfully hilarious
That a low brow crow
Would be a no show
When asked to define hypothesis
[I tried, lol]
Last edited:
Sandyman
Neo Member
For the longest time I thought your banner said “fingerfuckin’ good!”
Alx
Member
You claimed crowbrow wasn't giving any source and used that specific thread as an example. I pointed out that he was giving some sources in that very thread. How is that being obtuse ?
Just admit when you're wrong, you're not fooling anybody with your silly "no, you" tactics.
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
No, he didn’t. The one article he cited was on an unrelated tangent to the thesis of the thread. I think you likely saw that but decided to hone in on it and handwave the countless other examples of what I’m talking about. You’re defaulting to your typical dishonest obtuseness, so let me quote his posts from that thread and highlight the spurious appeals to the authority of scientists that he can’t/won’t cite. He’s trying to plant a seed in people’s minds to link hypothetical future pandemics to climate change. It’s all just distraction from the fact that COVID-19 originated in China as a result of their poor hygiene culture. You cannot deflect your way around these quotes.
Which fucking scientists? Not a single citation, just a continual browbeating in a transparent attempt to win by default by invoking “scientists”. Science is not a religion to be wielded by midwits trying to lazily declare victory in internet arguments. It is the search for fundamental truths, and very rarely is it conclusively proven to the point of being unquestionable.
JordanN
had the patience of a saint in those exchanges.Anyway, that’s enough mental energy expended on this sock puppet. Hopefully this thread has highlighted his tactics to those smart enough to see through the facade. The smoothbrains like you can follow each other off a cliff for all I care.
crowbrow
Banned
Jordan was using nothing more than strawmen to discuss. It's a waste of time to discuss with people who put words in your mouth and then go on a rant based on false premises. Taking him seriously would be to legitimize his lousy and dishonest debating strategy. I gave you a bunch of sources up there.
Last edited:
PrellboGark
Banned
That's the key question.
Finding people with degrees repeating some points is usually not that hard.
But you don't just want to listen to anyone with a degree, but rather you want to listen to people who are actively engaged in the research and involved in the discussions of their respective fields and get cited a lot by peers.
Scientific debates are rarely polarized like public debates and the consensus is basically the negative of what is being talked about. That means that scientists, in their publications, don't talk about the things they already are in agreement over, but they talk about the things where consensus hasn't been found yet.
And obviously, agreeing and disagreeing always has to be based on something. This isn't a game of opinions. If you disagree with something you need to be able to articulate, in a scientifically sound way, why you disagree.
Take for example homeopathy.
You'll find many doctors/scientists who support it and advocate for it.
But the science proves that the alleged mechanics behind the alleged medical effect are nonsense. That is a theoretical dispute calling bullshit on the claim that water has memory. And on top of that, there is the empirical dispute showing in studies that homeopathic remedies work to exactly the same extent as placebos.
Now, this state of research can be looked up and when someone comes along claiming homeopathy works citing some study or some doctor or some scientist, you can dismiss it, because it doesn't reflect the scientific consensus and, and this is important, it doesn't deal with this fact.
Outsider opinions in science aren't unusual, but if they are well-intentioned and done properly, they try to argue with the consensus and try to pick it apart.
Junk-science doesn't do that. It usually just dismisses the consensus based on nothing.
In our homeopathy case this would be the typical empty dismissal of the consensus: "Big pharma bad, natural good, fuck chemicals, it has no side effects, but it works for me."
Papa
Banned
Jordan is far more honest than you, sock puppet.
Whitesnake
Banned
How can you say this with a straight face?
The behavior you just described is exactly how you act ALL THE TIME.
Alx
Member
No, he didn’t. The one article he cited was on an unrelated tangent to the thesis of the thread. I think you likely saw that but decided to hone in on it and handwave the countless other examples of what I’m talking about. You’re defaulting to your typical dishonest obtuseness, so let me quote his posts from that thread and highlight the spurious appeals to the authority of scientists that he can’t/won’t cite. He’s trying to plant a seed in people’s minds to link hypothetical future pandemics to climate change. It’s all just distraction from the fact that COVID-19 originated in China as a result of their poor hygiene culture. You cannot deflect your way around these quotes.
Which fucking scientists? Not a single citation, just a continual browbeating in a transparent attempt to win by default by invoking “scientists”. Science is not a religion to be wielded by midwits trying to lazily declare victory in internet arguments. It is the search for fundamental truths, and very rarely is it conclusively proven to the point of being unquestionable.
Anyway, that’s enough mental energy expended on this sock puppet. Hopefully this thread has highlighted his tactics to those smart enough to see through the facade. The smoothbrains like you can follow each other off a cliff for all I care.
Well you should have started with that instead of starting ad personam generic accusations. If you want to challenge a specific claim, ask for his sources on that claim instead of starting a vague "tell me about scientific method" thread. Although he did give you some sources in here, about the link between climate change and higher risks of pandemics. Which doesn't even exclude any other factor like hygiene culture, by the way.
Ornlu
Banned
Why are you people not doing science here?
Thanks
I know this place is full of a cultist don't-question-my-worldview vibe but there are some outside that circle so it's worth it.
Quit claiming to "be a scientist" then playing coy when people ask for receipts. Are you a grad student pretending to work @ the LHC or something? it's annoying.
Quit clamoring for the downfall of the US in most of the threads you participate in, then claim you aren't. If you genuinely want the country gone, just say so and move on.
Quit trying to insert your desire for communism into every situation, regardless of relevance. No, a virus isn't caused by the US not voting for Bernie Sanders (which was the spirit of your last topic)
Be real with people.
crowbrow
Banned
Just because people can't deal with opinions that don't fit in their worldview doesn't mean I'm pretending or not being real?.Quit being such snowflakes maybe, some people don't think like the mass of you, deal with it.
Papa
Banned
It’s the people who treat science as a religion that I can’t stand. Science is not a moral authority. It does not care about what is right or wrong; it cares only about true or false.
As counter-intuitive as it may sound, I believe that the West’s transition from traditional religion to secular atheism actually compounds our problems with religion. I believe that a significant portion of humans are inherently religious, but those same people are also on the lower end of the IQ spectrum. So when you fill their god-shaped hole with the idea of science, they start building their own moral structure around misinterpretations of what science is and what it says. They pick and choose which articles already confirm their pre-existing biases, which is the complete opposite of what science is supposed to be. It’s why their moral compasses very rarely point in the same direction. Then they browbeat you with their freshly custom-built moral system and it’s just infuriating. Even more so than the Christian Evangelicals we dealt with 10-20 years ago. At least all of their misguided ideas were written down in a central text.
crowbrow
Banned
Some of you guys treat anything Trump says as a religion. I would rather believe in science than some random forum poster with youtube videos and pictures as "proof".
PrellboGark
Banned
Science basically shows us the options we have.
But we still have to chose which ones we want to take.
But its also a tool. We can state where we want to go and science tells us the best way to get there.
Examples:
We want to protect people from coronavirus: Science tells us the best ways to achieve that.
We want to retain stable ecosystems: Science tells us what needs to happen.
The more complicated question is what do we actually want and how badly do we want it?
Whitesnake
Banned
“Science” is not the monolith you believe it to be.
There are a vast amount of scientists all of whom having varying ideas and opinions. They argue and bicker amongst themselves as well, and indeed that arguing and bickering is a very important part of the scientific process. If an idea cannot hold up under scrutiny, then it is worthless, and the only way to know if it can hold up to scrutiny is to scrutinize it.
But one cannot thoroughly scrutinize speculation, because it is ultimately a game of assumptions. You cannot objectively disprove future events until they (don’t) happen. For ANY given speculative position taken by a scientist, one can find an example of the exact opposite position being taken by an equally-qualified scientist.