Help, my brother thinks he's a woman and has dressed like one secretly before
234 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413252]science is always paid for by someone. following whatever report you read 100% to the letter because it was labelled 'science' is almost as dumb as thinking you're the son of adam and eve
sorry to burst the internet's bubble[/QUOTE]
Erm sorry but scientific methodology is pretty good for getting objective knowledge. It doesn't matter who paid for the research, as long as it was conducted in an appropriate way.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413252]science is always paid for by someone. following whatever report you read 100% to the letter because it was labelled 'science' is almost as dumb as thinking you're the son of adam and eve
sorry to burst the internet's bubble[/QUOTE]
erm that's not how science even works
it's not as though scientists are ignorant of the concept of "conflict of interest". the fundamental test of validity is replicability. if your data can't be replicated then it's crap.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413252]contradiction?????[/QUOTE]
no it isn't. his own result contradicted what he set out to prove.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38413265]Erm sorry but scientific methodology is pretty good for getting objective knowledge. It doesn't matter who paid for the research, as long as it was conducted in an appropriate way.[/QUOTE]
yeh but that's the thing it isn't always conducted in an appropriate way. pretty good but no way near perfect. try not to forget that either the government or a multimillion dollar corporation paid for pretty much every scientific report you'll ever read
does no-one remember all that shit about global warming research fraud? human-constructed global warming was widely believed by most people to be a 100% irrefutable 'scientific' fact with absolutely 0 political or monetary beliefs involved
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413297]yeh but that's the thing it isn't always conducted in an appropriate way. pretty good but no way near perfect. try not to forget that either the government or a multimillion dollar corporation paid for pretty much every scientific report you'll ever read[/QUOTE]
except that's a case where you haven't carried out the research properly.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413297]does no-one remember all that shit about global warming research fraud? human-constructed global warming was widely believed by most people to be a 100% irrefutable 'scientific' fact with absolutely 0 political or monetary beliefs involved[/QUOTE]
what? human-constructed? the fuck?
global warming is influenced by human activities tho
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38413275]erm that's not how science even works
it's not as though scientists are ignorant of the concept of "conflict of interest". the fundamental test of validity is replicability. if your data can't be replicated then it's crap[/QUOTE]
but what about all those hundreds and hundreds of reports that are funded by millions of dollars. who's reproducing those in any large scale? are you just accepting them because they're labelled 'science'?
i'm exaggerating a lot here to get the point across because i really do believe there's little to worry about with science but for a forum that bashes any religious following so fervently it's a ridiculous hypocrisy that anything 'scientific' becomes 100% trustworthy. at best it's 99.9%
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413297]yeh but that's the thing it isn't always conducted in an appropriate way. pretty good but no way near perfect. try not to forget that either the government or a multimillion dollar corporation paid for pretty much every scientific report you'll ever read
does no-one remember all that shit about global warming research fraud? human-constructed global warming was widely believed by most people to be a 100% irrefutable 'scientific' fact with absolutely 0 political or monetary beliefs involved[/QUOTE]
there was no fraud in the so-called "climategate". ironically you're the victim of a massive media campaign backed by special interest groups that want to discredit climate science.
[quote=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate]By 2011, [B]five[/B] separate investigations by the British government and multiple independent ethics committees had been completed. None found any evidence of fraud or manipulation of data. The CRU data was also independently replicated.[/quote]
you need to read up on how science works. when scientists are found to have made fraudulent data, they're strung up on the proverbial lamppost like mussolini. even the sacred cows aren't safe - stephen j gould was once revered as a paragon of science but now his name is mud since he made up data in order to discredit IQ tests (again because he had a political axe to grind).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38413324]except that's a case where you haven't carried out the research properly.[/QUOTE]
BUT THAT'S THE POINT. SOMETIMES STUFF ISN'T RESEARCHED PROPERLY AND SOMETIMES IT'S DELIBERATE
you guys are arguing that "science is perfect because it's science and science is objective which makes it perfect"
but what about when it isn't? you're assuming you'll know when it isn't just because... because why? you don't. be more open minded
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413341]but what about all those hundreds and hundreds of reports that are funded by millions of dollars. who's reproducing those in any large scale? are you just accepting them because they're labelled 'science'?[/QUOTE]
Well if the methodology is good then the reports are credible.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413341]i'm exaggerating a lot here to get the point across because i really do believe there's little to worry about with science but for a forum that bashes any religious following so fervently it's a ridiculous hypocrisy that anything 'scientific' becomes 100% trustworthy. at best it's 99.9%[/QUOTE]
the difference is that scientists change their minds when they get proven wrong
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;38413262]It's not her brother.
AxelTheReal is VIOLATION_SNG's alt.
She's just attention whoring.[/QUOTE]
I'll never understand why people would do something like this. What's the point? It only gets them a ton of negative attention when someone verifies they're just attention whoring.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413357]BUT THAT'S THE POINT. SOMETIMES STUFF ISN'T RESEARCHED PROPERLY AND SOMETIMES IT'S DELIBERATE
you guys are arguing that "science is perfect because it's science and science is objective which makes it perfect"
but what about when it isn't? you're assuming you'll know when it isn't just because... because why? you don't. be more open minded[/QUOTE]
yes this is why we have peer-review and more importantly: replication.
replication is the engine that makes science run, and peer review is the oil that keeps it running. without it, it's like putting a sign saying "cold" on a refrigerator that's unplugged.
and lol @ telling me to be more open-minded. I'm open-minded to the extent that I consider contradictory evidence and then change my mind if it's valid. I'm not so open-minded that my brain falls out.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38413354]you need to read up on how science works. when scientists are found to have made fraudulent data, they're strung up on the proverbial lamppost like mussolini. even the sacred cows aren't safe - stephen j gould was once revered as a paragon of science but now his name is mud since he made up data in order to discredit IQ tests (again because he had a political axe to grind).[/QUOTE]
you're posting examples of people who were found out. what i'm trying to make you think about is [i]who wasn't/hasn't been found out[/i]
jeez it's just becoming a case of "science doesn't [i]work[/i] like that because a few people have been found out which means the entire system is 100% trustworthy 100% of the time. that's the way it works"
it's like saying "people don't get away with driving over the speed limit because here are some examples of people who were caught speeding....". what about those who were not caught?
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413357]you guys are arguing that "science is perfect because it's science and science is objective which makes it perfect"[/QUOTE]
science is objectively the best way of acquiring knowledge however
there's literally no other way that is superior
[QUOTE=Onyx3173;38413386]I'll never understand why people would do something like this. What's the point? It only gets them a ton of negative attention when someone verifies they're just attention whoring.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. She has a weird obsession with getting transgender opinions from the GMF, too. And that ultimately ends up her getting mocked and hurt but she keeps going back. Now she's doing this... it's no surprise.
Wat
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38413398]science is objectively the best way of acquiring knowledge however
there's literally no other way that is superior[/QUOTE]
it is. you're right. i wasn't arguing it isn't and i've never put forward an alternative. that doesn't ruin the fun of discussing its flaws though
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413394]ywhat i'm trying to make you think about is [i]who wasn't/hasn't been found out[/i][/QUOTE]
prove they are wrong then
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413421]it is. you're right. i wasn't arguing it isn't and i've never put forward an alternative. that doesn't ruin the fun of discussing its flaws though[/QUOTE]
what flaws? what other better way is there to acquire knowledge than scientific methodology?
okay mate i'll go out and get funding from a multi million dollar corporation or government to try and prove their tests wrong okay
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413341]but what about all those hundreds and hundreds of reports that are funded by millions of dollars. who's reproducing those in any large scale? are you just accepting them because they're labelled 'science'?[/quote]
well there's this for instance
[url]http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/is-psychology-about-to-come-undone/29045[/url]
[quote]i'm exaggerating a lot here to get the point across because i really do believe there's little to worry about with science but for a forum that bashes any religious following so fervently it's a ridiculous hypocrisy that anything 'scientific' becomes 100% trustworthy. at best it's 99.9%[/QUOTE]
well the thing about science is that it converges on truth. in the future we might find something that overturns Einstein's theories of relativity, but that won't mean that the Sun will orbit jupiter. someday we'll figure out some of the things that are mysterious about the quantum world, but iron will still have 26 protons.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;38413262]It's not her brother.
AxelTheReal is VIOLATION_SNG's alt.
She's just attention whoring.[/QUOTE]
really??
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38413423]
what flaws? what other better way is there to acquire knowledge than scientific methodology?[/QUOTE]
um the flaws i've just outlined for a page which basically boils down to "scientists need money just like everyone else and if they're offered a few million to nudge a study in a direction a little bit in order to keep doing what they're doing" then they're going to. sometimes it gets found out. sometimes it doesn't
and there probably isn't a better way. does that mean we're not allowed to discuss it?
And anyway, isn't the gist of what transpeople say "I felt I was born into the wrong body" not "I preferred what is expected of the opposite sex regarding gender roles and norms and hated what is expected of my own"
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413435]okay mate i'll go out and get funding from a multi million dollar corporation or government to try and prove their tests wrong okay[/QUOTE]
well yes, the system is built so that you get prestige and recognition for overturning previous results. every scientist dreams of being the one to overthrow today's heroes.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413455]um the flaws i've just outlined for a page which basically boils down to "scientists need money just like everyone else and if they're offered a few million to nudge a study in a direction a little bit in order to keep doing what they're doing" then they're going to. sometimes it gets found out. sometimes it doesn't
and there probably isn't a better way. does that mean we're not allowed to discuss it?[/QUOTE]
yes you can discuss it but you generally need to have at least a passing familiarity with the subject instead of bleating your uneducated opinions.
do you really think scientists aren't aware of all this? conflicts of interest, publication bias, fraudulent data; people spend massive amounts of effort with coming up with ways to stop this sort of thing.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413455]and there probably isn't a better way. does that mean we're not allowed to discuss it?[/QUOTE]
well sure we can, just give me one solid argument against the Scientific Method and you are free to go
ffs now i'm never allowed to go :(
i'm mostly pushing hypotheticals to get you thinking. it has been fun. i'm not sure i believe most of what i wrote. it's mostly a lot of marxist theory never put into practice (unlike science)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38413398]science is objectively the best way of acquiring knowledge however
there's literally no other way that is superior[/QUOTE]
well you do need to distinguish between the scientific method and the social institutions of science. the former is an abstract way of acquiring knowledge, the latter is a way to implement that method on an industrial scale. with that come the inevitable bureaucratic failure-modes like the brittleness of the peer-review system.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38413500]i'm mostly pushing hypotheticals to get you thinking. it has been fun. i'm not sure i believe most of what i wrote. it's mostly a lot of marxist theory never put into practice (unlike science)[/QUOTE]
marxist theory doesn't have any scientific research backing it up tho
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;38412949]I'm like 90% sure Violation_SNG does not have a sibling.[/QUOTE]
which makes this a troll thread, and all of you guys gullible as hell
[QUOTE=ScoutKing;38413551]which makes this a troll thread, and all of you guys gullible as hell[/QUOTE]
It's not a troll thread. More like attention whoring.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;38413566]It's not a troll thread. More like attention whoring.[/QUOTE]
True, but you guys make it way too easy to troll/attention whore, or even be used to troll IE the infamous make an alt with a link to someones facebook you dont like trick.
Has violation seen this thread yet? He's posting in transgender thread..
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.