Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality,

>>733640587
Guaranteed replies.

>>733640587
You're a fucking moron. Kill yourself.

>>733640774
Provide evidence, faggot

>>733640744
My argument is sound so I doubt they will seriously try

The experience of life is subjective, yes. The tests are done to try to rule out the subjectivity and bias, however there will always be some uncertainty in every bit of science. Science can only go to the limits of our capability. Religion can say anything so long as it makes people feel good.

>>733640587
"It's", Count Knobula.

>>733640954
Then if it is all subjective?

Here is why the scientific method is bullshit: You can't prove objective reality is real, it is all based upon an assumption

File: 1356637711221.png (245KB, 300x352px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 300x352px

>>733640587
>Nigga thinks he's enlightened
>Disregards objective reality
You thought to be an OP, therefore you are a faggot. OP is now listening to Freddie Mercury somewhere in the Horsehead Nebula.

>Go be a nihilist somewhere else tard

This is completely correct. However, we do have evidence, and through times they have been proven to be true. Pretty much every scientific theory has been proven to be true through being tested throughout many years. Everything science has been assumed, say that if I drop an iPhone 20ft from the ground it will break. The the assumption will be tested, so someone would drop an iPhone from 20ft off the ground, then the results of said tests will show weather the assumption was true, so if the iPhone did smash - it would be a correct assumption, if it did not smash - the assumption would be considered incorrect. And the evidence would be the film of someone doing it or witnesses writing down what happened. So even though - yes science is a bunch of assumptions, we will and do have evidence to prove so.

Stop being an edgelord you cuck

>>733642121
Casualty is bullshit. For several reasons besides that if you drop your phone it MIGHT break

>>733640836
See: exhibit A. This thread.

>>733640587
>how to write a 5000 word essay without saying anything.

>>733642542
How is that proof?

>>733642441
I specifically stated 20ft. I did not state the floor in which it would be dropped on therefore you are correct seeing as if you dropped it on to a pile of pillows it obviously would not break. However, it would be proven fact until someone else did it but the phone did not break when they dropped it

>>733640587
Science is by no means perfect, but is rather the best tool we have for understanding the way our reality works -- and it WORKS. That's the difference, faggot. When was the last time you prayed to God to stop suffering in the world and when did it work? That's what I thought, retard.

I mean what kind of science are we talking about? I'm assuming you posted using some electronic device, that's science

>>733643032
You wrote it. If I contacted an expert on mental illness, and had them read it, they would agree, you have retardation of the brain.

Yeah, you're in over your head here, kid. You don't understand what science does. No scientist is going to say that there is absolute proof like you're describing. Science doesn't involve itself in proof, because proof is impossible.

Here's how it works: A scientist runs an experiment and collects data. Then they interpret that data into a conclusion. That conclusion states that the evidence from said experiment would lead one to conclude something.

That's it.

Then other people can come behind them and run the same experiment and make either the same, or a different conclusion. If they run the same experiment and get a different result, then they know that this is something is up and requires further investigation.

Here's your challenge: give me an example of an experiment that's based off of bullshit assumptions about reality.

https://shop.spreadshirt.com/Carocreations/

File: 1495461761784.png (262KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 500x497px

>>733640587

Agrippa's Trilemma.

>>733640587
Dumb dipshit. But it's cool, keeping the mass's believing what you say only makes me richer as they get poorer. Intelligent, rich people know science is fact.

>>733643050
Let us say if you drop your phone 90 times on hard concrete at a thousand feet and it breaks every single time does that prove that causality is true? I know you are smart and know where this is going

>>733640587
science unlike religion understands that we get less retarded every 10 years.

File: e93.jpg (67KB, 1200x740px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1200x740px

>>733640587
aren't you the same faggot who tried to troll with the argument that you can't take a picture of an oxygen molecule?
.
your misrepresentation of science is just as weak here.

>>733640587
You are a idiot, for both your statement and you idolization of a planetarium worker.

A objective reality? no reality that is to be tested by any one recreating the experiment.


Jesus challenged their presumption and their
power in His day and He seriously interfered with
their graft when He drove the money changers- out
of the temple in Jerusalem. That act summed up
His entire career He was an indignant, earnest
reformer. The Sanhedrin had reached the lowest
depth of corruption. The murder of Jesus ended
its criminal reign for a time. The Jews as a
mass did not understand what was happening;
they had been misled by the Sanhedrin and the
rabbis. The Sanhedrin consisted of seventy men

who ruled civil affairs. They had previously ruled
criminal affairs which power was taken from them
by the Roman government. There was also an-
other Sanhedrin consisting of twenty men, who
ruled religious affairs.- Jesus fought both of them.
Why did the Sanhedrin frame Jesus? Because
he advocated the law of God and Moses, the law
of limitation, which Moses wrote in the old testa-
ment (Leviticus chapter 25). Jesus wanted excessive
private fortunes limited by law in order to save
civilization from collapse.

Why did the Sanhedrin frame Jesus? Because
he advocated the law of God and Moses, the law
of limitation, which Moses wrote in the old testa-
ment (Leviticus chapter 25). Jesus wanted excessive
private fortunes limited by law in order to save
civilization from collapse.

>>733642441
There is no "IF", it will break on some level. That's a given. Sudden impact loosens the bonds between atoms, the same way magnets lose their power after being struck enough. Jesus /b/ cannot science, just go suck your pastor's cock then...

>>733643641
Will it always break?

File: IMG_3891.jpg (152KB, 800x678px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 800x678px

we have all been taught humans cannot live without a brain. science must be wrong about that at least if op is able to post here. go back to your flat earth and bible you silly Mormon

>>733640587
>yfw the fairy tale that is the bible is a book and thus a product of science

Religionfags BTFO.

>>733640836
>science uses evidence to make predictions about reality
>science is bullshit
>I need evidence from you
kys

File: 1003303_144200119112696_747579145_n.png (291KB, 669x447px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 669x447px

Sounds like someone shouldn't have a magic hole in the wall that leads to 4chan.

We can still shoot a rocket out in space make sling shot 4 times around in our solar system and hit a comet traveling more miles pr sec than you've moved your entire life and hit it within the length of your penis.. all based on assumptions..

Okie
https://youtu.be/0a5vJ4DmjN8

>>733643438
It could be true, it could not be true. It would just be considered to be true until someone proved it wrong by dropping 110 more phones and say 1 did not break therefore it would then not be true, it would become a probability. If you drop a phone from 20ft there is a 1/200 chance of it breaking. Proving the first assumption/theory to be wrong

File: science bitch.jpg (47KB, 680x626px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 680x626px

>>733640587
>Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality,
the weak assumption that what we observe to happen regularly (sunrises) should do the same thing in the future.
>but yet those who believe in science have yet to prove or provide any evidence that those set of assumptions are true.
um, no. I could tldr why, but retards like short videos, so here.
you argue the black swan fallacy.

>Why? Because they can't.
no shit, Sherlock. See previous.

>Until those who believe in science can prove those assumptions are true
go on...

>we must assume
we can make no assumptions of reality, faggot, haven't you heard of brain in a vat?

> said assumption are unprovable
no shit, learn the concept of "the map is not the territory"

>and therefore science is bullshit.
science is a method to learn about the nature of reality, but the fact we will never connect to reality means at best we will only slightly reduce our ignorance. The only way to argue against the METHOD OF SCIENCE is to prove another method is better by predicting all the phenomena science predicts in a better way.
If we cannot ever truly connect to reality (brain in a vat, shadows in the cave), the best we can hope is to reach out from the dark and compare our results.
Thus, the burden is on you to show that some other METHOD does a better job.
I'll wait for your proposal, faggot.

>>733643874
Yes. Every. Time. Micro-fractures are a thing.

>>733643874
take 50 phones you dropped to a crime lab and I'm pretty sure they can recreate how and where the objects fell by looking at the marks and debris the object picked up. shit, they can even tell you how old it is and possibly tell you who dropped the phones. science nigga

I read the first 6 words then did a 360 and walked into the wormhole in the other room and hit reply. suck my taint anon.

File: blackswan.jpg (745KB, 2893x1757px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 2893x1757px

>>733644144
oh, the damn video for those with a 3-minute attention span on why science can never prove anything (and your claim scientists try is BULLSHIT): https://youtu.be/r3QZ2Ko-FOg

>>733640587

The Internet which empowers your whining is a good case against you.

>>733644190
Is there any evidence that said micro fractures will always occur?

>>733644197
"The point of impact will be shown because there will be a significant dent in the casing of the phone" - look around phone - "oh look this corner is so much more fucked than the rest of the phone"
Solved
"There will be DNA and fingerprints on the phone of the person that dropped it." - Take phone, analyse all around phone for finger prints and match them, and analyse DNA and match it to person.
Solved
Etc. CBA to write any more

>>733640587
Popper

>>733645154
Yes, because of force of impact needed to create microfractures in certain materials. Which is working out how fast the phone was dropping which then is used to work out how hard the forces were acting on the materials, then if the practical test matches the math = proved

File: 1272485870915.jpg (26KB, 350x321px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 350x321px

>>733640587
Seriously. Look up Agrippa's Trilemma.

>>733644144
this
/thread

File: walter01.jpg (35KB, 528x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 528x300px

>>733640587

Maybe I'm just playing into the bait, but what the heck.

>Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality

Yeah, we call these assumptions "hypotheses" At that stage they are assumptions. But that's only the first step.

>those who believe in science have yet to prove or provide any evidence that those set of assumptions are true

And here we have the next steps following the hypothesis. This is called the scientific method. You're on the internet so I trust you can google that. But by utilizing this method, those of us who believe in science can determine whether a hypothesis is true or not. We then document our findings. That, sir, is what we call science.

>>733646128
It is a lot more that "hypothesis", it is about the basic assumption that the data received is true

>>733640587
>hypothesis
>experiment
>if results match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is more likely to be correct
>if not it's more likely to be incorrect
what is flawed with this process?

>>733640587
>Checkmate science and atheist fags

Posts this using hardware and a global network based on scientific principle.

Then provide EVIDENCE that the basic assumptions are true

it's called an experiment dipshit

>>733647246
It assumes things without evidence

>>733640587
Do you know what a "theory" is and how they work ?

Kill yourself now.

>>733647598
OP here: A theory is a set of facts

File: william-of-ockham-2.jpg (37KB, 392x414px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 392x414px

>>733647672
>A theory is a set of facts
no it's not. did you fail science class in elementary school?
a theory is a PROVISIONAL explanation based on empirical data that fits the data parsimoniously.
.
those big words aren't just fancy, they cover the nuances of the term, but if you're too stupid to look them up, it roughly means the theory is the STORY WE TELL TO TRY TRY to explain something, and to avoid telling crazy stories, we try to tell the story with the fewest assumptions.
.
it's entertaining, tho, when you try and fail ;)

OP here: You guys can still insult well but you yet to still prove that the basic assumptions regarding science are provable and not speculative nor based on pure belief. So still, fuck you. You have provided no EVIDENCE

>>733647576
the hypothesis is the question which the experiment answers, the experiment's results are the evidence for the hypothesis which we can conclude evidence from. The things which are assumed to be true are based on the recorded results of prior experiments. If everyone was somehow misconstruing the world around them (which is entirely possible as we're only seeing the universe from the human perspective,) it wouldn't really matter since the laws we observe in the universe apply to us and our awareness.

>>733646710

There is no assumption because any sensible scientist would run experiments numerous times until the data was consistent.

File: 75569-004-3B260631.jpg (55KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 431x450px

>>733648132
>OP here: You guys can still insult well but you yet to still prove that the basic assumptions regarding science are provable and not speculative nor based on pure belief. So still, fuck you. You have provided no EVIDENCE
if anyone has lost, it's you since you were too much of a coward to disprove the evidence I provided of your faulty argument.
>>733644144
>>733644410
(crickets from OP)
.
once you presumed a faulty premise, it was your burden to dig yourself out of it, not ours.
.
name calling is an ad-hominem fallacy only when it is the only response. if we respond with a well-reasoned response and offer logic and evidence, and then call you a RAGING FAGGOT WHO SUCKS DICKS AND EATS DIARRHEA FULL OF AIDS, we have committed no fallacy, tho we may have roasted you a bit ;)

>>733648430
no, if you make any observations about op, your argument is tainted

>>733648048
A theory is a set of facts, not an explanation of those facts but it is when you take all those facts together.Otherwise, the theory of evolution would just be a "theory" as you explain it rather than a set of facts. A theory is a set of facts, what you described is a theorem

File: nwyTMLm_d.jpg (61KB, 625x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 625x800px

>>733640587

>>733648430
What's my faulty premise again?

File: where the warm is.png (285KB, 1352x980px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1352x980px

>>733640587
To anyone who understands logic your logic stands as such
>See Pic

>>733648668
The OP is that

>>733640587
how's your polio OP?

File: Logical-Fallacies-burden-of-proof-620x390.jpg (57KB, 620x390px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 620x390px

>>733648542
>no, if you make any observations about op, your argument is tainted

not unless you plan on changing the definition of the very words that were stated. the words stated in that post are clear and unambiguous:

>you guys can still insult well but you yet to still prove that the basic assumptions regarding science are provable and not speculative
see my post:
>>733644144

you can try to get fancy and argue it wasn't OP, but that doesn't change the invalidity of the greentext above... but i doubt you're read the perfect rebuttal (linked above) yet ;)

>>733648658
>A theory is a set of facts, not an explanation of those facts but it is when you take all those facts together.
The theory of relativity is the set of explanations (cited in mathematical language) that attempt to reconcile our observations at near light speeds.

>Otherwise, the theory of evolution would just be a "theory" as you explain it rather than a set of facts.
is is a "theory" but you put so much value on the theory that you fear that its place as an explanation somehow makes it weaker than religious explanations, yet it is not; it is clearly a more parsimonious explanation.

A theory is a set of facts, what you described is a theorem.
no, a set of facts alone can be interpreted. You are mistaking the "map" for the "territory". Much like the fact probability is in the mind (the con doesn't have probability), the facts are our interpretation of what we see, and the theory is our best explanation. that is all it is, but it's damn better than anything else humans have come up with.

>>733648990
>What's my faulty premise again?
read above.

Science is indeed flawed else black won't be same species

>>no, if you make any observations about op, your argument is tainted

>not unless you plan on changing the definition of the very words that were stated. the words stated in that post are clear and unambiguous:

I was being sarcastic, OP is a dumbshit

>>733649332
Ok I am going to do this once. You say that this is true, provide evidence for it. PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR IT

You can not

File: JohnLocke.png (709KB, 614x792px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 614x792px

>>733649782
>Ok I am going to do this once. You say that this is true, provide evidence for it. PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR IT

provide evidence for what?
science has never been about PROVING anything: it hasn't been since the time of Locke.

if it isn't about proving things, and I EXPLICITLY said so: >>733644144

then you are asking me to prove a negative, and that's a fallacy
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence
I could explain it to you, but you don't read much

You cannot provide any evidence that anything is true

>>733640587
Destroy all the bibles and science books in the world. In a 1000 years which would come back the same?

>>733650136
>science has never been about PROVING anything
Your words, not mine

>>733640587
FUUUCCCKK YEEAAAHHH
"Yeah it was the big bang"
Was it? Fucking prove it faggot, fuck science.

I can make up shit that sounds half realistic, am I a scientist?

>>733650309
I don't see any of the science fags refuting this.

File: p01gnds6.jpg (112KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1200x675px

>>733650309
>Your words, not mine
irrelevant whose words they are; the argument (that science is not about proving things) remains.

science is the method of acquisition of knowledge. it is based on both deductive and inductive reasoning, but mostly inductive. The fact it is based on inductive reasoning means it is limited by our senses (the map is not the territory) and the fact we do not possess complete knowledge of the universe (black swan).

tldr: the fact we can't be all-knowing and that our senses can deceive us does not allow us to know anything with certainty. the best we can do is agree that things that are regular probably will continue to be regular (sunrises). we build on that and eventually crack quarks.

but we can never prove science, it's not even good form! true experiments are all about DISPROVING our arguments and seeing if the proposal survives.

>>733640587
>certain assumptions
No one can prove anything when you don't define what it is you are trying to prove.

>>733650136
>science has never been about PROVING anything
Remember this shit

File: aliens-ET.jpg (87KB, 1000x733px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1000x733px

>>733650653
AYYY LMAO
"I've looked at the sky, then the ground, then the sky again, therefore I know what happened billions of years ago"

>>733650794
Proofs are in math. Measurements can be mathematically expressed.
Science has theories, which are made of facts.
Theories are always open to question and testable, if not they are discarded.
These threads always devolve into dumb people demanding definitions of simple words and quibbling about the definitions provided.

>>733651060
Science proves nothing bitch just like that fag said

File: goalposts.jpg (58KB, 512x325px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 512x325px

>>733650794
>I don't see any of the science fags refuting this.
see here:
>>733650836
protip: you can try to move the goalposts... that's a good tactic ;)

>God hates me because I say gay shit like "well played, sir" I know, I'll become an atheist!

FAAGGGOOOTTTSSS

Did you pray for the internet to be? If so bravo

>>733640587
>Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality
Yes.
>but yet those who believe in science have yet to prove or provide any evidence that those set of assumptions are true
Those who truly understand the scientific method know that you can't really expect scientific models to be completely true. As a scientist, you always have to assume that a observation can be made or a piece of data can be discovered that contradicts a theory in certain conditions. If that happens, then you either modify the assumptions made or create a new set of assumptions that fit experimental evidence better than before. As the models improve, we will be able to make better predictions about nature and create better technology.

>>733651218
I am not. One of you science fags said it. Science proves nothing

>>733650136
>science has never been about PROVING anything

>>733651388
Dubs of truth.
I mean, I've been butthurt, but I've never been atheist butthurt.

File: Thomas_Kuhn.jpg (22KB, 233x286px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 233x286px

>>733651388
>One of you science fags said it
being this much of a newfag.

the suffix 'fag' is attached to a noun to describe someone who is DOGMATICALLY tied to their noun.
animefags love anime so much
moralfags think right and wrong are very clear
science fags should be those who dogmatically love the method of science.

But (despite my previous tldr posts) I do not believe in science, I ACCEPT IT AS A TOOL just like a mechanic accepts a 17mm socket as a tool to remove his lugnuts (that plus an air gun). Unlike dogmatists who will not let go of their tool, I'd be happy to toss the tool in the garbage if you can show me a tool that does a better job with less work.

when someone comes up with a better tool, we usually adopt it and usher in a new revolution. I for one would LOVE TO BE AT THE HEAD OF THAT REVOLUTION, SO IF YOU HAVE A BETTER TOOL, PLEASE, SHARE IT WITH US ;)

>>733651640
>science has never been about PROVING anything
I think we know who won the debate

>>733651913
SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT PROVING ANYTHING

File: Muenchhausen_Herrfurth_7_500x789.jpg (249KB, 500x789px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 500x789px

>>733652208
>SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT PROVING ANYTHING
correct. thanks for repeating what I posted here:
>>733650136
it is consistent with all my posts ;)

File: 1427986711569.jpg (12KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x200px

>>733640587
shit I'm late to the party

>>733640587
all science is false. ever notice how often your internet gets slow?? or how often people die on the operating table? or how often your car breaks down??

that is proof that science doesnt work, never did.

prayer, on the other hand, always works.

File: Breaking sound barrier.jpg (79KB, 800x571px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x571px

>>733652208
If you prove something a law you have proved it. It becomes muttled now when the thing we are studying are so obscure they can only be stated as theory

>>733652368
>correct. thanks for repeating what I posted here:
OP here: I understand what you mean but I am not going to say you are right or wrong. There is still no evidence that your assumptions are true and you cannot provide any

File: 1495314313431.jpg (34KB, 426x257px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 426x257px

>>733640774
This.

>>733652534
Can you pray for faster internet or for your car to start when it breaks down?

I can use scientific principle to fix both, on the other hand, prayer is the equivalent to buying a lottery ticket...

>>733652534
Send some prayers to the people of Manchester, prayer does as much good as yelling at the clouds in the sky.

black holes aren't real

File: try bayesian logic dummy.jpg (154KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1920x1080px

>>733652911
>OP here: I understand what you mean but I am not going to say you are right or wrong.
nor will you, as your question is inherently flawed: it leads to:
1. infinite regress
2. circular argument
3. dogmatic end

>There is still no evidence that your assumptions are true and you cannot provide any
you argue like someone who failed the Monty Hall problem and had to cheat to get the answer.
.
You still can't see the disconnect between mind and reality and live in the delusion that you can somehow connect directly between them. As long as that disconnect exists, the best we can do is reach out in the dark and test.
and test.
and test.
and as we feel our way up from the total ignorance we had back when we were worms evolving in the Precambrian (yes, the story is parsimonious), we build knowledge that seems to work.
but at any time, our edifice of shadows might come crashing down.
the sun might not rise tomorrow
energy might come from nothing and remain
that cute girl might actually like you.

but you'd be a fool to bet on such infinitesimal odds ;)

>>733653463
Ever seen Serena Williams naked???

Extra extra: first year philosophy student is a dumbass who doesn't understand science.

>>733653508
Because it all could be an illusion

>>733653652
or a home schooled dipshit that only believes what a shitkicker preacher tells them....

>>733653747
Ooooohhh, the Matrix

File: parable of the cave.jpg (71KB, 1279x548px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1279x548px

>>733653747
>Because it all could be an illusion
finally, you're starting to get it...

>>733641609
Objective reality is a regulative ideal. As in, the concept of objectivity cannot be logically invalidated as logic is itself is predicated on the very notion.

>>733653883
How about a PKD novel or worse?

File: trapped.png (52KB, 740x315px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 740x315px

>>733653883
yeah, but too bad The Matrix, while offering enticing insights into the philosophy of reality, chops off your 'mental cock' by suggesting that once you take the red pill, you can discover truth...
when even Plato (who the Matrix is based on, read The Republic) knew we can never truly escape the matrix.

>>733653904
So if you use the Allegory of the Cave, then how does the OP know that their interpretation isn't the illusion and not science. I mean using the same principle they are only believing what they are shown/told.

File: 1372728094090.png (94KB, 340x444px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 340x444px

>>733640587

>>733654024
It is, of course, normative but that doesn't mean it is false like the OP is stating

Op trying too hard to troll.
Sage

>>733654140
Or everyone interprets their subjectivity as objectivity and we have infinite illusions/perceptions of reality.

>>733654379
OP here: whoa, who would have thought of that?

File: biv.gif (94KB, 681x250px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 681x250px

>>733654147
>So if you use the Allegory of the Cave, then how does the OP know that their interpretation isn't the illusion and not science.
he can't. nobody can. ever.
we could be brains in vats.
the best we can hope to do is get closer and closer to reality (what we're doing now) but it's like the asymptote in math: e^(-infinity) = 0
we're closer to reality than we've ever been because we can predict so much, but there is always a tiny sliver we can't touch

>I mean using the same principle they are only believing what they are shown/told.
which is why we can at best agree when we see the same repeats. you and I can't truly know what the color red represents in our brains, but when you see red and I see red and we at least call it red, the common language we use is a tool to communicate,
but you can't know for sure you see the same red I see.

File: 776.gif (849KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 200x200px

>>733654543
>but you can't know for sure you see the same red I see.

File: 1494808976929.jpg (320KB, 558x572px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 558x572px

>>733642542

>>733640587
That's why they are called ASSUMPTIONS moron.

Trolled hard.

File: mosanto jews.jpg (269KB, 945x929px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 945x929px

If you fucks are in too sceince. why are you still eating toxins the jew feeds you ? https://archive.is/rqS3A

3 in 10 ppl get cancer because of that shit.

>>733654976
>If you fucks are in too sceince. why are you still eating toxins the jew feeds you ? https://archive.is/rqS3A
fuck off veganfaggot, your shit isn't science, it's bias. bias shits on everything, including science.

Is nasa real?

>>733642441
Kid are you retarded. Science has been proven over and over again. Physics concepts have not only been theoretically proven but experimentally as well. And those "assumptions", as you call it, have been proven and repeated millions and millions of time, at schools, churches, science facilities, labs, etc.

Hate to break to you son, but you are autistic, and you won't ever be able to critically think. Sorry.

File: 76343456.jpg (212KB, 1229x779px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1229x779px

>>733655320
A: cows eat toxings in their fodder passing the shit too ppl in the meat.
B: see img
C: you dindt read that archive at all as it is filled with examples to why and how monsanto is killing ppl with the industrial grown food.
it is not a bias
implying im a vegan

Thing is, science works. That's the key part that all arguments against science conveniently forget.

When we use science, we get airplanes, the Internet, computers, cars, and everything else that makes our modern comforts possible.

With philosophy and theology, all you get are self satisfied schmucks who get way too sweaty about their own thoughts.

File: crustycrab.gif (23KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x375px

When religion gets me to the moon, I'll reconvert.

Till then, fuck off religifag.

>>733640587
I prefer believing in some fantasy story because someone found it written in an old book.

>>733655320
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/glyphosate-causes-cancer-epa-trade-secret-sealed-files-reveal-cancer-link-known-back-in-the-1970s/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301151927.htm atrazine

bias??

File: solipsism.png (56KB, 735x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 735x500px

>>733655681
>A: cows eat toxings in their fodder passing the shit too ppl in the meat.
>B: see img
>C: you dindt read that archive at all as it is filled with examples to why and how monsanto is killing ppl with the industrial grown food.

>being this blind to his own bias.
>implying my insult of a vegan was meant literally

bias is our own personal investment in ideas we believe in. All humans have some, but the most honest are at least willing to admit their beliefs are wrong and demonstrate an ability to hold AMBIGUOUS ("I'm sometimes right, I'm often wrong about this") ideas.
Biased individuals are so enamored with their ideas they are unwilling to consider alternatives (or only consider them when the world explodes on them). Motivated reasoning always distorts our view of reality.

Science works because we have disparate people who have different motivations WORKING TO DIS-PROVE ideas. the fact many come together to destroy ideas, and then those ideas remain, is what makes true science so awesome.

But faggots with a bias can't even understand that. It's like telling a schizophrenic that his delusions are not real: he will never believe you and at best, he might accept it conditionally (through drugs or threats or injury) but in his mind, he will never believe.
and so I know your bias and love of how "right" you are makes you a lost cause...

>>733654543

Under the point about the color red, would be like a color blind person trying to describe red to someone who can see color. BUT in relation to experiments, wouldn't you say the color is a descriptive measurement and not quantitative measurement? Can different people interpret a standard of measurement differently? Is 10 cm different amongst people?

I like the 'brains in vats' idea, but I'd think it'd be something non-anatomical as a cell of some sort....

Who knows, maybe the atoms that make up us and what we see around us are tiny galaxies and granulate down infinitely.

File: thats-not-an-argument.png (73KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x365px

>>733656200
stating the obvious like a pretentious pseudo intellectual.
>show me that pesticides are not giving ppl cancer.
pro tip you cant

>>733640587
B8

File: purple brown green what.jpg (9KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x400px

>>733656226
>Under the point about the color red, would be like a color blind person trying to describe red to someone who can see color.

depends (and that can make for interesting experiments). those who are partially colorblind might still identify red and in their minds see it in some weird way. those who are totally colorblind can probably never see it without help. In some cases I would guess we can learn to see it, but only because of the cues around the color (if we look at red lights). Either way, the 'red' each of us sees is unique to our experience. In some weird way, I could literally see some greenish-bluish and you could see some brownish-purplish and we both only know it's called red when we point to it and share it.

BUT in relation to experiments, wouldn't you say the color is a descriptive measurement and not quantitative measurement? Can different people interpret a standard of measurement differently? Is 10 cm different amongst people?

File: 23675876.jpg (144KB, 525x863px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 525x863px

>>733656200
your not actually saying anything. you are just slandering with out making an argument.

>>733640587
We can prove Autism is real by reading this post

File: 1451185955686.jpg (33KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 625x626px

>>733640587

File: biases.png (256KB, 1200x1306px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1200x1306px

>>733656458
>stating the obvious like a pretentious pseudo intellectual.

there is nothing pseudo about what I said, you moronic faggot. I dismissed your argument on the basis of BIAS because BIAS undermines all arguments for hundreds of reasons. Here are a few:


>>show me that pesticides are not giving ppl cancer.
>pro tip you cant
this proves you're a fucking retard who jumped into the thread without reading about the fact we already resolved science (and anyone in life) cannot prove anything.

if, on the other hand, you wanted to argue (with the caveat that nothing is absolute, but we can accept probability), yes, pesticides can cause harm, but like Galen said: the poison is in the dose.

but notivated biased people like you are like schizophrenics, you can't see that your bias is your own bullshit

>>733656767
he is just being stupid and thinks it is trolling.
OP thinks that when ppl replies his troll is successful. yet he gets btfu. maybe it is just a fetish thing for him.

>>733656551
Agreed, and to expand on that, there are those select people with synesthesia which take our visual interpretations to a different level... (even if some consider it a defect because it goes beyond what we understand how the senses should behave)

File: moot.jpg (82KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 720x960px

>>733656869
>we already resolved science (and anyone in life) cannot prove anything.
Wow.we, holy faggot there i sno we on 4chan. your newfag is show. who the fuck made you leader anyway.
Science proves that you are a faggot

YOU JUST GOT DEBUNKED

>>733640587
If you really believe that, drink 1L of bleach in less than 1 minute and don't puke it. Nothing would happen, right?

File: landing-pages-confirmation-bias-lesson.jpg (27KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x360px

>>733656650
>your not actually saying anything.
actually, I said this:

bias is our own personal investment in ideas we believe in. All humans have some, but the most honest are at least willing to admit their beliefs are wrong and demonstrate an ability to hold AMBIGUOUS ("I'm sometimes right, I'm often wrong about this") ideas.
Biased individuals are so enamored with their ideas they are unwilling to consider alternatives (or only consider them when the world explodes on them). Motivated reasoning always distorts our view of reality.

====
read that again. it means that even if you have a hundred facts, your bias means you are likely to manipulate those facts which do not confirm your bias (do you even know what confirmation bias is?) and exclude them while emphasizing those facts which you like. you are a dishonest reasoner because you have an investment in your own beliefs.


an honest reasoner is willing to entertain all sides, including the possibility he is excluding evidence.

think about that:
it means you probably dug up all the stuff that backs up your claims, and while it might be factual (but I doubt even that, given your intellectual dishonesty), you slant the story.

----
>you are just slandering with out making an argument.

I did, but you're too lazy to parse the words... you probably think it's all fancy talk, when even a 5-year-old can connect the logic dots.

>>733642091
/thread

>>733657314
kek

File: bday.jpg (48KB, 540x386px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 540x386px

>>733657075
>Wow.we, holy faggot there i sno we on 4chan. your newfag is show. who the fuck made you leader anyway.
>Science proves that you are a faggot
>YOU JUST GOT DEBUNKED
try again, you retarded 8-year-old. your effort to troll might actually work if you understood even basic comedy.

>>733640587
science is what IS, it's not a belief... whatever though this is bait

sage

>>733657119
https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

>>733656869
"Poison is in the dose" therefore if the dosage of pesticide is minimal when consumed even if scientifically proven to be a carcinogen, then it will not cause cancer. This is obviously excluding other variables such as other environmental variables, genetic variables, and the type of cancer being considered.

File: Not a argument.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>733657340

File: iWKad22.jpg (90KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1440x1080px

>>733657247
>>733657175
> not knowing what confirmation bias is.

File: 3245.jpg (2MB, 1497x6225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1497x6225px

>>733657587
>Not knowing science,
>does not knows how to form arguments

>>733656869
Do you have the other 8 biases per chance? These genuinely intrigue me

File: you really are retarded.png (268KB, 316x347px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 316x347px

>>733657583
why not? simply dismissing it because you don't get it doesn't suddenly negate the logic.
;)

>>733657765
its not relative nor to the point. saying i dispute what you say not based on argument but on the presumption of bias is fucking retarded..

File: bi_graphics_20-cognitive-biases-that-screw-up-your-decisions.png (542KB, 1200x2247px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1200x2247px

>>733657736
>>Not knowing science,
>>does not knows how to form arguments
>jumps into a thread and tries to claim to know what science is and is not, then makes a retarded dismissal.

>>733657750
>Do you have the other 8 biases per chance? These genuinely intrigue me
here you go.

>>733640587
The validity of science as a methodology for understanding the physical world was established once churches began using lightening conductors to protect the buildings from damage during thunderstorms.

Oh come on! Ofcourse there is evidence. Just look at gravity, we make and assumption about what gravity is and how it behaves, and by testing any objects mass multiplied by G you can literally predict a lot of things regarding the object

>>733640587
Is on computer that only works because of a huge body of scientific works. Then says science is bullshit.

Bad bait mate.
/thread

>>733657925
Thank you

File: nigga you stupid.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>>733657765
>>733657925
>>733657587
Samefag, could you even try harder, you are at max powerlevels atm and still a fag.

>>733658089
Why are you thanking yourself?

File: fucking newfag.png (432KB, 1442x1478px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1442x1478px

>>733658142
>>733658102
he's not you fucking newfag.

>>733640587

The pure irony of someone arguing against science on their COMPUTER on the INTERNET is fucking hilarious.

File: IMG_7177.jpg (75KB, 530x530px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 530x530px

>>733640587

>>733657340
But if you properly set up the experiment to test your hypothesis, the empirical evidence would eliminate the bias.

File: Cowboy-Painting-Target.png (524KB, 1022x525px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1022x525px

>>733657904
>its not relative nor to the point. saying i dispute what you say not based on argument but on the presumption of bias is fucking retarded..

>being this ignorant of how science lets us learn.
no scientific idea is learned with a single data point. we did not propose the theory of gravity on a single observation, we did it after tons of data. even then, Einstein modified it when he argued for the curvature of spacetime as a function of gravity.

The point is this:
1. some experiments prove your point
2. many experiments are ambiguous
3. a few experiments contradict you

since we have many experiments, an honest person would TAKE ALL DATA, INCLUDING THE STUFF THAT IS AMBIGUOUS AND THE STUFF THAT CONTRADICTS YOU. He then weighs it (using whatever math or statistics he prefers) and arrives at a subjective conclusion (think p-values or bayesian inference) based on
THE WEIGHT OF THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE THUSFAR.

biased people tho:
1. like this stuff
2. don't like this stuff
3. hide this stuff

what's worse, biased people are worse than liars since liars know what they're bullshitting about, but biased people honestly believe their bias. they hide evidence (ideomotor, confirmation bias) without even knowing they did it.

when someone (like you) has a bias, you would do well to read their data with suspicion, since they're holding out on you, and THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT.

File: tenor.gif (903KB, 498x191px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 498x191px

>>733658501
>the empirical evidence would eliminate the bias.

without getting to fancy with words, bias can exist in the machines we use and in our minds.
we eliminate bias in our machines by testing with different devices (e.g., you don't trust your bathroom scale, you use your neighbor's scale or the doctor's scale and run a concurrence analysis on the three).

bias in our minds (like the sharpshooter fallacy or recall bias or the ideomotor response) is how in our minds we manipulate the data to suit our needs. it's mostly unconscious.

we cannot really eliminate bias in our minds, as it's like a mental illness... always a blind spot.
the best we can do is understand we have them, and adopt ways to protect against it.

it's like when you get drunk and don't admit it. are you the kind who simply tells everyone to fuck off, or are you willing to trust a few trustworthy folks who tell you you're drunk and let them drive you home?

if you're the latter, congratulations! you might be a little less biased than the average idoeologue!

>>733658828
sometimes bias invalidates certain information you would otherwise use in your study whether it supports your conclusion or not

>>733655681

ahh yes roundup, from the same company that brought you AGENT ORANGE, it's a kinder, friendlier version of agent orange to you in your home around your kids!

>>733659499
that's exactly what a lot of pesticides are, less damaging versions of older pesticides

>>733654845

Yes we can, because we know the eye cones that are responsible for red and how they work in the light spectrum and how our brains interpret the colors. Neuroscience has clearup all those kinds of questions years ago.

File: bias accuracy precision.png (25KB, 355x263px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 355x263px

>>733659466
>sometimes bias invalidates certain information you would otherwise use in your study whether it supports your conclusion or not

yes, in a systematic way, tho.

>>733659776
what I'm saying is not ALL DATA is relevent or reliable so including it in your study may do more harm than good especially if you're trying to be objective

OPs argument is kinda sound but if the OP takes in mind that if logic is based upon assumption then how is the OP's argument sound since it is using logic?

Protip: It isn't

File: Colorless+green+ideas.jpg (43KB, 370x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 370x400px

>>733659689
>Yes we can, because we know the eye cones that are responsible for red and how they work in the light spectrum and how our brains interpret the colors.

you must have jumped into this thread without reading everything before it. the point is that while we agree on a common metric that represents red, the connection between the wavelengths that hit our eyes and the subjective experience that we individually identify as red can never be proven.

I know it's hard to get, and without getting all fancy and philosophical, you won't get it. best I can do is suggest you study the 'theory of mind'... and don't believe me or any other faggot on this board, do the work yourself, just don't be lazy about it.

>>733640587
>as he types on device that digitizes his ideas, transmits them through space and along wires, all over the world
This convenience has been brought to you via the church, naturally.

>>733659288
You left out the first part of that, if the experiment is set up properly and the null hypothesis is tested adequately, THEN the empirical evidence would eliminate the bias.
Part of setting up a valid experiment is to eliminate bias and draw conclusions based on the empirical evidence collected. You assume that everyone that conducts an experiment always finds their hypothesis as being correct, they don't.

Isn't it biased to assume everyone conducts experiments with bias?

The example of the drunk isn't really valid as the person themselves is inserting themselves as a variable and wouldn't pass the scientific method and therefore is really just an apples to oranges comparison.

>>733660130
Transmitted via god juice...

File: Generic_forest_plot.png (41KB, 1125x727px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1125x727px

>>733659966
>what I'm saying is not ALL DATA is relevent or reliable so including it in your study may do more harm than good especially if you're trying to be objective

i agree, to a point:
if data is not relevant, we exclude it
if data is not reliable we analyze it for concurrence and intraclass comparability (fancy words for how reliable it is).

the point is we keep our data based on our best efforts to measure our experiment, and we cannot delete data or exclude studies on any other reasons other than methodological or relevance (if the machine sucks or if we're weighing apples when the experiment is on peaches). biased people are blind to this and whenever ambiguity exists (as is common in experiments, think margin of error), they will favor the side that benefits their belief.

this is dishonest but can be countered by things I've mentioned before

>>733660476
but you wouldn't base a study on the results of a biased or poorly conducted study would you?

>>733640587
>cience is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality,
Is it really?, I am wondering about this. I heard this argument before. Can someone explain this to me?

>>733640587
how to b8 summerfags 101

>>733660207
>You left out the first part of that, if the experiment is set up properly and the null hypothesis is tested adequately, THEN the empirical evidence would eliminate the bias.
only when the measurements are accurate enough and the signal (what we call what we're looking for in science) to noise ratio is large enough to offer us a relatively unambiguous result. The problem is that most interesting science is at the very bleeding edge, where ambiguity is nearly at 50% and the decision to take one side or another is even more reliant on eliminating bias.

>Part of setting up a valid experiment is to eliminate bias and draw conclusions based on the empirical evidence collected. You assume that everyone that conducts an experiment always finds their hypothesis as being correct, they don't.

correct. as a matter of fact, if we were honest in science, we'd realize 95% of our experiments are so wrong, they're unusable.

>Isn't it biased to assume everyone conducts experiments with bias?

yes, the old circular argument inherent in existence itself. The problem is to deny bias is to let bias creep into our analysis and do nothing about it. If you can find a nonbiased approach to analyzing bias from the outside, there's a few Nobel prizes in it for you ;)

>The example of the drunk isn't really valid as the person themselves is inserting themselves as a variable and wouldn't pass the scientific method and therefore is really just an apples to oranges...
it wasn't meant to be an experiment. it was meant to show that when most folks are drunk, they are a lot like the biased person (without getting fancy and recognizing some folks might KNOW when they're drunk). If we assume the drunk is relatively unaware of his condition for the sake of argument, then we know many such folks will never really feel drunk even when told they are drunk by folks who have a stronger grasp on reality.
this drunk can either (1)accept it intellectually,
(2) or reject it, what most do.

File: 3ab.jpg (133KB, 756x564px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 756x564px

>>733660842
>how to b8 summerfags 101

>8-year-old summerfag trying to act smart but not knowing what the term 'summerfag' actually means.

>>733661182
anyway, it's been fun, fags. my sequences are coming out and i gotta get back to work.
here's this:

If you actually read science:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

if you're just a lazy video-watcher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

>>733640587
I think you're too smart for science

>>733661605
Science I get from this thread is like porn or pro-wrestling, kinda real but also not as real as we think

>>733660746
science is based on hypothesis testing
we can't really ever say what causes anything but we can say what trends there are
for example, if i dropped a ball 100 times and it fell to the ground every time I can say with confidence that there's a relationship between dropping the ball and it falling to the ground but I still don't know what causes this based on that information
If I want to know what causes the trend I need to collect more information and establish more trends and that's how science progresses

File: brrd brrd brrd brrd brrd.jpg (5KB, 250x189px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x189px

>>733640587
Oh WAIT!!!! Where's the fucking Princess picture?

>>733662053
So basically you are saying that part of the OP's argument is true, it's based on assumption?

>>733662462
No I'm saying it's not BASED on assumptions but every study has to make assumptions that are often different from one another.
I'm not well versed in the philosophy of science TBH. You should read some Karl Popper.

>>733661605
>http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

HAHAHHA "why this published paper you're reading is false"

Most published studies are not "false" That's fucking idiotic. The link you provided is moronic.

Published findings are published findings. They're results of a test. There's nothing conclusive about published findings, nor would an actual scientist conclude anything absolute from a single study.

Published findings may have interesting results, they're published and shared with the scientific community. Tests are redone by other scientists, and results commonly vary depending on MANY variables. The more tests are done on a particular experiment, the more data can be teased out.

I mean that paper you posted might as well be titled "why most scientific experements fail"

well NO FUCKING SHIT, OF COURSE MOST OF THEM FAIL, IT"S A FUCKING EXPERIMENT< IT'S FUCKING TRIAL AND ERROR.

You need to conduct experiments hundreds or thousands of times before you get something that works. You need to publish the data from ALL THOSE STUDIES to show why those experiments DID NOT WORK.

jesus you people are fucking stupid and your links are stupid.

you're too dumb to "get" science. just accept it. you're dull. Low IQ. Go back to your god and worship or whatever and fuck off, leave us science geeks alone. You'll reap the benefits of our work eventually and you will be undeserving of it.

>>733640587
How about you define those assumptions in the post you pseud

>>733662660
So it's a matter of communication and language? I kinda know Popper

>>733661182
SNR isn't as dramatic when you've properly selected your variables and relying more on a quantitative experiment rather than a qualitative experiment. I think the statistical significance of your results would tell you whether or not you've supported your conclusion or not.

The drunk example defines bias to an extent, but assumes bias that the 'folks have a stronger grasp on reality' know what drunk is. Maybe they aren't drunk and are just sluggish and the folks telling them they are drunk are drunk themselves and are misinterpreting behavior because of their skewed perception, and only gauging that perception based on whether that person has to drive. If they don't have to drive, is their level of intoxication relevant? There are variables that aren't known in the scenario and therefore invalidates the example.

>>733662891
It's really a matter of using statistics and probability to eliminate ambiguity. And even in a perfect scenario you can't know correlation implies causation so you have to think about it.

>>733640587
Same logic applies to god, fucker.

>>733663224
OP is a Gnostic, you shit-eating pedophile.

>>733640587
Get a load of this islamist

File: IMG_0757.png (117KB, 444x440px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 444x440px

>>733640933

Mark this thread as an atheist win

OP wants to live in his own reality, excluded from the reality of the rest of us. So be it. He can pontificate on how he is right and how science is wrong. Until he gets some social disease (tough in his private world) and seeks out a scientific cure. Until he needs technological amusement which is only possible because of science. Science seeks to understand objective reality, as experienced by all of us. That reality does not exclude OP, even as he atempts to exclude science.

Science is not at war with religion, and science does not attempt to refute or confirm any rational religion. Science attempts to explain the who, what, when and where. Religion (or lack of same) attempts to answer the question; why?

>>733640587
Yup it is just a total coincidence that things like computers, airplanes, medicine, space ships, cell phones, modern plastics etc. exist.

Science has no idea WTF it is doing. That's why all these things existed before science.

>>733643438
It actually depends on a shitton of factors like the temperature, point of impact, height, speed, surface it falls on, orientation you drop it, phone model, etc.
I assure you that if you drop an iPhone with a speed of 5m/s screen facing the floor at concrete from a height of 2 meters it will break 100% of the times

>>733643227
That wouldn't be very professional

>>733643427
Intelligent rich people? I honestly haven't seen many rich people that aren't lazy oafs

>>733643448
That's not evidence lol

>>733640587
the whole point of science is that its a journey of knowledge and perspective that is objective, like the dimensional barrier concepts.

>>733644197
I'm pretty sure you're wrong

>>733664470
Atheists? Fuck off, a win for science maybe, but he actually has a point.

>>733665373
Science is more about how or why.
Why do things happen the way they do?
How do they happen that way (what is the mechanism of action)?

>>733640587
lol okay anon

the only problem i see in this argument is this:
why the fuck does it matter? whether science is real or just total bullshit why does it affect you? im just curious but what do you gain by making these claims?

File: acf.gif (2MB, 312x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 312x250px

>>733662783
>Most published studies are not "false" That's fucking idiotic. The link you provided is moronic.
>you're too dumb to "get" science. just accept it. you're dull. Low IQ. Go back to your god and worship or whatever and fuck off, leave us science geeks alone. You'll reap the benefits of our work eventually and you will be undeserving of it.

ha ha ha ha! tell us more about how you read the review article and then misrepresented the article by going off on a tangent, all while trying to spin sophist language ("The more tests are done on a particular experiment, the more data can be teased out.") that gives your shitty argument a veneer of reason.

let me repeat: you did not read the article, your critique "TALKS RIGHT PAST" the points. It's like you purposely want to attribute a meaning to a point that does not exist.

and then trying to puff your autistic faggoty ass by using that single post (rather than the many others as a whole) as 'proof' of your own superiority, and our 'stupid-ness'.
keep trying autist, maybe if you actually presented a cogent critique of the theory behind the article (AND actually knew the argument has been put to the test empirically hundreds of times, making you look like a newfag for being ignorant of that fact too) you might not look like such a pseudointellectual autistic faggot.
but your faggotry does entertain us!

>>733663501
How can pedophiles be real if god isn't real?
checkmait turdlord

>>733668469
I think that faggot:
>>733662783
was stupid enough to believe you were arguing some religious nonsense, going by this stupid phrase he says:
>Go back to your god and worship or whatever and fuck off, leave us science geeks alone
or it could be a really pathetic troll attempt.

File: fedoradgentleman.jpg (413KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1200x1600px

>>733668906
>was stupid enough to believe you were arguing some religious nonsense
he's a fucking retard, and he proved it by misattributing a religious slant to my argument. But then what do you expect from a faggot who doesn't read an article and (ignorant of the nature of type one and type 2 errors and simple power calculations) tries to talk like he knows more, but argues some superficial nonsense that only proves he got his argument from a high school textbook .
but it's funny to watch faggots like:
>>733662783
fail

>>733640587
Solipsism level reasoning, but I'll bite to display the correction. If you want to consider the necessity of science, then you have to reply to this post or your mother will die in her sleep tonight.