denying science

>>8564885
>denying science
How about you stop denying the written word of God first, heathen

>>8564885
what trend?

>>8564892
recently it has become more popular to distrust scientists and their work

File: 1482735734845.png (132KB, 350x283px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 350x283px

>>8564885
>What has caused the current and continuing trend of denying science?

There isn't.

>>8564889
FPBP

>>8564948
>FPBP
This isn't your cesspool

You have to go back
>>>/pol/

>>8564896
Recently, scientists and their work have become more worthy of distrust.

>>8564889
>believing in science
absolutely Haram

>>8564896
Lots of meme science used to push trannies probably made normies angry.

Stupid people glorify anti-intellectualism because that's how their beliefs are formed and maintained. For the most extreme exemplification of this, see /pol/, where the lowest intellects on the planet circle jerk "winning arguments" by putting parentheses around words to discredit everything associated with those words, and everyone pats each other on the back and says how right they are. It's simply natural for morons to despise a process which doesn't allow for their feelings to dictate their conclusion, and morons are very numerous. Ban their reproduction. Short of that, there's nothing you can do.

>>8565158
The same as the difference between "explaining" and "mansplaining": whether or not it's triggering to an SJW.

>>>/pol/

>>8565158
>look at me mom i'm still doing it
>>>/reddit/

>>8564885
Shit like climategate where people are caught redhanded manipulating data hurts the reputation of ALL scientists.

>>8564885
The reason anti science is how it is today is the Internet
Using the Internet you can target a group of people which are susceptible to your lies and extract money/political power from them

>For example
Whereas in the past a "creationist" would just distrust evolutionary theory modern "creationists" also distrust geology and astronomy and quantum physics and anything else that when thought through could lead to inconsistencies in their beliefs
This is because if you ""educate"" them about how experts are wrong and they're right they will happily give you money

>>8564885
People who deny science almost never think they're denying science. They watch Vaxxed and think science proves vaccines cause autism, media put out by the discovery institute and think science proves evolution is impossible, etc.

The problem is that people don't know enough science to know when they're being lied to about science and the Internet allows misinformation to spread.

Denying science is to do science, retard.

Oh, what's that? Oh! You're one of those retards who grew up in life thinking science was the most important thing in his life and any one who wasn't a scientist was a retard, didn't you? You actually grew up thinking "science" was rigorous, didn't you?

Pro-tip, Brainlet. There is no scientific "method" and there is no "science". About time you started realising that you aren't special and that you don't actually know anything about the methodology you have been engaging in all your life.

File: CC_denial-machine.jpg (118KB, 640x880px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x880px

>>8564885
There is nothing accidental about it,
the playbook the tobacco lobby used
is being applied again and again.

https://youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m

>>8565256
>The reason anti science is how it is today is the Internet

true

most people go google search a heated topic and stop once they've read an article or two that support the side they want to be true.

No one "defeats" the other side, they only defeat a strawman/poorly constructed version of the other side.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154679929646/watching-the-climate-science-bubbles-from-the

>>8565266
I don't like just randomly putting links so I'll just repost the main thing I wanted from here

>1. An issue has the public divided into two sides.
>2. You read an article that agrees with your side and provides solid evidence to support it. That article mentions the argument on the other side in summary form but dismisses it as unworthy of consideration.
>3. You remember (falsely) having seen both sides of the argument. What you really saw was one side of the argument plus a misleading summary of the other side.
>4. When someone sends you links to better arguments on the other side you skip them because you think you already know what they will say, and you assume it must be nonsense. For all practical purposes you are blind to the other argument. It isn’t that you disagree with the strong form of the argument on the other side so much as you don’t know it exists no matter how many times it is put right in front of you.

>>8565264
Projection: the post

>>8564885
>What has caused the current and continuing trend of denying science?

1) The internet has given a voice to everyone with an IQ > 80.
2) A lot of scientist have embraced leftist ideologies.

That's about it. Science is dead and there is no escape.

>>8565158
Yes. IQ is the perfect example of (((science))),or in other words, pseudoscience.

Previously if you had a really retarded belief you couldn't really find anyone to circlejerk with about it since you were limited to your location in search.

Now with the power of the internet you can find other retards to form a group with easily.

There is also the whole thing with not trusting everything you read on the internet, and the fact that the people who tell you that everyone is lying ironically often lie themselves.

>>8565245
You mean take-quotes-out-of-context-gate? I bet you believe pizzagate is real as well.

>>8565796
>podesta isn't a pedophile
so CTR is still paying you idiots?

What the fuck happened? /pol/ got too shitty so you losers decided to come here?

>>8565814
you shat up enough threads yesterday, stop

>>8565266
Nice try but the two sides do not have equal support and equally convincing arguments. Climate change denial is founded on cherrypicking and exaggeration. Every climate change denial argument has been thoroughly debunked. Not a strawman of the argument, the actual argument as written by deniers. Its fringe pseudoscience and the two sides are not equally legitimate.

>>8565822
*I

>>8565798
Thanks for proving my point.

>>8565267
And this is what is called "confirmation bias"

And also, fearful titles in "newspapers" and recycled junk articles make people that are illiterate to a subject convinced for a statement and denying any other that proves them wrong

>>8565169
xD

>>8564885
>What has caused the current and continuing trend of denying science?
money and power flowing from the fossil fuel industry

>how do we stop it?
we dont? unless you have more money than the fossil fuel industry (protip: you dont)

>>8565900
>tfw money ruins everything
How do we stop it?

>>8565796
It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, but I know jack shit about "pizzagate" so I don't have an opinion.

>>8565823
>Every climate change denial argument has been thoroughly debunked.

where can I read about it then?

>>8565917
There are various websites and blogs written for laymen that debunk climate change denial.

Skeptical science
Real climate
Deep climate
Hot whopper

There's also the peer reviewed literature if you want to go straight to the source.

>>8565905
By looking up to trusted websites and media. Internet will always provide lies, that's its flaw. You cannot censor it. But you can drastically reduce clickbait and fake science sites. They will not be then something lucrative to do and will close

>>8564889
Which one?

>>8565930
The Quran, you infidel.

>>8565932
>trust the guy who said "god will kill me by severing my aorta if I'm a false prophet" and died by the hands of a female jewish prisoner who poisoned his food, and stated he felt the severing of his aorta as he died

c'mon you could at least try something written by a soothsayer like Joseph Smith