/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13537257]

>It's settled science!

[Anonymous No.13537291]

>OP is heterosexual

[Anonymous No.13537325]

>I examined the facts, and the prevailing ideology I grew up with is correct

[Anonymous No.13537326]

>>13537291
You're right

[Anonymous No.13537351]

>you have a warped view of reality!

[Anonymous No.13537382]

>>13537257
>against denialism

[Anonymous No.13537409]

>Humans are not social animals, thats baloney
He posted online, hoping that people would respond.

[Anonymous No.13537430]

>>13537325
I actually laughed. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.13537484]

>biological reductionism is true and consciousness is material

[Anonymous No.13537627]

>>13537257
Complete knowledge isn't required to have actionable knowledge. Science doesn't have to be 'settled' to build computers and nuclear reactors, which indicates science does indeed advance knowledge while mysticism has no supportive track record.

[Anonymous No.13537655]

>>13537257
Literally nobody worth talking to has ever said this. Stop trying to larp as some enlightened mystic who shuns the lowly plebian science.
Remember that science is just a branch of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13537659]

>>13537655
based

[Anonymous No.13537663]

>>13537655
based philosopher-king

[Anonymous No.13537665]

>>13537627
/lit/ btfo

[Anonymous No.13537705]

>>13537655
>>13537627
I was criticising idiots who say "it's settled science" when talking about climate change, race etc.

They're basically saying "this is a fact" when something isn't a fact. I'm not even religious.

[Anonymous No.13537723]

>>13537705
Sounds like OP is denying science as a legitimate rhetorical device. I'm all for having colors of grey but saying climate change is real is a substantive philosophical argument because of the mountains of research behind it, assuming good sources are being sited.
Idk the details of who hurt you though OP. I'd suggest you lighten up.

[Anonymous No.13537802]

>>13537705
Fair enough. Yes, it's clear that religious thinking itself is a much more fundamental issue than any particular religion... Many who claim to be adherents of science will lie and misrepresent to suit whatever narrative they find comforting, inspiring or lucrative (equalism, climate eschatology, etc.). I must admit that the modern religion of liberalism makes the traditional religions seem innocuous (or even beneficial) by comparison.

[Anonymous No.13537808]

>>13537723
>but saying climate change is real is a substantive philosophical argument because of the mountains of research behind it
There's plenty of scientists who've spoken off the record and said "if your research says climate change isn't real, no government grants for you". Big Tobacco paid tons of scientists and doctors off to say smoking was healthy, you really think scientists now are immune from that kind of shit?

>B-But why would the government lie?
A million reasons. Money, power, control. Even if new research came out unarguably declaring global warming false, you really think they'll say "yeah we lied for the past 30 year haha we were wrong"?

[Anonymous No.13537816]

>>13537723
>who hurt you
Go back to your hugbox, tranny

[Anonymous No.13537838]

>>13537808
>Big Tobacco paid tons of scientists and doctors off to say smoking was healthy
Yet somehow the consensus emerged that smoking is extremely unhealthy, to the point that even kids in kindergarten know it. It's even one of the most robust epidemiological finding in history.
It's possible that government and corporations managed to control together all sources and funding to promote a fake science of climat change. But how likely is it? Compared to something more mundane like trend effect and unwillingness to admit errors among scientists? Particularly when you consider that some head of states in the developed world have declared that climate science is a China hoax or something, that really undercuts the government control hypothesis.


Ultimately nobody on 4chan (and almost nobody on the internet) will have the training and time to properly review the evidence so the debate is a bit pointless.

As an aside I do hope the scientists are wrong on this onee (such a large-scale and gradual phenomenon is hard to prove after all), because the alternative is damn scary.

[Anonymous No.13537853]

>>13537838
>But how likely is it?
Incredibly likely.

You're thinking "ooh big conspiracy" but it was probably more like a slow trickle of "hey look at this" which snowballed and corruption blossomed. Now it's at the stage where if you're not pushing the message, they want to suppress you by denying funding and your pro-climate change colleagues will ostracise you for fucking with their payday.

[Anonymous No.13537920]

>the singularity is near! transhumanism will be our salvation!
>of course I don't believe in God. i'm a material atheist.

[Anonymous No.13537954]

>>13537853
I am massively confused as to who is bankrolling the corruption of the entire field of climate science. It makes far more sense (and is what actually happened) that the existing, established corporate juggernauts of the oil, gas and coal industries have been buying politicians who will ignore climate scientists warning about warming for decades. Those industries have literally started wars and massacred strikers before; I'm much less likely to trust their motives than the scientists.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13537955]

>>13537920
It’s something to hope for, but too many are just D&D/vidya playing lazies waiting for a savior. Not unlike the lazy minded Christian.
By no means is that an assured future.

[Anonymous No.13538120]

>>13537627
>technics is the same as science
Technics needs science only so long as science is serviceable to technics. The purpose of technic advancement is entirely different than scientific discovery.

[Anonymous No.13538125]

>>13537484
Can't disprove it

[Anonymous No.13538136]

>>13537954
You'd be surprised at the drama of professional academics. One big high school clique. They arent interested at all in truth, just prestige and government funding

[Anonymous No.13538166]

>>13537257
>It's true, I saw it on rationalwiki.com!

[Anonymous No.13538193]

>>13538166
If you spend more than a few minutes on that site, empty Onions bottles will start to manifest inside your house

[Anonymous No.13538196]

>I'm different and unique!
>Supports scientific consensus.

[Anonymous No.13538212]

I just hate how everyone pretends like climate change is close to putting us in the dark ages while the peevailing predictions involve some coastal sea rising and and marginal warming

[Anonymous No.13538223]

>>13537955
>Hope
You're just a biological machine regulated by chemicals butterfly. Or did you forget your own philosophy?
Hope is an illusion. Actually it's worse than an illusion, it's determinism. Illusion implies that you have the agency to be fooled.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13538493]

>>13538223
Stupid post. Hope is hope. A lazy stance sure.
And who can determine what a given hope will turn up? Give me a break. Lazy vindictive post.

[Anonymous No.13538516]

>>13538136
>Those rich climate scientists are just out to get new mansions and tarnish the sterling reputations of the poor, hard-working oil magnates
Funny how the scientific community is right about everything except this one thing innit

[Anonymous No.13538526]

>>13538493
cope

[FUCKER OF NIGGERS, IMPALER OF (...) No.13538536]

>>13538493
Butterfly's cope is amazing. I love how you constantly contradict your own nihilistic and materialistic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13538895]

>>13538120
Science is methodical empricism, technics are the applications of the knowledge revealed by that method. The general purpose of both is increasing our mastery of the world. I'm curious, by what other conduit of knowledge would technics advance?

>>13538536
I don't much care for butterfly (daily reminder: don't talk to butterfag), but consider that your own poor understanding of nihilism/physicalism may manifest as apparent contradictions (or you're simply opposed to these philosophies and intentionally misrepresent them).

[Anonymous No.13538963]

>>13537920
>bro look at this immortal jelly fish, there will totally be a cure for death in our lifetime!
>yes I'm an atheist, religion is the opium of the masses, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.13538979]

>>13538516
>Funny how the scientific community is right about everything except this one thing innit
yes and eggs and milk will kill you and cutting off your own penis and drilling a hole in its place is totally a healthy decision of self affirmation.

[Anonymous No.13539092]

>>13538979
>Nutrition and medicine and whatever else is convenient for me is all the same, and none of it is true, but only when it's something I don't want to believe

[The Nomad !N8Yn.I/WbM No.13539107]

>>13537627
define knowledge

[Anonymous No.13539390]

>>13539092
The science worshiping atheist has the gull to claim he possesses the heroic mental fortitude to casually do away with his beliefs whenever the data are presented (chewed and already interpreted and synthesized for him) when in reality it's one of the most painful processes in life.
tl;dr everyone suffers from confirmation bias all the time and you're not the mental giant you think you are you faggot
proof? you can't possibly believe scientists can also be crummy rats manipulating data, interpreting data to confirm their beliefs or at best professors trying to make a living and get some funding.

[Anonymous No.13540675]

>>13539107
The comprehension of things to some degree of accuracy greater than total ignorance, validated by predictive power.