https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1dqq8zd/public_perception_of_scientists_credibility_in/
Public perception of scientists' credibility in the US has gone down : dataisbeautiful - redditors deny the notion of scientism 
- 64
- 95
Top Poster of the Day:
kaamrev
Current Registered Users: 26,408
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Live commit: cb8e331
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We may either live in one or not, so probability of it is indeed 50%
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
t. my statistics classmates
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"god" is just what we call dude who's running the simulation
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
and that dude was just a simulation
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
probably. they guy who runs his simulation is called "god" in his language too.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Pop sci and it's consequencesβ¦
!ifrickinglovescience !physics correct me if I'm wrong, but simulation/multiverse is all just hypothetical speculation right? It not disprovable so it can't even be considered a theory much less taken seriously
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yeah if it's not falsifiable it's basically metaphysics aka religious shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Right, anytime you have so reddit brain idiot like musk parroting this r-slurred shit they always say something profoundly stupid like look at the video games they are so realistic now days they literally think scientists are saying we live in the matrix.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I watched I video where he put forth the argument that the rate of game graphics improvement was indicative that we are possibly in a simulated universe. Im guessing his assertion was that in 100 years game graphics might be indistinguishable from reality and while that might be true that has very little do with conscious existence inside simulated universe.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
what do you think is consciousness?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
many worlds is a interpretation of quantum mechanics which is as valid as any other interpretation of qm as they have the same math and results. im not versed enough to know but their might be some features that pull it out of underdetermination and/or unfalsifiabilty .
simulation hypothesis is rather weak and almost solipsitic. i dont think anyone cares about it. a funny reasoning (from echopraxia) is that if god could run this universe, he would have to know the laws of physics already. theres only one type of program you run over and over even though you already know the results and i dont think god is a porn addict
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Claims of the form "If we assume X then Y is possible/impossible." are not empty, but they only lead to very weak predictions about the natural world.
Example for a claim that is kinda in between:
"Assuming the universe is isotropic at large scales then it must either be infinite in all directions or very large in the compact directions compared to our observable part of it."
If the WMAP data and similar measurements had shown certain periodicities in the cosmic background radiation we might have been able to instead conclude "assuming the universe is isotropic, the observations are most consistent with a universe that is (the 3-dimensional analog of) a sphere of radius 100-110 billion light years. The probability of observing these signals in a flat infinite universe is less than 1%." But they didn't.
So part of the question could be tested, but only in one direction. Based on current understanding of physics it's fundamentally impossible to determine whether the universe is infinite or just very large, there are no experiments or observations that could provide any hint. Is that scientific?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It's mostly just a philosophical thought exercise like the brain in a vat.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
He just described /r/science unknowingly.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I once posted an obviously bs article to /r/science with a catchy and controversial title and it immediately became the top post on the sub for that week
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Source?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The problem with scientism is this believe that they should be in charge of policy making.
Scientists are human beings prone to biases and errors, they should be welcome to present their data and findings, discuss them to see if there are major disagreements with their peers and recommend/advice policy makers, but not dictating the policies themselves.
Climate change is an example of this, the problem is real and it looks bad longterm, the solution is cutting emissions. But the rate and the means by which it will happen are decided by government officials (hopefully after societal discussion) as it should in a democratic society. I remember a climate protest had activists holding a capeshit sign "KRYPTON DIDN'T LISTEN TO JOR-EL"
Yeah, but that's fiction and earth will now blow up. Billions of people are alive today because of fossil fuels and you don't get to cut it all from one the to the other without killing them, it's not simple.
Then you got cases like GMOs where it has been repeatedly proven they're safe but the public is always manipulated into chemophobia and natural fallacy "IT HAS CHEMICALS, IT'S NOT NATURAL", and the answer is to educate the public. Yes debating with the general public can be extremely tiresome but it's the less shitty option in a democratic society
!ifrickinglovescience
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I love when you hear "scientists should run everything!" No no they shouldn't. Scientists are good at their one little niche. A lot of them will are uncompromising and can't handle criticism. They also get mad when things don't follow laboratory models where you can control all factors, unlike the real world. They should offer consultation, but not run anything. Redditors of course think that would mean that they would be in charge if scientists ran that world.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
they arent even good at their one little niche
i went down a rabbit hole the other day. Theres a geomagnetic anomaly near antarctica. I read a paper (well the summary of a paper) that was SUPEr sure its from the impact that wiped out all the t-rexes 260 million zillion years ago. aaaaaaand theres also papers saying it could be caused by like literally a dozen other things. They are legit making it up. Doctors just found a new salivary organ in the sinuses this year. Astronomers found galaxies so well-developed for where they are that the entire general model has to be rethunk.
Trust no-one. Elections should last a day, and be made of people who didn't refuse to serve, selected at random from the phone book.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I don't know what you said, because I've seen another human naked.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
gross
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Oh wow who would have thought that Americans have less trust in a managerial class that locked us all in our houses for 2 years and ruined the economy over a moderate cold
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The politicians dumped all the blame on them too. Why did we close down the schools? Uhhh... we had to because the scientists told us to! Bullshit, that's a policy decision not science.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Well if natural scientists sink themselves low enough to the soycial """scientists""' level then they deserve it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Whaddya say we throw our lot into trying to convince everyone men can get pregnant too? Then we'll act all sassy and ignore people. Lol.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Some cute twink on reddit said red meat gives you butt cancer according to the WHO. It spooked me for a second on account of my cow per day diet, but then I remembered the WHO and science itself are bullshit now. I looked it up, and sure enough, it doesn't give you butt cancer
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
buggery does though, but ur not supposed to notice
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
"Scientists" are literally hired by some of the biggest evil corporations in the world to do their bidding. Most of it is a scam and most scientists are do nothings overpaid because npcs think they should be. Scientists if not stopped with destroy the world with their Christ denial morality. These are not the altruistic explorers and discoverers of the Vatican
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Puberty blockers are reversable, women can have a peepee and there's no difference between men and women. I wonder why scientists are less trust worthy?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Pretty reasonable comments all in all, for reddit anyhow
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
-Since the 80s, I have been told that we only have 2 or 3 more years to ban fricking everything because otherwise we're gonna go extinct thanks to acidrainchemicalpropellantsnuclearwastefossilfuelsglobalwarmingcovid
-The media always pushed bullshit science for headlines
-Everyone figured out you can just pay broke mfers to publish whatever slop you want and who cares whether anyone can replicate
-Almost ten years ago, all of a sudden everyone started treating what were traditionally easy no-show electives as real "science" and if you disagreed, you were a Nazi.
-Covid: Lots of scientists admit that they straight-up lied about masks to prevent people from using them
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Snapshots:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1dqq8zd/public_perception_of_scientists_credibility_in/:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
scientism is NOT a fetish snappy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context