"muh scientific revolution"

Also we need to democratize scientific publications. Fuck paywalled journals. Sci-hub for life.

When liberals talk about science they rarely mean actual science. Usually it means their 'science-based' policy and if you want to actually read the science behind the policy well fuck you pay $100 to access the actual publications or get the summary that we wrote.

t. retard

See:

FDA approved Mercury and Aluminum in vaccines
FDA approved MSG and arscenic in baby food
FDA approved mercury-contaminated High Fructose Corn Syrup

Sorry guys, but your "science" is just one big money-hungry corporation that cares more about reputation than lives.

As for your post especially,
How 'couldn't' the scientific community lie about logic?

You obviously don't know anything about how the world works and porky.

...

Really my dude, just end yourself already.
Stop talking about shit you clearly don't understand.

Youre just a butthurt neckbeard

I specifically said most science is right, but they use this against the public to lie about the 5% lies.

Yes, please tell us more about how vaccines cause autism. You must have had a lot of vaccines.

How is this science though?

Nice opinion.

Are you trying to bait Howard?

I cant mention vaccines with some kid shouting "NO U WRONG IT NEVER HAPPENED TO ME AND SCIENTISTZ SAID SO! U HAVE NO IDEA HOW THIS SHIT WORKS (even though you don't either, but you choose to side with the popular view)"

Have you tested it yourself? Have you witnessed other people getting affected by it besides yourself?

You think its safe because thats what your told. How are you supposed to prove vaccine additives aren't harmful? Protip: you can't.

Anyways this thread isnt fucking about vaccines, you crybaby. Why is this little topic so sensitive to you?

Hahahaha why does this topic bother you so much?

Because you had vaccines your whole life?

If vaccines harmed everyone everyone would have autism. Ever thought maybe a rare genetic disorder could cause this minority reaction?

I have a suggestion
You should fight the surplus of proletariat labor by offing yourself.

Lmao All you have to do is say something about vaccines and people get batshit crazy.

t. anarcho-liberal

Why dont you two eat a chunk of aluminum and a cup of mercury, mmmmmmm maybe inject uranium into the bloodstream how about?

See how stupid you sound now?

...

Its YOU who doesnt understand fully how the body works.

Just stop stop stop stop

Science isn't perfect? Thanks for telling us.

Now how would you find out that these things are bad for your health?

go fuck yourself, anarcho-liberal

Lmao, defending vaccines by saying its good for your health, and denying science that its not

Youre literally lying to yourself so you can still beieve mercury and aluminum in vaccines is justified and 100% safe

But isn't it only through observation and experimentation that you would be able to show that something is hazardous for one's health?

Why dont you do it then if you think its not all that bad?

Drink that jug of mercury! What worse can happen?

Why don't you go die from polio as a 13 y/o?

...

Yes and my parents observed it with me, with heavy metal testing and i had to be chelated to stop the mercurys effect in my brain to be 100% complete

I will be honest, only dont take vaccines if you had an adverse reaction to them. Because its true most people can handle it, but its also the fucking truth a minority cant get rid of ethylmercury, despite having a half life of 1 week.

I hope you arent one of those close minded people who will just think the person is lying because they have a different opinion. This is why alt right is fucked up, because theyre close minded

Why don't you realize that if something is toxic depends on the dose? A small enough amount of aluminium or mercury won't be harmful.

Come now. If the proletariat threatens mass suicide and enough people do it just to show it's serious, we could have the bourgeoisie by the balls. They can't even threaten to repress us with violence because all we'd have to do is welcome it with open arms.

They can't live at the top if there's no proles left to be on the bottom. Revolutionary Mass Suicide is the way of the future.

lol, apparently the mercury's effect on your brain was worse than your parents thought

That's not even the issue though, capitalists made vaccines awful not scientists. Capitalists wanted cheaper, shittier vaccines full of blended up monkey guts. Capitalists make sure there are no regulations.

This has nothing to do with science, in fact, the only reason these people know mercury is bad is the scientific method.

Do you have any idea what mercury does if it gets into your bloodstream?

Mercury can bypass the blood-brain barrier and destroy brain neurons. This is a fact and if you deny that mercury does this you dont know enough about it.

Its incredibly easy for a vaccine to puncture a vein. Some veins doctors cant even se because theyre microscopic.

The only difference between ethyl and methyl mercury is ethylmercury has a half life of 7 days, but for 50,000 ppb to get disposed from your body would take several months.

Also, imagine an infant, who is 10x less in bodyweight than a grown human, and the doctor accidentally punctures a vein, and all the mercury spreads to your body, and some enters the underdeveloped baby brain.

Name calling definitely proved me wrong. Good job.

Deathstylism is the only decent form of lifestylism.

I agree, the fetishism of sci-fi is even more reactionary than the supernatural.

Cant happen because 95% of the population is already vaccinated

I dont vaccinate and im still safe because of the other people that do.

Not really, science is based on the scientific method, which evolved throughout ages.
I might be wrong, but the lastest methods involve falsifiable hypotheses about how our environment works, which can be proved wrong by measuring phenomena and collecting data that undermine them. If that's the case, you have to refine your hypothesis to take the data into account, and so on.

As Nick Land put it :
>Science is orientated against scientists, capitalism is oriented against businesses. These are processes that are in a relation of subjecting the elements within their domain to aggressive destructive criticism with some kind of selective criteria, which means they push things in a particular self-propelling direction.
>You don’t trust scientists, you don’t trust scientific theories, you don’t trust scientific institutions in so far as they have integrity, what you trust is the disintegrated zone of criticism and the criteria for criticism and evaluation in terms of repeated experiments, in terms of the heuristics that are built up to decide whether a particular theory has been defeated and eliminated by a superior theory. It’s that mechanism of selection that is the only thing that makes science important and makes it a system of reality testing

Anyway, science is just a way of interpreting what the fuck is going on in this world and build a coherent system around that, inbetween the limits of perception allowed by our physical brains.
It is fundamentally imperfect, but it's all we have, and it has allowed us to survive and reproduce well so far.

Okay so maybe adjuvants do one thing, but they must have other side effects.

They also cause autoimmune disease apparently, WHICH JUST SO Happens i have

Autism AND autoimmune disease from putting toxic metals to make vaccines have longer shelf life and to "increase reaction"

Ever heard of a side effect ?

Adjuvants have them too. Not all chemistry is perfect

Every single drug/medicine has side effects, even fucking Aspirin has side effects.
What's exactly your point? you fucking nigger.

Very reactionary and unthoughtful responses.

The side effects of aluminum and mercury are brain damage and autoimmune disease

Listen, you're an idiot.

And literally who are you to make this claim?

Calling me an idiot doesnt make you right, especially without any reason or ability to see the other side of things.

That was self-evident.

Exactly this.

OP is a Jewish Nigger.

I honestly have very little to add.
The OP is clearly stricken with some form of paranoid-schizophrenia and worse yet may just be a christ-fag.
I would consider him to be a living embodiment as to why asylums are so important and need to be reopened.

That said.
There is nothing wrong with Positivism, nor incorporating Positivism into a religion.

I happen to have a doctorate in this very field. You are full of shit, using annecedote as evidence. The difficult part about biology is there are ten billion factors that could be causing your specific "ailments", yet since your mind is only capable of reductionist understanding of science, you simplify things to better understand them. Subtoxic does of mercury do not cause brain damage, aluminum cause neurofilament crosslink disfunction in your nerves only once it has reach certain thresholds. It's highly unlikely you've reached those thresholds, and if you have, vaccines are very likely not sufficient to have caused it. Aluminum isn't even relevant here since it is an environmental toxin.

Yea please enlighten me as to how the salt form of glutamate, an amino acid vital to life, is giving you mental disorder. I'd love to hear a biochemical explanation of that. Also I'd love to hear you take into account how it's naturally produced in high levels by the fermentation process, been consumed for a very long time in the form of soy sauce, and our bodies are wired to seek it out in the form of the umami flavor. Big bad evil science cabal at work, amirite?

thiomersal =/= mercury
that's like saying that table salt must be toxic because it contains chlorine

I feel like the results pretty much speak for themselves at this point. People who lambast science and even just the ones who get really overzealous against positivists strike me as desperate faggots clinging to outmoded ideology.

Problem of induction

SOP for any decent experiment these days expects a null hypothesis in addition to your experimental hypothesis. While the experimental hypothesis would be "X causes Y", the null hypothesis would be "no correlation between X and Y". Both of these would be laid out in measureable terms before the experiment is conducted. The procedure for arriving at the numbers would be included, citing current research in the field.

Once the experiment was run and data collected, the hypotheses would be compared to statistical analysis of the data. If the data supports a hypothesis the experiment is said to support that hypothesis. Otherwise it's said to either not support it or refute it depending on the results. The null hypothesis is there to give a baseline on what one would expect based on current knowledge if we assumed that the effect we seek to confirm does not exist. If neither the null nor experimental hypotheses are supported, that suggests that there is some effect, but it's not understood and warrants further investigation.

The really important number in an experiment is the p value. This is a derived number in statistical analysis based on multiple factors including the sample size (n). What it represents is the probability that the experimental results could have happened by chance if the effect observed did not actually exist. For instance, let's say you're testing whether scratching your balls improves your chances of flipping heads on a coin. If you test with 50 flips while scratching and 50 flips while not scratching, and get heads 40 times vs 25 times, the p value tells you the odds that you would have flipped 40 heads out of 50 ignoring all other factors. The smaller the p value, the greater the statistical significance of the study. The more important a subject is, the higher the standards (the lower the number) for the p value.

You can use the required p value as a rough measure of the "hardness" of a particular field of science. For bleeding edge physics we're talking extremely small numbers, like negative exponents with two digits small. For social sciences it's more on the order of 0.01 depending on the experiment. Exploratory studies have higher p values since they're not about "proving", just looking for something that can be more rigorously studied, but science popularizers and "journalists" tend to overhype exploratory studies with higher p values. This is how you get shit like "[food] causes [horrible disease]!" headlines. Someone tested and found a mild correlation between a certain food and cancer or something, and it gets exaggerated because that sells.

That's empiricism in general. Positivism attempted (but failed) to resolve this by reducing everything to logical language and logical language to a set of axioms. If it had succeeded in this, then it would have been able to overcome the inherent limitations of a posteriori synthetic statements by extending the a priori to the rest of the world, but it got shot down by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. Positivism has been dead since the '30s, much like technocracy.

Yes there is. Take a moment to think about this: "This statement cannot be proven."

ITT

...

I bet you think silly abstracts like the 'utility monster' kill utilitarianism as well.
I'm so embarrassed for you.

All of you damn reds would do well to read some Auguste Comte.
He may just cure you of the horrid sickness that is post-modern subjectivism.

I would also recommend you read read up on Comte's 'Religion of Humanity'.
Comte's religion is both secular and unabashedly Positivist in nature.
While not perfect in-and-of-itself, it does provide the framework necessary for a perfect religion to build itself around.

Science is the fucking stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

I am a math major and I hate working alongside all these selfsucking xkcd reading idiots.

Scientific is just a particular system of codified sorcery with a heavy numerological component. It's for gradually reconstructing God and Heaven on Earth after we accidentally killed both circa XVIII Century. It's lightning fast in Brahmanic time, but the penalty is steep, breeding billions of us in excess to torment as due sacrifice. Hopefully it's worth it haha, we know wht we're doing, s-surely

Is it that bad? What country and what field of study are these so called scientists from? I've worked with social scientists that they never glorified the scientific process as some tool of progress. Probably because they weren't doing hard science.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=vZQJFbrqjUY

Godel's incompleteness theorems were acknowledged in their time as killing the basis of positivism (being able to reduce the world to axioms & deriving testable statements from these). You're disagreeing with established math. So much for a belief in the supremacy of science and logic, Mr Scott.
Not everyone who rejects positivism is a postmodernist. You would do well to do some more reading yourself.

What kinds of people are you referring to? I'm studying to get a degree in computational bio, and most of the people are normies.

You don't know what you're talking about. What separates science from philosophy and theology is that its statements have to be rigorously proven by experimentation before being accepted as such. Regardless of views upon it, it demonstrably works.
If you've never done science, never read the literature coming from it, studied the methodology and its actual application, etc, what in the world makes you think that you're qualified to talk about even one of its fields, let alone all of it?

Social scientists aren't scientists.
—————-
Why is it that everyone is science-illiterate on the left these days besides a few Kropotkin-influenced ancoms? Why? We used to be the side of science and reason.

How come that the people at >>>Holla Forums are so much into the scientific method (a part when some autistic bot-like hordes of nobody know what shills threads with religious conflict nonsense, nordic vs christian, muslim vs christian, muslim vs nordic, jew vs graeco-roman etc. etc.)?

Instead, I am not surprised at all that here is full of wackos like irl.

Should be something connected to the way mods operate

It mostly has to do with alliances and such, bleed-overs from where each group got its base, etc. Whereas Holla Forums was originally founded by people from halfchan /lit/ and later got influxes from traditional "leftwing" (read: liberal) places (which tend to have large amounts of hippies and New Age woo-meisters), Holla Forums got quite a bit of population from Gamergate and the New Atheist crowd. I'm mostly just wondering how history could be so cruel and absurd to have things end up in stupid shit like this.
Also, don't forget to sage.

Science certainly isn't the same as religion, but I think there's a certain point to be made about the problems of science, e.g. between science as it is imagined ideally vs. science as it actually exists. Too many defenders of science rely on the former subjective ideal and talk about it as if it is what exists, characterizing anything against that ideal as deviation instead of a result of science as it is structured (particularly within medicine). On the other hand, some critics over-emphasize the distinction as being necessarily a result of science by itself rather than the current structure of science right now.

I didn't realise this board was full of science worshippers.

Ok, but HOW does it work? Can you show me that other suppressed approaches to sorcery do not work? Can you argue against them without circular reasoning and appeals to authority? If you wish to say you know of no possible mechanism by which other sorcery works, I'd like you to describe to me the mechanism by which science works. Your platitude-tier recourse to an abstract "Method" and appeal to results aren't mechanism. All sorcery has methods and results.

Communism is shit stop trying to defend your dead ass system. Now Not Socialism on the other hand.