Is being against identity politics a loser trait? I feel like you can tell a person is a loser by adhering to it...

I agree. I also find it patronizing. I don't know shit, but from what I understand, science is a complex challenging but fulfilling process. I'm tired of all the sensational, water downed explanations. Just tell me how it is.

That would require you to open up a textbook and read papers, which I'm pretty sure most meme scientists don't have time to do.

yeah I know. Their public explanations don't have to that detailed, but just hit the topic directly and explain it in a concise way. If helps more when you're exposed to something in a difficult way from the start.

how?

Oh yeah cuz everybody would admit to make fucking policies that have no evidential basis. What an idiot.

This is Neil deGrasse "philosophy isn't important just go for progress" Tyson I guess. What a fucking philistine douchebag.

Neil "Blaze it 420 de grasse"

Oh, this is quite aggressive for you.

youtube.com/watch?v=Sw1weml0-r0

click the blue arrow and press delete

He's one of the best ones actually, because he at least doesn't act like this is the 18th century and his ideas are mindblowing.

The smugness of this is what makes it so irritating for me.

It's a thinly veiled, yet loudly proclaimed assumption that anyone who disagrees with a """""rationalist""""" must be a fucking idiot that only thinks with feefees.

He may have some humility.

The problem with this pop-sci garbage is a lot of real science can't be explained in an easy and concise was that the layman would understand. It fools people into thinking they know anything about quantum mechanics or biochemistry when to actually have a basic understanding of the subject takes a few years at uni or intensive self study with a few hundred dollars worth of reading material. It leads to people forming scientific opinions on any subject based on their limited experience (political ideology, personal experience, anecdotes from the internet, etc.) and its harmful to science and progress as a whole. Every joe plumber thinks he knows better than climate scientists about earth's climate or immunologists about vaccines. Not just conservatives, but liberals like on reddit who blindly advocate evolved plant's or climate change with no fundamental understating, just that their liberal meme science man sad its true so it must be true! I'm a bio undergrad major and I know enough to know what I don't know. I'm not a geneticist, I'm not a biochemist, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a chemist, or anything else. My 4 years at uni and the internships with it let me barely scrape the surface of understanding the topics I'm studying. It's scary to think that people with LESS knowledge and experience than I do are voting on stem cell research or climate budgets with the idea they are somehow educated in the subjects.

Is my ideology correct, just because I say so?

NO!

You hit the nail on the head.

plz

Niel, as amazing as he is, should read some Latour

It doesn't help that people don't even have the time to be learn up.

that isn't a failing of pop-sci, it's a failing of educational systems and society not respecting and ingraining any sort of rationality and logic into its people. At least with "science!" being popular it gives real science some teeth in this shitty political system.

The first is a completely ethical question, don't pretend you need to know how stem sells work to know whether you should use them.

The second runs completely counter to the point you're trying to make. You can cherry pic demographics but it's overwhelmingly clear that it's pop-sci and reddit influence that is the drive behind forming a consensus on climate issues that is actually correct. Your post sums up as nothing other than pretentious twaddle.

I mean really, who can deny that the popularisation of scientific knowledge isn't a good thing? Without it do you think the situation would improve or be worse? It's completely transparent which is the case but I bet you'll deny the obvious so you can feel special about the fact that you got a stem degree after realising that it doesn't make you special at all.

The fact you're so triggered by someone advocating for evidence-based policy suggests that you might be a fucking idiot who only thinks with feefees.

Tell me, what other basis for policy would you prefer over evidence?

You foo. You're missing what people are saying.

What people are saying seems to be something like the following:

From my experience real leftists that are into anti-racist and feminist activities are perfectly fine with class struggle. The ones I've dealt with all agree that the destruction of the class system will alleviate a lot of what they are railing against. Although some artifacts from the old society will persist.

Class focused people only run into trouble when we belittle the things people are doing. Like, yeah, BLM isn't going to bring about the end of capitalism but that doesn't mean that reforming the police isn't something that will help a lot of proles in the immediate future. Solely class focused leftists should be lending support to these movements to build solidarity which can make the difference between someone being open to listening to you or not. We should be ready to talk about class without hijacking what they are doing. Class consciousness should develop organically. It shouldn't feel like a hostile takeover.

Or, you know, he could fucking stop posting

The one and only problem with that post is that it ignores class interests. Tyson is saying here that politics is simply and uncritically engineering.

This is liberalism.

...

I went to see a lecture presented by one of the scientists working on the ATLAS instrument used in the Large Hadron Collider a few years back. He presented the basic ideas that were behind particle physics and the search for the Higgs boson in an easy and concise manner that the layman understood.

Yeah I also don't get this. First of all resentful elitism isn't part of our practice but also how in the hell is particle physics and quantum mechanics relevant to policy?

If his point was that pop-sci masks a real need for greater access to education then yes I completely agree, otherwise what a tool.

Completely correct.

If only evidence is used to produce policy won't that cause massive stagnation as the country will be less likely to experiment with untried policies?

Brocialists are losers. Manarchist master race reporting in.

A shame that BLM has had nothing to do with reforming the police for a long time, then.

liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/anti-fascist-protester-who-threw-11550644

Perfect example of why we need to be out there helping the working class.

Well BLM consists of actual local activists who are interested in police reform and anybody that uses the hashtag or shouts it at a protest. The former is still very much active. You just here about the latter more often.

It was just an example anyway. I think the point remains.

Ah, the "ignore the constant and overwhelming flow of material that contradicts my position" argument we get constantly from SJW apologist shitposters.

Your "point" is a terrible joke. Any attempt to engage with these groups leads to infiltration from their members in parasitic attempts to subvert and repurpose the host to focus on idpol goals to the detriment of all else. The host organizations attacked have so far all been invariably destroyed or irreparably damaged.

leftypol dead on arrival

only if you're a faggot about it

...

Because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle means that reality is just language and that God is in the gaps.

I didn't ignore anything. I acknowledged that BLM has two very different faces.

I'm not saying we should be signing everyone we meet up. The goal is to get them to think about their situation in a different light. That requires them to actually listen to you which only happens through relationship building. You're not going to get anywhere with your little cabal.

No.

You can tell a person is a loser by the way they change things about themselves because they worry how it will make other people see them.

The whole concept of "loser traits" isn't something any genuine socialist should accept. id/pol/yps confirmed for class traitors, though we all knew that already.

I may get bitched at for saying this, but I think the whole "get the masses interested in science" has backfired spectacularly. They've done some really impressive work using relatable metaphors to explain theories to laymen, but to what end? Just because you have a basic grasp of the principle of a theory doesn't mean you actually understand it. I saw an argument between a scientist and a layman on /sci/ about this, and it really made me realize how in the dark most people are. The layman was arguing about some well-established theory (IIRC it was geocentrism vs. heliocentrism) and was trying to make a broad "philosophical" argument that because scientists wouldn't accept alternate explanations, they were not actually being rational or skeptical. The guy who BTFO the layman raised the following point.

In science, it's not just enough to have a plausible explanation that explains things better than the alternatives. The theory actually requires mathematical models and experiments that validate those models. The review process isn't based on people debating over which explanation is better; it's handled according to how well a model is supported by evidence. Even then, it's not a "best model wins" scenario, it's an "everything loses until something passes a certain threshold of support" scenario."

Here's why I bring this up. I'm not a scientist, but I read up on science. When I read that thread I already knew everything in the above paragraph. The important thing it made me realize is just how much this part of science is hidden to the layman. The "science is awesome" meme spouter has no idea of the detail of the process, or the meta-process (peer review). The "scientific method" people get taught is a much more simplified and abstract version of what actually happens, and it keeps them in the dark about how it works. More or less, the average person is OK with this setup. For millennia this is how the "knowledge class" did its thing in the West at least (i.e. religious institutions). The problem here is that for a lot of these people science has replaced religion in that role, but they don't understand the fundamental difference between the two. They treat science the way people treat religion. This is a huge problem that should be addressed. I'm not looking to point fingers exactly, but it arose from a failure to teach the underpinnings of sciences (the math and philosophy) to the average person. Before any schooling gets to specific disciplines like biology or chemistry, they should teach the fundamentals. This is how math gets taught, and it's how science should get taught - start with the foundation and build upward.

Shit, I remember back in high school being blown away that calculus was part of the standard math progression (if you got that far), but statistics was an elective. For fuck's sake statistics is more important than trigonometry at least. I would argue it should come right after algebra. You might even extrapolate backward and say it's a problem of Western education in general. (Not familiar so I can't speak to the rest of the world.)

tl;dr
Anti-vaxxers and climate-change "skeptics" think of themselves as the reformers or protestants to mainstream science's Catholic Church, and it's unfair to expect them to see it any other way given the state of science education.

how is this wrong or embarrassing at all?

this isnt a problem. Normies simply do not have the time to learn it. Without popsci most research will be illegal cause normies would know nothing about it and find it scary.

I mean there are a lot of practical issues with it. The problem he's trying to address is that politicians currently argue over what facts really are facts. Saying "let's look at the facts" to that is like walking into a Weight Watchers meeting and loudly saying "thermodynamics mean all you have to do is count calories in vs calories out." It's not that people don't know this; it's their inability to actually do it, because their hunger (for food or for lobbyist dollarydoos) is stronger than their desire for health (or effective policy).

too bad these Facts these nihilist alt-right meme scientists parrot around are always class-i mean race based bullshit neonazi feefee "facts" people like believing in irreducibly

who's to say what are and aren't facts when it comes to policy anyway. such a vague, wannabe intellectual statement. are all of tyson's fanboys 14 year olds?

What constitutes evidence? Who will judge this evidence and according to what metric? What if the evidence proclaimed x was a better option according to some review board but x goes contrary to the interests of the proletariat?

Supporting absolute truth based on metaphors and posting Neitzsche, the fuck?

Yes, yes you should.

Correct on this particular issue, but this is the same crowd that thought the EM drive meant star trek was a few years away. They don't actually know anything about the subject they espouse, just that their meme men said it was true. They are no different then anti-vaccers in this regard.

But its not knowledge, it's literally "Hey public, I'm a guy with a degree you should trust and this thing is true because it is" and those who chose to believe it do and those who don't, don't. They don't have any deep understanding of the subject, they chose who to believe based on public relations and political leanings. If Black Science Man said climate change was a total farce and had evidence and a degree to prove it, do you think reddit would prop him up the way they do? They already had a preconceived notion on what they were going to believe.

Then maybe they should abstain from voting on issues relating to it?

I don't see how my point could be taken any other way. Popsci is literally a Mcdonalds education.

like

People with this level of thinking skills should have never been let out of highschool.

This. Popsci is a major driver of complacency. It makes people content in their ignorance. It sells the masses an ersatz competence, and they eat it up like greedy wolves and starve, too full for genuine knowledge.

People can cloak utter unsubstantiated bullshit like this under the cover of scientific legitimacy. They come across as authoritative to their audience because the audience has been conditioned by the superficial and imitative, rather than a substantial education. They genuinely can't tell the difference for themselves without demagogue meme scientists holding their hands and evangelizing. This, ultimately, is damaging to society and sets a toxic precedent.
It literally just means that the distance and momentum operators have a nonzero commutator

It's reasonable to expect the quality of mass education to increase dramatically once it's no longer motivated in part or whole by the state-collectivized production of labor.
Also you really shouldn't undersell calculus for non-calculus based stats. Discrete probability is essentially useless.

I have heard this point repeatedly from a foilhatter I speak to. The problem is not the scientific education they have been given. The problem is that they refuse to accept the mainstream scientific data sources as authoritative. Indeed, the ability to propose a dissenting theory is a feature of science, not a flaw. These people exist in a world of misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies. My foilhatter acquaintance claimed that he had been checking what he had been told about the earth being flat. I check what he's spouting and it's a complete pack of shit. He hasn't even got the nature of the experiment he keeps whining about right. He declares himself a "philosopher", as well. He won't be told different.

I lay the blame for this squarely at the doors of postmodern philosophers. It is that discipline that has told people there is no such thing as objective reality. It is that discipline that has told people all is subjective. It is this discipline that claims "other ways of knowing" are as valuable as predictive formulae that have been tested to destruction.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/

Theres also a book I think. Talks about how people argued the "more phallic" string theory was muh privileged over the "more feminine" fluid dynamics (the million dollars for Navier-Stokes existence and uniqueness somehow doesn't count) and some paper on a "new feminist glaciology"

Make no mistake, objective and quantitative physical science as a whole is an enemy to these people.