Is blind belief in science also a form of ignorance?

[Anonymous]

-Is it wise to accept a treatment that has no long-term clinical evaluation because it believes in science?

-Is the person who refuses to have this treatment ignorant because he does not know the long-term consequences?

-Is blind belief in science also a form of ignorance?

[Anonymous]

Ok, so what you are talking about is the Covid vaccine.

I hope that wasn't supposed to be a secret.

Dogmatic belief in anything is not helpful to that particular mind but actually so long as whatever is being refered to as science actually is science then it the outcome is still reasonable even though the mind following it is 'blind'.

Science isn't always correct though, but it does represent our current best understanding and it is supported by evidence etc.

Certainly it would be jibberish to claim that there is no difference between dogmatically following religion and science, clearly these things are totally different as one has a sound foundation and the other does not.

Putting ones 'faith' in evidence is clearly objectively superior to superstition.

[Asker]

Actually, it's not just about the covid vaccine, but a general question I asked inspired by it. Even before the covid vaccine, I didn't completely trust any treatment that didn't have a long-term clinical evaluation. That doesn't mean I'm anti-science. On the contrary, I do not ignore the testing process, which is the cornerstone of science, because I trust science. However, as with everything in life, I do not think that it is right to trust anything blindly.

[Lliam]

Blind belief in anything is a form of ignorance.

The thing is, there is no such thing as "the" science or scientific consensus. That notion is a scam.

In regards to covid and the jab, the word science was used to manipulate the ignorant masses while real scientists were blocked, banned, censored, mocked, slandered, intimidated and punished for revealing findings that conflicted with the big money narrative.

Many of the people who refused to comply with mandates and refused the jab did so because the managed to access very credible information by actual scientists and researchers. It wasn't ideological.

[Lliam]

Thank you for the MHO.

[Gummy_Cluster]

Yes it is.

[GreenLanternI0I]

1. If one the most corrupt and one of the most sued company in the world, who created a ""solution"" refuses to be responsible for their product and are fully protected from any lawsuits by world governments themselves.

2. If there are already 100,000's of known cases that came out where it clearly shows that it causes permanent harm and death and where if you took that thing while being pregnant your miscarriage is almost guarantied.

3. ETC...

This is not science, this is blind believe and false hope that has been heavily propagated to the world for the past 3 years and people ate it up like it is a triple chocolate cake with a cherry on top.

[Gummy_Cluster]

They're not fully protected, they just want everyone to believe that. I read the actual document, and the lawsuits are going to flow like a river.

[GreenLanternI0I]

@Gummy_Cluster They won't, because corporations that are making those poisons have a full immunity, from ANY law suits. During the first few months this Enormous deceptions that has been pulled on humanity, both scientists, doctors and lawyers were yelling and screaming not to take this garbage, but Google, Facebook, YouTube and many Many other platforms and not just in United States, but all over the world shut them up, killed them (literally), fired them from their jobs and threatened them and their families. And now we are in a stage two WW3, don't you find it odd that now nobody speaks about this thing, but everyone is speaking about Ukraine. Do give you some conspiratorial food for thought this WW3 is a MUST because they won't be able to cover up a billion deaths in the next 3-5 years from now, but with this war they can simple say that they died in a battle field, or from starvation because of an economical collapse etc...

[Gummy_Cluster]

My war theory is that Biden, Putin and Zelenskyy are all in together on this. All three of them are getting rich, and the American tax payers are paying for it.
But about the law suits; I read that the companies have immunity unless they misrepresented themselves. Biden, Fauci, the CDC and many others told people they couldn't get Covid if they got the jab. Phizer now admits they never even tested to see if you could get or spread the virus if you got the jab. Look how many millions of people would never had gotten the jab had they known the truth. And I think the thousands of military people Biden fired for not taking the poison, should sue.

[GreenLanternI0I]

@Gummy_Cluster Your war theory is 100% correct, but you have to go a little further with your theory. Each and every person who is involved now and who will get involved later in this WWIII are ALL on Exactly the same page. They would make stupid amount of money, get rid of insane amount of people, which would allow them to consolidate their power over people to unprecedented levels and it would allow them to speed up technological progress, but not in a good way. 5G and 6G would be absolutely everywhere monitoring all people who are beneath them, autonomous cars, airplanes and boats would restrict access to 80% of all the land in this world and Smart Cities would become a high tech prison camps for 95% of population.

[Gummy_Cluster]

I hope the first nuke lands on me.

[Lliam]

🎯🎯🎯 GreenLanternI0I.
There is mounting evidence for massive fraud, though, and that's not protected against lawsuit.

[HighValue]

During the covid lockdowns, what they claimed to be "science" was actually just a lie. Even people that have had basic science courses should know the scientific method where something needs to be repeatedly tested by different people and consistently get the same results to be true. The mRNA poisonous "vaccines" were never consistent, even according to their own data that they hid from the public for a long time. Plus any new medication is normally in the testing phase for 7 years to see the effects, not just 9 months.

There were many lies prompted by Fauci.

[Lliam]

Well said, bro.

[RolandCuthbert]

You seem to have science and medicine confused. Talking about scientific discoveries, etc. of course most breakthroughs need a healthy about of skepticism.

Like Higgs boson was supposed to explain how matter received this property, we call "mass".

But it didn't. It only explained how this happened in specific instances, such as with electromagnetism.

The medical profession while based upon scientific discovery is usually about practices and treatments refined over decades.

But the great thing about the medical profession is you can always choose your own doctor. . . insurance permitting. . . and you can get second, third, and fourth opinions.

Or you can be your own doctor.

Good luck.

[Asker]

medicine and science are not completely separate from each other, medical science is one of the sub-branches of science and that's what I'm talking about

[RolandCuthbert]

I think I explained that quite well. If you have a response, go ahead and post it.

[Zandoval]

Yes it is. Because science can also be adulterated and wrong

[Asker]

Could it be another proof of their ignorance that those who blindly believe in science define those who are not like them as flat earthers? As if there was only one truth and everyone had to believe it.

[Zandoval]

Well truth my definition is objective. There can't be contradictory truths. Flat Earth is idiocy.

[Guffrus]

@zandoval

No, it can't, because by definition it would no longer be science.

[Zandoval]

Not really. Faulty and adulterated science is still science. It is scientists that are doing it and they do follow the scientific method to an extent. Just like a badly assembled car is still a car.

[Guffrus]

That is simply not the case.

If you are not making an honest attempt to find the truth then you are not 'doing science'.

To correct your analogy it wouldn't be a badly made car, it would be a fake car, like an inflatible or model car.

[Zandoval]

I disagree. You can still do dishonest science for it to be science. A lot of todays science is dishonest. I'd even say the majority is dishonest. That's what we're taught to do even in school for our degrees. Science isn't "idealism". It is a method.

[Guffrus]

It doesn't matter if you disagree, it is not an opinion.

[Zandoval]

But it is. We're doing philosophy here. Not science. You can't prove what science is scientifically. It is a matter of opinion.

[Guffrus]

It is objectively a fact that science is a tool which has been developed to discover truth.

[Zandoval]

It is also an objective fact that the same science has also been developed and used to spread lies and misinformation.

[Guffrus]

But it isn't.

The moment that you knowingly misrepresent anything or you ignore data etc you are no longer following the scientific method.

What you are talking about is by definition not science.

Calling something science does not make it science.

So you are wrong, please stop talking now.

I am not going to be engaging further with someone who cannot grasp this concept.

[Zandoval]

Again. That's what YOU claim it is. You've no evidence to back it up.

[Zandoval]

But yes, stop wasting my time and be on your way.

[Guffrus]

Omg you are so fucking dumb.

Do yourself a favour and go and learn what the word semantic means and what an argument from authority is.

[Zandoval]

You done? Now gtfo.

[Guffrus]

lol.

[Anonymous]

It is. Scientific results can be bought by those who are rich enough. For example the sugar industry paid off scientists to blame saturated fats for health issues caused by sugar.

A lot of people who blindly believe in science don’t actually believe in science, they don’t know anything about science. They believe in whatever they’re told by expert scientists on TV and in the news.

[gorydetails]

Of course. And it’s insidious because it’s a call to authority fallacy.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Yes. Ðat’s why science has laws and proven θeories to back oðer stuff up.

[NamerOfStars]

If it's blind belief, it isn't science.

[FilmGuy93]

Very much so.