I’ve always said there would be no anti-vaxxers if Covid made our eyes bleed.
Doesn’t matter the Covid death rate is worse than Ebola’s.
But I love sci-fi films where cities are so advanced.
Compare famous city pics of 100 years ago to today. Cities don’t change much.
Do you even know what science is? I ask because it isn't based upon "trust", but doubt. It's a method of enquiry that has at its core the investigation of observable phenomena, the testing of which aids in the establishment of hypotheses to account for such phenomena. That's basically it in a nutshell; it's a methodology, a process, a technique, not a set of "facts" (ex. the claim that the Chinses virus is deadlier than Ebola - utter tosh that) that one must accept on faith.
In any case, others have already said what needed to be said here, for I can clearly see that you are still peddling lies and horseshit. Give it up already!
Anti science logic is,
Scientists don't all agree therefore science is wrong.
Scientists have been wrong about stuff therefore can't be trusted.
Scientists don't know everything therefore they no nothing.
When science contradicts my political views it's wrong.
The fact cities change slowly proves science works. Science was used to create buildings that would last hundreds of years and are still in use
How about: even tho guy who literally invented rDNA technology believes the current "vaccines" (which are not vaccines in the true sense of the world anyway) were of limited effectiveness and no where near what Big Pharma and the government claimed, plus had severe side effects?
How about: a significant number of virologists who were defending the vaccines and incredibly dependent on the big drug companies for the funding that pays their salaries, so they had a very strong financial incentive to side with Big Pharma regardless of tests or studies?
It's completely unnecessary to have an "organized" conspiracy when you have groups of people whose interests are aligned. And on top of that, when they see their colleagues get stripped of their jobs, licenses, certifications, and associations merely for asking questions, most people will just do what they are told.
True science is ALL ABOUT being skeptical, asking questions, and challenging new ideas. Whenever you see THAT being shut down, it's no longer science, but propaganda.
Pfizer alone made $160+ billion in profits during the first two years of COVID, much of that being taxpayer money. That kind of money means there's plenty to pay for high-paying jobs and board positions for the families of Senators and Congressman, plenty to donate to charities and organizations that organize to support senators and congressmen, and so on. Such corruption is common and few in government are interested in preventing it, because they don't want to give it up themselves.
That's quite hilarious Ms. Poppy, because the buildings the ancients built (ex. the pyramids, the Pantheon in Rome) have outlasted, and continue to outlast, all the modern buildings that were "built by science".
"Science was used to create buildings that would last hundreds of years..." Really? Name one. They don't last hundreds of years, because they're knocked down every few decades or so in order to make room for what you no doubt think of as progress.
Just look at a town like Chester or Shrewsbury. They have lots of Medieval buildings are still being used as shops, restaurants, homes etc
Medieval buildings were "created by science". Er... okay :D
Science, as a universally accepted methodology, hasn't been around that long. I'm guessing you meant using complex mathematics, which would be more accurate although still not entirely accurate either (because the mathematics involved was rather simple).
@MrOracle The pharmaceutical industry is a business yes. Is it glutenous and in need of regulations... yes. right wingers don't like regulation so that can't happen easily.
Also unvaccinated death rate to vaccinated death rate. The end... vaccinations work. And sometimes they're more effective and less effective but they work. If you don't want it fine just stop with the disinformation.
Also if you want to challenge data then you need to be truly educated in science if you don't trust our institutions. That's the only way you will understand the actual science because most of us don't. It comes down to what and who you trust to be fair.
Which definition best explains science?
Answer and Explanation:
Science is about searching for answers to questions. However, it is much more than that. The best definition of science is that it is a method of asking testable questions based on a hypothesis.
What is the basic purpose of science?
Science aims to build knowledge about the natural world. This knowledge is open to question and revision as we come up with new ideas and discover new evidence. Because it has been tested, scientific knowledge is ((reliable)).
I can pay for studies that will get the results I want, peer review is good and all but they will still be publish even if they are flawed. If I pay for 10 studies and the opposition pays for 1 that does not change reality. When this is the norm for long enoght and its obvious that there are other financial modifications there is no reason to trust science. Sadly "science" on any political issue trying to inform policy regardless of your beliefs is just propaganda these days.
Opinion
28Opinion
I think a lot of the distrust of science would be quickly resolved if people actually felt like they were being told the truth for a change. Let's get away from the super politically charged stuff for a moment; it's just really difficult to trust that the person telling you to do something (whatever that thing may be) is telling you to do something in your own best interest when they've said and done so many conflicting things before.
Would you trust the word of an obese dietician? Probably not. Even if they were giving you the best advice in the world, the fact they don't have their own house in order automatically reduces their credibility in terms of telling you what to do.
Way off the mark as usual. The overwhelming majority of the “anti vaxxers” you speak were nothing of the sort, personally I got the first shot and was still fervently protesting the lockdowns and refused to go anywhere that asked about it.
I have friends and family working in research and academia, and they’re the first to admit that science can and frequently is biased in favour of the highest bidder, and the political and financial motivation behind the pandemic response is painfully obvious
What’s an anti-vaxxer?
Used to it meant people who didn’t want to give their kids the measles vaccine...
... then Leftist smear-merchants and useful idiots (looking at you) moved the goal posts and said “Hey, if you don’t want to take the vaccine that was rushed through clinical trials in a fraction of the time...
YOU'RE JUST LIKE THOSE OTHER KOOKS!!!
I probably have more vaccines than you do, but I wasn't stupid enough to leap at the chance to take a rushed drug for a virus that has a 99% survival rate.
Which booster are you on now? LOL
Aga dumb fuck covid19 vaccine went through the same exact hours needed for every other modern vaccine. The only difference was the overlapping tests and manufacturing. If anything went wrong you flip the table the over and start over again. There has been billions of doses if something actually happened a medical journal would publish something.
Most test don't operate that way because it's economy expensive. Covid19 was such a fucking disaster that throwing money at the problem was the best solution. The mrna vaccine was a thing since the 80s and nessesity is the mother of invention and it followed through with covid19 vaccine with its rapid mutations and variants. Booaters are a feature of mrna not a bug.
Some of our vaccine for the last 100 years are losing out to new versions of the disease so the new mrna vaccine is more relevent then ever.
saying a half truth isn't scientific. those who died had other background, and covid was a complications not a cause. like old people age 80 died WHILE having covid , not "because the breathing machine wasn't enough to save them". MOST of the so called covid deaths were age 80 old age. almost all deaths were over age 70. that study i quote WAS scientific.
Maybe if government and big pharma were honest and not corrupt to their core people would trust science. Maybe if scientists didn’t lie to keep their funding, more people would trust science. It’s mind-boggling that people who are the victims of constant lying and gaslighting are portrayed as the ones being in the wrong.
True, but scientists lie because society doesn't wanna pay them a livable wage. Becoming a scientist takes the longest time and initial jobs even when are in your thirties pay poorly. Most people don't like the government paying for universities. Poverty forces scientists to work for military or private companies that will fund them.
It has nothing to do with science. If we had a government that we could trust to tell the truth maybe people would not distrust everything they say because they hate being lied to. When you change what you call the truth on a weekly basis it makes it hard to know what is true and what is not. Just to be safe , you reject it ll.
Not really. There is a thing called the backfire effect and belief perseverance which no matter how hard something shown to have faults in it's logic and shown better logic people will stick to their own beliefs.
It's the only reason religion still exists today and sadly won't change.
@Kudos4U go on mate. Expain ur position without making use of ad hominems. U have to break throug and try to look at it objetively my dude. I can't really tell you whats 100 pecent correct but i can tell you that the media is lying to you. So is `mainstream science`which is really just media approved scientists.
@Kudos4U The backfire effect only works against belief systems not based on any evidence.
Last I checked religion is belief system not based on evidence.
It's not a backfire effect to know something has no evidence atheists don't believe there is no god, they think there is no god due to the lack of any evidence.
Thinking and believing are two different things come back to me when you realise that before trying to make a smartass comment.
so anyone that disagrees with your worldview has to be religious? Why are u involving religion (im assuming christianity ) in any of this? Ur comment isn't actually saying anything... And u finish with another ad hominem as usual.
Explain why my claim that modern media feminism is not fact based but rather a faith based believe system upheld by censorship. I don't know what you are talking about.
You are saying that since im denying the approved worldview i need to lay down the evidence right?
ok how about: everyone especially women gets unhappier by the minute. If this is such a good idea why is everyone getting more and more miserable as all of this progresses. Especially women.
Well its an example for why people dont trust mainstream science. The first red pill of many. Why is everyone especially women getting more miserable the more feminism gets spliced into society.
Ull find this one google by the way they openly admit everyone is getting more depressed year by year. But why? Maybe its cuz humans are social creatures and they crave (big) families. But thats just me. You can have ur own theory.
Unless you are all knowing or omnipresent, you cannot prove your claim that religion has "no evidence."
You are literally just asserting generalization fallacies, which is why you are ironically a perfect example of the backfire effect.
Now prove my point by ignoring the faults in your logic.
You really need to know the difference between a belief and thinking. Because once you educate yourself on that you will realise, belief systems are much stronger in conviction but also rely on no evidence.
Better go tell the priest down the road "Hey you don't believe in god and put all your faith and trust into him you just think there is one." and see his visible confusion.
Thank you for further proving my point. In your narrow mindedness you keep making absolute claims as if you know every religion and how every religious person thinks.
Belief and thought aren't mutually exclusive, and whether you like it or not, there have been countless intellects throughout history that believe in a creator *because* they *thought* it through.
Don't @ me if you cannot exercise basic logic.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're an ignorant child and not an adult making these silly strawmen.
@Kudos4U Thinking and belief are different simple as that go do some research on it and it's funny you think smart people can't have belief systems. Because those intellects indeed had a belief system and did experience the backfire effect too.
Also facts are narrow minded, because it's a fact. It's a fact that a belief is very different to a think.
If I said I believe 1+1 is 3 because one time I read a book that told me so. That's a belief.
Now if we were to using some thinking we would go okay so get a thing then put it with another thing how much does that make oh 2 so 1+1 is 2.
But you can't do that with god as there is no method to prove it. Therefore one must only believe.
Anyway if your gonna keep arguing that believing in god is not a belief system I don't really need you to respond because it's just going to go around in circles, and all I can say is you would find it hard to find people who agree with you because even religious people know it's a faith not a science. Though tbf there are idiots who name something scientology or astrology to try make it seem like real science so... maybe you would find those that agree with you.
the problem with covid is that a lot of the "conspiracy theories" around it have now proven to be true, which dealt a huge blow to the societies trust in science.
basically when the media says "follow the science" when making a normative statement, you can 100% say it's propaganda bullshit every time.
so the problem isn't really with "the science". the problem is with the media.
it's like you read the science and the media keeps claiming stuff that the science alledgedly says and you know the science doesn't say that, cause you read it. same with the global warming bs.
Some people are just toddlers with no object permanence. Even the ebola thing was a way to play peek a boo.
Any given day of covid19 peak desths killed 2,996 people, equivalent to the 9/11/2001 terrorists attack on the United States of America. At what point does a government do something about anything? Too little to late is what we got.
No. That's like saying atheists would become "believers" if God was more "prominent".
Doesn't matter if it's flat earthers, atheists, anti-vaxxers or any other crazies. It's their reliance on opinions, not facts, that is their problem.
doesn't matter what the diesease is called their will always be somebody who says "gumbyment trying to scam us"
or the world will end in (insert year) been saying that one since 1972!
them zombies ain't gonna git me.
thats why everybody was hoarding toilet paper. runny nose not runny bum.
I don't think it's that they distrust science. I think in reality what they want is freedom.
They subconsciously believe in freedom but don't really understand it.
They cannot advocate for freedom in rhe face of numbers and science. So therefore they find ways to disregard science.
They cannot make the freedom argument because they never understood it in the first place. Since they are lacking in basically everything intellectually, they only have one weapon. Ignorance.
I think we're forgetting how the biggest anti science crowd has zero understanding of the science they reject. Science isn't perfect and we don't know everything and will get some stuff wrong but it's not a big conspiracy theory to depopulate us. If it is it's failing because all the vaccines and the pills in the world and we keep growing lol.
People lose trust in science and scientists when they are repeatedly caught lying like that piece of shit Fauci, the doctors and academics claiming that men are women, or you for claiming that COVID (>1% mortality rate) is more deadly than Ebola (<50% mortality rate).
Science isn't trust based, and never should be. No one takes issue with science, many people take issue with sketchy studies and dogma backed by special interest groups.
Science dies when we neglect its limitations and automatically accept the claims of its supposed authorities.
No, because the anti-sciencers cherry pick the science they want to believe in. If it's useful to them they accept it, if it means they have to wear a mask or stop emitting carbon it gets dismissed.
The people who say trust the science don’t actually understand the science.
There is no such thing as science being settled. Beliefs like that go against the scientific method
Yes but science doesn’t prove absolutes. You’re taking an absurdist route. Of course “consensus” was once flat dearth and sun orbits us. Science gives the best possible truth (or understanding) with current evidence. And to be the most accurate, consensus is needed.
Some doc could publish a paper that’s true and no one currently agree with. Because the evidence points the other way. This doc didn’t do enough to find new evidence. Even tho their conclusion may be accidentally right. See?
Which antivaxxers? You'd have a point if they are the ones who believe that vaccines cause autism but we have laughed them out of the room a long time ago.
The antivaxxers of today don't think it is the government's job to hold people's lives hostage until they take a medical procedure that not everyone will benefit. The fact that the government is holding this much control is enough for people to be suspicious about the effectiveness of the vaccine, as they wouldn't put you in such a position if they didn't think that if they advertised it normally you would think it wasn't good for you.
Yeah how about asking the very guy who invented the mrna technology, Robert Malone?
He gave his reasons why he is against the current vaccines but the liberals are doing damage control by saying he is spreading misinformation.
Should we listen to the experts or not? Make up your mind.
Malone wasn't "laughed out of the room." Most sites would ban people for saying what he said to begin with, which anything that went against the World Health Organization. You could say he was mostly "pre-laughed" so you can always say that 10 scientists out of 10 agree with the corporations and government organizations who pay them.
I say mostly because he had to go on Rogan, who I believe was on Spotify at the time, to say it and Spotify was at least smart enough to realize that they are not, nor should they be, responsible for the opinions of individuals who use their platform. That was how he was able to say anything at all.
He left on his own and the mainstream media all shat their pants at the very thought of a doctor talking smack about the corporate agenda.
Because Rogan does not discriminate on opinion. He wants to hear all sides. It's really funny that people say that he is even right wing because he is a Bernie supporter.
Are you mental? He is EXACTLY what we both bitch about in cable news. He doesn’t challenge guests when they make bullshit claims, and he invites the nuttiest people on air to give them larger spotlights- again without challenging them.
Bill Maher used to challenge them more. Now he’s become more like Rogan. Just a cuck in it for ratings. Because it’s all he has.
Yeah he just let's them talk and asks questions to allow them to expand it even further. The only reason you would have a problem with that is if you don't think people are unable to tell when someone is full of it or not.
If you do think that then you are in no position to be in power because you will not allow people to have views that differ from yours and different viewpoints are needed to keep our alignment as close to the truth as possible.
The more you forbid any viewpoints from a top down perspective, the further from the truth we will be. This is why we have the first amendment.
Yes that is my problem. When a majority of America gets their news from Facebook they can’t be trusted to know what’s commentary or what’s actual fact.
That’s why if Rogan had an ounce of integrity he’d challenge his guests on their batshit crazy beleifs.
How did I even know about Malone? Because some fcking anti vaxxer uploaded his interview without doing the homework. So I had to. And eviscerated Malone.
I think the problem is that often times is science is run by businesses who want certain results. I think science needs to be more neutral in order to be respected.
Science would not be more respected because there will always be a group of people, mostly uneducated men, who think they know better, refuse to listen to facts, and cannot be reasoned with.
like those who say here "nothing to debate".
in contrast to "Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics" joining signed a declaration stating “there is no climate emergency". those claiming the emergency fit your description you wrote.
@strateguy632 He's out of his field.
Its not science that people distrust, but the dishonest track record of the people who claim to be practicing it.
Unfortunately "science" has become heavily politicized, which kills the credibility of scientist in general.
I think things like cell phones and electric cars are pretty prominent.
Though electric cars were dominant in 1900.
They probably would but that seems like deception in disguise to me as a Giga Chad.
Pretty sure the "Covid death rate" is nowhere near as bad as the Ebola death rate.
Dogmas aren't science.
You can't trust what you don't understand
Don't think so
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
