Science for politics

4chan tends to have the flawed mindset that science has the ability to explain everything. First, science cannot explain anything 100%, since it is merely a likely theory of the phenomenon. Furthermore, science is constantly used for political economic warfare by both parties, both sides citing different scientists of differing opinions. Science cannot tell you the 'truth.' It can only tell you what the outcome of its flawed experiments are.

Furthermore, who is to say that the "ability" to explain anything is worthwhile? All it will do is create endless debates over the real truth that science is seeking, with foolish people citing one or two studies as ultimate truth, when they may be flawed and skewed beyond belief. The other side will cite studies to "prove" its own opinion. By the time science solves any problem definitively, it is far too late, just as it will be too late when global warming eats us alive.

>>1

I like the part where you do exactly what you were bitching about in the last sentence. Very entertaining.

>>1
How dare you question science?!!
You're probably one of those crazy religious fanatics who believes the world was created in 7 days.  GET OFF MY INTERNETS!!!1

>>2
Sarcasm, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

What can science do? For starters, I guess, stop being funded by corporate interests, and explain and publish its studies in a format that normal people can understand. Right now there is a huge gulf between what scientists can see in them and what normal people, even those politically invested, can get out of them. More than likely, it will just come down to Study X says this. Study Y says the exact opposite, and the public will not know anything beyond that of the two studies.

so instead of researching we should just NOT try to understand anything, thumbs up anynWHERE IS SARAH CONNOR

>>1 First, science cannot explain anything 100%, since it is merely a likely theory of the phenomenon.

This is why we should turn to religion for answers amirite?

Of course, politics SHOULD stay out of science, but the only thing that talks is money, so somehow we need to take the money out of politics (lol)

>>7
No one proposed to use religion.

>>8

No, but what else is there outside of LOGICALLY COMING TO CONCLUSIONS?

Science is flawed. If it were to be fixed, it could be helpful. Sadly, the people inside it will not change, because, for the most part, they live in their labs and don't care if they affect the outside world.

Science is not flawed, its just all you redneck retards that are to stupid to understand it. Quantum physics is not invalid just because i dont understand 99,99% of it, it just means i have to study MOAR.
And so what if sciense is used in political debates. That is actually an improvment, though a better understanding of statistics would help the idiots interpretations.

>to stupid to understand it
>to stupid
>to

>>12

is that a failed zoom?

>>1
I think you are full of fail, global warming needs more studying in my opinion,we don't know if this is a climate change or global warming

If it were to be fixed, it could be helpful.
Wowee, I guess all that medicine, traveling to space, and the machine you're currently typing on are imaginary.

Science isn't useful. No sir bob!

Inventors made compooters, not scientists<---SCIENTISTS ARE INVENTORS?

>>16
Inventors use principles discovered by scientists.

>>17
Which is why windowpanes, invented in the 13th century, are flat like the earth.

>>18

You're trying to tell me, without advances in science, that we could build computers, fly airplanes, create nukes, and basically have everything we have today? You're an idiot. Or a troll.

>>14
Global warming IS climate change and there IS a trend now towards gloglobal warming. The question is if its because of humans or just part of the climate systems natural variation (which most scientists believe it is not). But just because scientists believe this dont mean that they stop studying the subject, thats not how it works.

>>19
Science should not be. It should be something different and better, not something that's financed by the corporations and is impossible for the general public to understand or evaluate. The fathoms of unnecessary complexity due to meaningless jargon and indescipherable languages created for fields when you could just explain the phenomenon in everyday language instead.

>>21

Science isn't complex because it's paid for by business. It's complex because the world is complex. If the world was simple, we would have everything figured out by now.

>>22

No one said there was a causal relationship between those two complaints. It is not complex because the world is complex. It is complex because scientists have created their own sublanguage which they use and only their closed circles have access to without years of training, thus the public cannot evaluate the validity of a study, because it will make no sense to them. If the study was created using plain language, this would not be a problem.

>>23

Do you understand that the language they create is meant to better explain it to themselves and others, and not to confuse laymen? Yes, there are some silly confusing terms in scientific jargon, but thats mostly due differences in international and cultural standards, not because scientists make up new words to confuse you. You're just mad you don't understand complex physics, amirite?

I never tried to understand complex physics. Just one day I looked in some psychology book and it had a lot of weird symbols that I had never seen before accompanied by numbers and made no sense.

Here is a beautiful example of what it looked like, if 4chan can display this crap: Җע׃׃ 68 ֱט 34 ң ֱ

STUDY MOAR!!!

Or move to a country with adequate education.

>>28
Like the US

Anyway, the citizenry cannot read studies because its their own fault that they're dumb. Thus, we will never escape popular opinion quagmires and we're all doomed.

>>28
Yeah I did that and I perfectly understand Җע׃׃ 68 ֱט 34 ң ֱ now!

>>1
Science is the only way to determine the truth other than pure luck and luck is luck because it's far and few between. So for whatever reason you don't like it, we'd be worse off if we ditched science.

>>31
The whole point of it was science needs reformed.

>>31
Science cannot tell you the 'truth.' It can only tell you what the outcome of its flawed experiments are.

>>33
Assuming the experiments are flawed, yes.

We are fast running out of things to believe in. Who profits?

Nobody claimed that science came up with the truth either. It's all about confidence and theory, a technique that has worked well thus far.

If we're having any problems right now, it's not because of the scientific method itself.

>>36
But >>31 did.


>>Science is the only way to determine the truth other than pure luck and luck is luck because it's far and few between.

Science >>>>> guessing

Science is not better than guessing. Science is funded by the corporations. This means that it will be manipulated into an outcome that is against the general public's interests. It will not bring truth, only falsehood.

>>39
Stop using the internets! Its full of science!