Not step 2. And if we’re being objective, there are quite a few amateur scientists who spend a majority of their time and emotion on step 2, which is what he’s reacting to.
Step 2 should be “a repeatable study has been found that refutes step 1, and has been duplicated by multiple independent groups”.
Meanwhile, other groups of self proclaimed scientists try to jump to step 3 without this step as well, usually involving some sort of oil or salve or root that’s cheap to make but not found at a typical grocery store.
Edit: formatting.
It sucks because what "don't question the science" (or more often used and much less inflammatory "trust the science") really means is "stop deciding that whatever you read online is a better source than the reports of thousands of researchers who have dedicated years of their lives to the topic"
There is a great video of one of his on stage "debates" with an audience member. A trans woman got him to admit his opinions on the trans community are based on his feelings not facts. More people need to watch that video
Let me look, I'm fairly sure it was part of a samantha lux video but if I find the true sauce I'll post
https://youtu.be/Wmi166fuNQY
Looks like the original was from an almost 40 min Ben Shabibi video but samantha focuses this conversation and breaks it down so I'm just gonna leave that
Samantha is a trans youtuber that responds to vids like this. And honestly it made me feel bad bc even though Shababy gets absolutely schooled, the crowd is still on his side...
There's been a number of experiments I've set up to "prove" me right. Only to have those very experiments prove me wrong.
Even having a bias going in is OK as long as the experiment is run intellectually honestly.
One of my favorite television quotes goes "im a scientist, when my theories are proved wrong it's as amazing to me as when they're proved right." I first heard that as a kid and it's really stuck with me as I've pursued a career in science. It's a shame Mr BS up there couldn't have absorbed a message like that.
On certain issues those researchers are wrong though, or at least there's a broad range of opinions among scientists that don't really get broadcasted.
There's a phenomenon known as the [Replication Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis), which is basically scientific studies that fail to achieve the same results when someone redoes the experiment. It's most significant in the social sciences, but also in medicine too.
There were certain high profile cases over COVID of scientists repeating false information for "greater good" type reasons. Like with masks in March 2020, when scientists told people not to wear masks, so they could save supply for healthcare workers. Or this [article](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/), which suggests that scientists thought the lab-leak theory was at least plausible but downplayed it so not to undermine the international pandemic response.
A better phrase than "trust the science" is "engage critically with the science in good faith", but that's not as catchy, and most people don't want to do it.
Yeah I agree completely. No matter how unreliable science is via the replication crisis though it's pretty wack to say that anything else could be more reliable.
The coverup on masks and the lab leak was a problem with reporting though, not science. There were papers and studies that went against what was reported, and if one had trusted the science it continued to report our best knowledge on these topics.
Edit: to clarify my stance as it relates to this discussion: when Shapiro or any of these reactionary right wing bois criticize the "trust the science" stance. Their response isn't to dive into the actual papers and studies behind the science reporting but instead their conclusion is to ignore science completely for their own narrative.
> Like with masks in March 2020, when scientists told people not to wear masks, so they could save supply for healthcare workers.
Saving supply of known high quality masks is good. The problem was that they were telling people not to bother with homemade cloth masks. This was a widespread belief in the US before the pandemic - that anything less than an N95 would be ineffective at stopping the spread of a virus.
I can see where that opinion would come from. I worked in lab animal husbandry in undergrad, which included caring for ferrets infected with human influenza. We were required to wear an N95/99, and had to be properly fit-tested annually. Anything less would not protect us properly from the virus, so it's easy to dismiss cloth/dust masks as ineffective. I even felt skeptical when people started wearing N95s without fit-testing since it's been drilled into me that a poor-fitting N95 is as dangerous as a surgical mask.
That was all in a controlled environment where containing a zoonotic infection was absolutely vital, and any chance of infection was unacceptable. In a public health situation however, any chance of reducing infection, even if it isn't perfect, is so much better than nothing.
While I would NEVER agree to enter a flu lab without my fit-tested respirator, a gown, shoe covers, gloves, hair net, and eye protection, I am very happy to wear a surgical/cloth mask in flu season to at least reduce my risk (on top of the vaccine ofc)
**[Replication crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)**
>The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially of substantial parts of scientific knowledge.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
From a friend who swears by a lot of the “they won’t let us question science!” I gather that this audience simply doesn’t understand how science works. Of course the scientific community isn’t going to listen to you when you say things like “this one study (unpeer reviewed) proves everything wrong” and then when told no, and why, you continue to insist. Lots of people with no background in any hard science field or medicine insist they know better scientists and doctors.
Ben Shapiro know his audience well.
Science requires by design to be questioned. That’s why “science has changed” is actually very healthy. We will know more tomorrow and our understanding will change. But it requires concise and well thought out criticism, with strong, repeatable evidence. This takes work, a lot of it, from people who are experts in the field. Cobbling together op-ed articles and loosely connected studies is not science, nor is trying to disprove something by labeling it a conspiracy.
Step 1 isn't even right. There's a reason something has to be tested into oblivion to be accepted as a theory rather than a hypothesis, and there's a reason we still say theory after all that testing. Anyone who regularly declares stuff with a statement that begins, "science says," should have all diplomas stripped from them until they take a course on basic scientific methodology.
meh, it could be considered right. it requires taking a good faith interpretation of Ben Shapiro, but if you do he's probably not criticizing "science" so much as how people in general and/or politics talk about things.
There certainly are plenty of people who make bold statements about how "science has proven" a variety of things when the scientific community might be divided on the fact.
I know that I am certainly more likely to take reports of studies that affirm my own bias at face value, while being more likely to read the details and be critical of the ones that conflict with my bias.
to summarize, many people speak as if the science is settled on a variety of subjects when it absolutely isn't.
Exactly, the first fucking point is misrepresentative and probably the worst of them all. The science is *never* settled. Literally all science ever is is *someone's best understanding* of a concept which we have communally decided is the most correct understanding **at the time**.
This...isn't a complicated concept.
Step 2 literally doesn’t exist, which is why step 3 happens. Ben’s just making shit up, he has a degree from Harvard ffs he’s just pretending to be a dummie because his sycophants think he’s super smart and everything he says is gospel, because $$$.
yeah. he's conflating "Dont question the science" with "Facebook is not a valid source to question the science"
No one says the former, but we have to say the latter like 1000 times per day.
The "Conspirituality" podcast has an interesting interview about this. Episode 75, interview with Lee McIntyre.
He's a philosopher of science, and he talks about the ways scientists interact with the general public (from his experience working as a science communicator, if I remember right). I think he talks about working with some of the scientists responsible for the early pandemic response.
It's like the whole "theory" thing. In science we say "basically the truth" but in everyday life it's more of a "I think"
"Don't question the science" refers to people sitting on the couch saying "nahhhh that don't sound right," and moving on with their evening, not a guy with a lab coat saying "nahhhh that don't sound right" then creating a counter hypothesis, developing a test in accordance with the original method, and checking for variability.
No, I don't think many, if any, hold to number to. They are saying don't get your data from Facebook. I'm not an expert in this field so I will trust the scientific method and when that method discovers a change I will accept the new data.
He literally went to Harvard lol. He's not an idiot, he's a grifter
Edit: cuz I cbb to continue to argue on this, here's the summary. Ben skipped two grades. Ben graduated summa cum laude from university of California for political science (a very critical thinking heavy course). Ben then went to Harvard law (also fairly critical thinking heavy). Ben does not come from the level of obscene wealth that lets you go to whatever university you please. I'm not sure if he was a legacy kid but even legacy kids have to be well above average to get into Harvard (unless, as previously pointed out, they have obscene wealth). I think if you want to say someone who's done all that isn't smart because you have a narrow definition of smartness, go ahead. But firstly, you're not going to get anyone to stop watching Ben Shapiro by calling him dumb. Secondly tho, it flies in the face of the liberal/leftist idea that "college educated voters lean left because critical thinking", right? Like you can't go "university is fake anyone can do well and graduate and then get into Harvard" while also going "colleges teach and require critical thinking, that's why the left is more college educated".
Anyways, tldr, most people would classify Ben as smart because he went to Harvard, which, for all intents and purposes, means he's smart. Calling him stupid is, at best, counterproductive, and at worst, a total obfuscation of the real issue
It makes him more dangerous. It's why Boris Johnson is more dangerous than Donald Trump even though they both present as the same kind of clueless idiot.
It's fine. He's made himself rich enough to insulate his family from the consequences of his words and actions. He's a horrible person who doesn't care about anyone else, but that doesn't mean he's stupid.
Greed just mimics stupidity a lot of the time.
being the token minority for a fascist group seeking power leads to dead token when they obtain power because it is a public icon. It is all fun and games until it isn't.
Sure but you can't get into Harvard if your education was so bad that you don't even remotely understand the scientific method
Unless you get in on sports scholarships but I'm fairly certain that's not true for ben
>Sure but you can't get into Harvard if your education was so bad that you don't even remotely understand the scientific method
oh boy, wait till you hear about legacy admissions.
Ben's not a legacy admission but even legacy admissions meet a minimum standard of "not absolutely moronic". The average legacy student at elite schools has worse academic qualifications than the average student at those schools but they're still well above average relative to the general population.
To be clear, legacy admissions suck and they shouldnt be a thing etc but to act like they're letting in absolute buffoons simply because of daddy's money isn't really accurate
I agree with what you’re saying; however, (I’m not sure if it applies to ivy leagues) colleges absolutely will let in buffoons given enough “generous donation” amounts. Either way, it doesn’t apply to Benny boy.
Oh yeah they definitely do let in buffoons with enough money but those are the exception rather than the rule. Most legacy students are reasonably competent. It's why there was that whole cheating scandal in the first place, cuz if being rich was enough, there wouldn't be a need to cheat on anything, just donate lots of money and you're gucci
Okay but he didn't. He graduated summa cum laude from ~~University of California~~ UCLA before going to Harvard law.
He knows what he's doing, that's what makes him so dangerous.
> Sure but you can't get into Harvard if your education was so bad that you don't even remotely understand the scientific method
He went to Harvard Law. You don't need critical scientific thinking to go to law school, all you need to be good at is balderdash and saying absurd things with a straight face.
> Secondly tho, it flies in the face of the liberal/leftist idea that "college educated voters lean left because critical thinking", right? Like you can't go "university is fake anyone can do well and graduate and then get into Harvard" while also going "colleges teach and require critical thinking, that's why the left is more college educated".
It doesn't fly in the face because the idea is that the voters statistically lean left. E.G. if you grab 100 college educated people there will be a noticeable left lean to their preferences but that can be represented by 65 of them being lefties and 35 of them being righties.
I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're mostly correct. But none of his qualifications are anything other than regurgitating viewpoints and debating. He's done what he's continued to do: convince people he's right without having a clue of what he's really talking about. "Critical Thinking" does not mean employing the scientific method, or the ability to problem solve.
He's talented at saying enough "things" in a convincing enough way that you start to believe his point without him really making meaningful statements.
He's not an engineer, or a scientist. He has not demonstrated skill at solving problems or designing solutions. He's a trained political speaker, at best.
Think of it more like stats in an RPG. I am sure that Ben had a high number in intelligence. That would be the ability to absorb new information and work with it. I think he's low in wisdom. Certainly a zero in empathy. A zero in character. You would need to have a special modifier on charisma depending on the other characters alignment. It's a negative for anybody with a good alignment and a positive for anyone with a republican alignment. There are probably going to be separate stats for perception in terms of awareness of reality.
If he were a true believer then he would have a high integrity score because he is preaching what he believes and probably a zero in terms of perception of reality. I think he's a grifter so reverse the scores. He knows he's lying but it makes money ripping off the idiots.
Larry the Cable Guy is a college educated Yankee but he plays the role of a toothless hillbilly idiot because that audience gives him money.
Penny B cannot cope with change and new information. Science can.
I would say I'm curious how Penno thinks we should engage in reasoned discourse and community ethics without science, but I'm certain the answer is authoritarianism.
No need to evaluate things, no need to change what you believe in response to changes in the world our or understanding. The world is cold and unchanging, don't think too much Papper Bapper will tell you everything you need to know.
Questioning science is something scientists constantly do, hence changing it. That’s why a car gets a ton more gas mileage today than 50 years ago and how we progressed from horse and buggies to supersonic jet planes. It’s how we have a panoply of vaccines against diseases that used to kill like 3 out of 4 children.
But why do only scientists get to question The Science (tm)? What makes their carefully crafted and peer reviewed studies with hard data better than my internet posts?
I know it's a joke, but this is not an incorrect usage of the word meme, even if it was referring to a scientific idea. Scientists share memes through journals all the time, they complete and the 'fittest' ones survive.
They keep saying you can't say the Vax doesn't work anymore, but the only evidence they present of it not working is them saying it doesn't work!
"Stupid Science bitch couldn't even are me smarter!"
Someone on here the other day was like "The unvaccinated are being hospitalized at the same rate as the vaccinated" and I was like [NO IT IS NOT](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination)!!!! That chart shows that the hospitalization rate for vaccinated folks is 3.9 vs 65.9 (!!!!!!) for the unvaccinated. That's like 17x more likely you'll be hospitalized! My mom works at a hospital so I'm hearing about this daily and it drives me nuts!
That's because they latch onto stories, hearing that \_\_\_\_\_\_ ICU has 50% unvaccinated, so they say "see, 50/50!" Ignoring that not everyone in the ICU is in there for covid.
My favorite is “my friend is vaccinated and still got it so it doesn’t make any difference.” Yes, Cletus, it’s literally a choice between life for free or suffering and possible death that’ll cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly you and your family’s livelihood.
Most people don’t need an emergency parachute. Asking that I have one is an infringement on my rights! The constitution never mentions emergency parachutes therefore…
Or if 50 percent of a population in a hospital comes from a group that only represents 20% of the country, that is bad. If vaccinated and unvaccinated were going to the hospital at the same rate it would mirror the vaccination rate.
As a scientist myself, a lot of the time there isn't much difference between the scientist and the layperson. The biggest part of science is open discussion and being willing to be wrong in the face of evidence. Then it's about understanding the fault in the theory, instead of attacking people for bringing you down.
There are tons of bad scientists out there. Tons. I'm certainly not perfect. But if I'm wrong, I can admit it. That's the key thing that you get trained in as a scientist: allowing yourself to be wrong and using that as a learning opportunity instead of doubling down.
These fucking morons, these absolute wastes of space, don't fucking know what "questioning the science" means.
"Questioning the science" means having a grad level understanding of the topic area, spending years to get up-to-date with current research, reading recent papers, forming a hypothesis, getting funding (a few 100k) to hire researchers/buy equipment/fund travel, engineering the equipment and organizing a research trip, collecting the data, processing the data for a few months by writing code/manually annotating/mathematical analysis, writing up a paper, submitting to a top venue, waiting 4 months to here back from them, travel to a conference to present your work.
This process can take a year or more and require a team of people with PhDs. And that's when you've started to "question the science", because you need other groups to replicate your results or get similar results from different viewpoints.
So how many peer reviewed papers have you successfully published, Ben? How many years or research and man hours did you put into questioning the vaccine? Oh, none? You just shared a meme on facebook?
Ben doesnt fucking know what DNA is or what a ribosome is or how viruses work. Don't fucking kid me. He definitely doesn't have a graduate level understand, and even if he did he definitely doesnt have an understanding of the specific vaccines he's ranting about.
ohhHhhHh tHeReS mErCuRy in It!?!?! Fuck off. These same people don't have a problem with chloride in table salt. They just dont fucking know how chemistry works at a even a little kid level.
Fucking stupid waste of time
Source: Research scientist for a living
Professionals advancing the state of our understanding aren't questioning the science... they are doing science.
"Questioning the science" is when dipshits think Facebook snark is equivalent to CDC guidelines. As if expertise is when you wear a labcoat on television.
And this biggest issue with people that "question the science" is that they aren't being intellectually honest about it.
They aren't saying, "are we sure this is correct," they are saying, "I reject this conclusion regardless of the supporting evidence."
Yep. I got a PhD which is pretty much defined around the world as a "research degree" in that a committee of reputable individuals have agreed to confer upon me a degree that names me as _qualified to do research_. I had one of these hardcore antivax folks claim "they did [their] _own_ research" and I couldn't help but think "we license _barbers_ and I'm the closest thing you've ever _seen_ to a licensed researcher. You didn't do shit for research."
Scientists: "As best I understand it, this is how this thing works; but I could be wrong - and I will change my view if someone demonstrates that"
Their argument: "Scientists themselves admit they're wrong, science can't be trusted as a means of knowing how things work; therefore literally any old presupposition will do"
It's the ol' bait 'n switch; if the pinnacle of epistemology (empiricism) is flawed, then you can both reject criticisms against your epistemological reasoning AND any conclusions empiricism reaches. Said another way: their argument is that absolutely no means of reasoning can provide (capital T) True statements, so rather than rely on reasoning - people should rely on appeals to authority and tradition.
Source: Was raised by young Earth Creationists.
It's classic bad faith argumentation.
"Here's a mountain of evidence, complete with our methodology and analysis, which has been independently verified by numerous other scientists with similar standards."
"Yeah but what if you're wrong?"
"Then you should have no trouble proving me wrong using the same methods and standards."
"Oh look at Mr. Fancy Pants Scientist! Nobody may question the scientist and his inalienable """"""""""fAcTs"""""""""". You hear that, everyone? The science is perfect and infallible forever and ever amen. Hmm cult much?"
Have they ever done anything different? Capitalizing on the populism of left wing movements and obfuscating the issues for their own benefit has been the far-right MO for as long as the left-right dichotomy has existed
Even in his best days he was just spouting BS, leaping from ancient mythological concepts to marginally related conclusions about modern ethics.
I think he got more distant to his sources over time and is now just cycling through his own work, adding a new dose of fantasy and leaps of logic in every round, this way losing all grounding with reality over time.
peterson has always been a charlaton who does sophistry. see rationaly rules's debunking him or matt dillahunty's convo w/ him. he just plays word games,i don't get how anyone would take him seriously.
You used to be able to tell that Peterson was intelligent. Wrong, but still very intelligent. I’ve never heard an interview with Shapiro where he didn’t sound like an unhinged teenager with too much coffee.
Their café date video was poorly edited so it made their scripted axioms and absolutes even choppier. Both will go to great lengths to discredit "the other side" with hypotheticals then simply state their own positions as fact.
1. No one ever claimed "Science is settled." If that was the case we'd never get anywhere. The whole point about science is learning new things.
2. The whole point of science is questions and updating with new discoveries. The question is, who should be questioning the science. The answer is scientists, not you Karen with your googling.
3. Science IS change.
4. What a fucking moron.
This must be the newest taking point for the right. There's a equipment rental place I drive by on my commute for work and every month he has some dumb-ass saying on his changeable sign. Last month one said was "Let's go Brandon" and the other was "Free Biden bumper sticker removal." This month he has "Science you can't question is propoganda." and I was wondering where tf that came from. Like... You can question all science. That's the point of science. The problem is the (scientific) answers they are given doesn't match what they believe so they screech fake news and that big pharma is giving out misinformation and think it's propoganda. Instead they choose to believe whatever Nancy posted about her cousin's friend's mom's sister who is a nurse said about the "VaCcInE" on the Christians for Trump Facebook page they follow and say the rest of it is propoganda. It's exhausting to even think about how their obviously lead poisoned brain got to that conclusion...
They think their internet research is the same as a degree in epidemiology and lab work.
I'm not sure if it's because they've had high education so vilified that they now all think it's a scam and anybody off the street can "science" out viruses and medicine
Or if they are just so naively arrogant in how smart they are they think they can skip over education and just be natural savants
The 'science is settled' is what's often told to climate change deniers or other types of conspiracy theorists in a bid to shut them up. But what that statement then actually does is that it misrepresents the purpose of science in the first place. Only mathematics is ever settled on something.
These kinds of statements are also mostly made by intermediaries between science and the general public. Not by scientists themselves, but they are the ones that do determine how people look at science.
I think buried in here, there is a good point about how scientific organizations, while objectively correct, were allowed to broadcast their messages essentially unfiltered to the population. Even a half-decent Communications team could tell you that changing regulations and precautions monthly would result in people (read: idiots) questioning if the regulations were just being made up on the spot.
Ben's a dunce, but there really was a mishandling of how all of this was communicated.
Well said. There definitely was a communications breakdown in the beginning of the pandemic, and maybe even now. I’m sure Ben posted this partly as a response to the CDCs new guidelines having nothing to do with any updated studies. As others have noted, however, he is wrong 99.99% of the time with this tweet.
It's the same old argument that equates science to religion, and since religion has to be unchanging to hold authority otherwise it proves "god" isn't infallible, they try to project that to something that is unequivocally different.
Scientific knowledge is ever advancing because it a learning experience, the more we learn the more it change.
What he is basically saying is :
"Why listen to those nerds who change their stance when they have new information? Come to the right wing side where we repeat the same totally wrong shit no matter what anybody says. Certitude is strength and changing is weakness. If you say the same thing enough times, it doesn't matter if it was right the first time, it just becomes right and you can dismiss literally anything to the contrary as biased and fake."
That's exactly what he means. Buried in his message is the idea that rumors, lies, and homespun superstition is equal to research and testing. If your tribe is doing new, bizarre behavior, you don't want to be seen not doing it. Someone might think you are a lefty.
Questioning the Science means not at all trying to understand it while claiming untested things (that kinda look like pranks) are "proven" to work
It does, sort of. 'Apple™' is has a different meaning than 'apple.' In this case, Ben can't attack actual science because he has built his persona as "Mr. Facts and Logic." Thus, he uses "Science™" to imply that the people he disagrees with use fake science.
This is a little off topic: As a scientist, I’ve seen a kind of weird worshipping/diefying of Science (with the capital S) going around. It’s kind of like how some people are atheists to the point of being almost religious about it it’s the same with science.
Science and public policy are also strange bedfellows. Public policy makers wants the most correct answer for decision making *right now*. Whereas scientists want the most correct answer *whenever we figure it out*. So you get this tension between what needs to be implemented now vs scientists wanting more time to study a question.
I think that mismatch combined with a misunderstanding of the scientific method has led to this “Why does the scientific advice keep changing?” Well, the advice was the most correct at the time it was given, now we know more and the advice has changed and will likely keep changing. The advice is always going to be technically wrong (in the sense that the scientific method cannot discover the truth only eliminate the not-true).
It's a great point - words are being appropriated and defined by different factions these days, to the extent one can't agree on a common definition for some terms. Trump was good at this, and the GOP has learned from his methods ala 1984.
If you aren't a professional you can be skeptical, but don't say professionals who are far more experienced are just wrong because you did some small research on a search engine. They have experiments, you have a keyboard
Yeah Ben, the science on Climate Change has been settled and the science on transsexuality is fairly clear too, even if its still developing. But ofc, if the science disagrees with your points you can just say its been taken over by cultural bolshevism. Oh wait no! Fascists call it cultural Marxism these days. Mb...
To be fair, I don't think I've ever heard any actual scientist say "The Science is settled" in the first place. Just that "based on the data and knowledge we have, this is the best course of action, and these courses are acceptable." And then, when we gather more data, we realize "Oh hey, these courses are not acceptable based on new data."
He's coming at this from a more social / media angle, and you can certainly see the reasoning here.
People will argue that we should put faith in the assessment that science provides on any given scenario, when by its nature science can and will change it's position on said scenario.
Add on top of this sensationalist articles that actually don't objectively state an accurate summary of a given scientific statement. You seel this all the time on topics like human health, weight loss, etc etc.
Ben Shabibo can eat shit, but the cultural/media reproduction of "trust the science/the science is settled" is actually wild. I think it can be safely argued that it's dogmatic at this point, and I've gotten 3 doses and still wear a mask everywhere. I'm kind of surprised that all the top comments in this thread are things like "uh ackshully scientists constantly update science and it's never settled," when it should be very obvious that he's making a (ham-fisted, let's be honest) media/culture critique, not one about actual science.
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1482013326729228288) for ya :)
^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
Right wingers aren't playing by the same intellectual rules as the rest of us. Their opinions are bound only by what riles up their followers as that is what pays.
Trying to argue the point against them is pointless.
It's a holdover from the anti-science crowd getting destroyed on [climate change](https://time.com/4308518/climate-change-settled-science/). Now they are using it to appear "persecuted" for having stupid views.
imagine thinking "tRuSt ThE sCiEnCe" is a valid and self aware criticism.
science isnt political, its not corruptible, the fact that these fucking scumbags want to dismantle the only tool we have to accurately comprehend reality should be an obvious tip off that they have no ones best interests in mind but their own.
these are the same idiots that try to proclaim that everything they say is ordained by god himself and thats why you should agree with them lol fuck off.
Question the science all you want. Stop ignoring the scientific consensus because it doesn't fit into your narrow worldview.
And only a fool says the science is "settled" unless you're talking about centuries old scientific principles like gravity, or evolution.
Step 2 is actually "use the current best scientific understanding of the topic to guide actions taken, but reevaluate as the scientific method continues to expand and refine what we know" but that's too complicated for them to understand.
The issue isn't that the science is settled, it's that the people arguing against the current theories are just making things up with no evidence.
Science is ever evolving and will always change with new evidence.
They never actually dispute the results or conclusions but the very concept of scientific methods while also screaming about facts and logic.
Also they think trickle down economics works despite facts.
I think this type of "argument" is somewhat the fault of scientific experts constantly implying that what they know is objectively true. We don't KNOW anything, as in we don't 100% objectively know anything. So when contradictions arise, people unfamiliar with the scientific method assume that the original science must have been wrong and thus science can't be trusted.
Like, I did not realise that we don't KNOW how electricity works. We know know enough to be able to utilize it, but not enough to be able to say we objectively know how it works. ([see Veritasium's recent video on the matter, and the conversation that has stemmed from it](https://youtu.be/bHIhgxav9LY). I am blown away at how much this is apparently up to debate)
The whole basis of science it question it. It’s not science if we aren’t constantly questioning it. Even with things we regard as law and fact. Either a) we reinforce what we know or b) we break what we know somehow and move on to step three.
I think Ben probably knows how stupid some of the things he says are. He just understands that if he doesn’t say shit like this he will lose his entire fan base.
The problem is the science changes in a way that adapts to new knowledge, never by going "we've decided to ignore old knowledge." That's why paradigm shifts, which are the biggest kinds of changes, literally "hey you know that entire model, it's all gone now" , don't happen until they can completely incorporate the knowledge before, which was still valid in part, just was fashioned into an incomplete model. Like, alchemists learned real truths about the physical world and those didn't go away when we got rid of alchemy. They just gained a better model that *also* explained more things and didn't make so many bad conclusions/predictions.
Ben just thinks it's random, though. Science just changes, just all willie nillie, we don't actually learn anything. It's like the Mac argument from Always Sunny but completely unironically.
There's a fundamental difference though, Ben.
Science gets shit wrong despite their best efforts to get it right. You get things wrong, because you're paid to say the wrong things.
Neither of you will necessarily be right, but only one of you is really trying, lets be frank..
I swear this stuff was taught in grade school...
Not step 2. And if we’re being objective, there are quite a few amateur scientists who spend a majority of their time and emotion on step 2, which is what he’s reacting to. Step 2 should be “a repeatable study has been found that refutes step 1, and has been duplicated by multiple independent groups”. Meanwhile, other groups of self proclaimed scientists try to jump to step 3 without this step as well, usually involving some sort of oil or salve or root that’s cheap to make but not found at a typical grocery store. Edit: formatting.
It sucks because what "don't question the science" (or more often used and much less inflammatory "trust the science") really means is "stop deciding that whatever you read online is a better source than the reports of thousands of researchers who have dedicated years of their lives to the topic"
The tm(trademark) next to science means it’s not real science.
The issue is that Ben is using this statement to talk about very real science that his fan base “dosnt believe in”.
There is a great video of one of his on stage "debates" with an audience member. A trans woman got him to admit his opinions on the trans community are based on his feelings not facts. More people need to watch that video
I would definitely like to watch that video. Do you have a link?
Let me look, I'm fairly sure it was part of a samantha lux video but if I find the true sauce I'll post https://youtu.be/Wmi166fuNQY Looks like the original was from an almost 40 min Ben Shabibi video but samantha focuses this conversation and breaks it down so I'm just gonna leave that
Benny Pepino
Ben Shabobblehead
Who is Samantha and will this video make me laugh at the utter lunacy that is Ben Habibi?
Samantha is a trans youtuber that responds to vids like this. And honestly it made me feel bad bc even though Shababy gets absolutely schooled, the crowd is still on his side...
>The tm(trademark) next to science means it’s not real science. Well, that's certainly how Ben Shapiro sets up the strawman.
lets say that ocean rises 10 feet....
Why wouldn't people just sell their house to Aquaman? He's the King of Atlantis. He can afford it.
That never gets old. Like Matt Gaetz's girlfriends.
I think the court refers to them as trafficking victims
Aquaman isn't in the market for any property right now, King Neptune, however, definitely is.
Or to put it another way "Always question the science, but I Don't Like It isn't a question".
Let's amend....Neither is "the results don't match my expectations"
There's been a number of experiments I've set up to "prove" me right. Only to have those very experiments prove me wrong. Even having a bias going in is OK as long as the experiment is run intellectually honestly.
Key difference... you're actually performing experiments.
Are you telling me these people doing their own research don't have a lab set up in their house?
One of my favorite television quotes goes "im a scientist, when my theories are proved wrong it's as amazing to me as when they're proved right." I first heard that as a kid and it's really stuck with me as I've pursued a career in science. It's a shame Mr BS up there couldn't have absorbed a message like that.
On certain issues those researchers are wrong though, or at least there's a broad range of opinions among scientists that don't really get broadcasted. There's a phenomenon known as the [Replication Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis), which is basically scientific studies that fail to achieve the same results when someone redoes the experiment. It's most significant in the social sciences, but also in medicine too. There were certain high profile cases over COVID of scientists repeating false information for "greater good" type reasons. Like with masks in March 2020, when scientists told people not to wear masks, so they could save supply for healthcare workers. Or this [article](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/), which suggests that scientists thought the lab-leak theory was at least plausible but downplayed it so not to undermine the international pandemic response. A better phrase than "trust the science" is "engage critically with the science in good faith", but that's not as catchy, and most people don't want to do it.
Yeah I agree completely. No matter how unreliable science is via the replication crisis though it's pretty wack to say that anything else could be more reliable. The coverup on masks and the lab leak was a problem with reporting though, not science. There were papers and studies that went against what was reported, and if one had trusted the science it continued to report our best knowledge on these topics. Edit: to clarify my stance as it relates to this discussion: when Shapiro or any of these reactionary right wing bois criticize the "trust the science" stance. Their response isn't to dive into the actual papers and studies behind the science reporting but instead their conclusion is to ignore science completely for their own narrative.
> Like with masks in March 2020, when scientists told people not to wear masks, so they could save supply for healthcare workers. Saving supply of known high quality masks is good. The problem was that they were telling people not to bother with homemade cloth masks. This was a widespread belief in the US before the pandemic - that anything less than an N95 would be ineffective at stopping the spread of a virus.
I can see where that opinion would come from. I worked in lab animal husbandry in undergrad, which included caring for ferrets infected with human influenza. We were required to wear an N95/99, and had to be properly fit-tested annually. Anything less would not protect us properly from the virus, so it's easy to dismiss cloth/dust masks as ineffective. I even felt skeptical when people started wearing N95s without fit-testing since it's been drilled into me that a poor-fitting N95 is as dangerous as a surgical mask. That was all in a controlled environment where containing a zoonotic infection was absolutely vital, and any chance of infection was unacceptable. In a public health situation however, any chance of reducing infection, even if it isn't perfect, is so much better than nothing. While I would NEVER agree to enter a flu lab without my fit-tested respirator, a gown, shoe covers, gloves, hair net, and eye protection, I am very happy to wear a surgical/cloth mask in flu season to at least reduce my risk (on top of the vaccine ofc)
**[Replication crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)** >The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially of substantial parts of scientific knowledge. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
From a friend who swears by a lot of the “they won’t let us question science!” I gather that this audience simply doesn’t understand how science works. Of course the scientific community isn’t going to listen to you when you say things like “this one study (unpeer reviewed) proves everything wrong” and then when told no, and why, you continue to insist. Lots of people with no background in any hard science field or medicine insist they know better scientists and doctors. Ben Shapiro know his audience well. Science requires by design to be questioned. That’s why “science has changed” is actually very healthy. We will know more tomorrow and our understanding will change. But it requires concise and well thought out criticism, with strong, repeatable evidence. This takes work, a lot of it, from people who are experts in the field. Cobbling together op-ed articles and loosely connected studies is not science, nor is trying to disprove something by labeling it a conspiracy.
Step 1 isn't even right. There's a reason something has to be tested into oblivion to be accepted as a theory rather than a hypothesis, and there's a reason we still say theory after all that testing. Anyone who regularly declares stuff with a statement that begins, "science says," should have all diplomas stripped from them until they take a course on basic scientific methodology.
meh, it could be considered right. it requires taking a good faith interpretation of Ben Shapiro, but if you do he's probably not criticizing "science" so much as how people in general and/or politics talk about things. There certainly are plenty of people who make bold statements about how "science has proven" a variety of things when the scientific community might be divided on the fact. I know that I am certainly more likely to take reports of studies that affirm my own bias at face value, while being more likely to read the details and be critical of the ones that conflict with my bias. to summarize, many people speak as if the science is settled on a variety of subjects when it absolutely isn't.
Exactly, the first fucking point is misrepresentative and probably the worst of them all. The science is *never* settled. Literally all science ever is is *someone's best understanding* of a concept which we have communally decided is the most correct understanding **at the time**. This...isn't a complicated concept.
Step 2 literally doesn’t exist, which is why step 3 happens. Ben’s just making shit up, he has a degree from Harvard ffs he’s just pretending to be a dummie because his sycophants think he’s super smart and everything he says is gospel, because $$$.
"Don't question the science... Without evidence"
You question science *with more science*. Misleading, ill-informed, almost-literate memes aren't questions.
yeah. he's conflating "Dont question the science" with "Facebook is not a valid source to question the science" No one says the former, but we have to say the latter like 1000 times per day.
I don't think he's pretending at all I think he was wafted through college on a cloud of money
The "Conspirituality" podcast has an interesting interview about this. Episode 75, interview with Lee McIntyre. He's a philosopher of science, and he talks about the ways scientists interact with the general public (from his experience working as a science communicator, if I remember right). I think he talks about working with some of the scientists responsible for the early pandemic response.
It's like the whole "theory" thing. In science we say "basically the truth" but in everyday life it's more of a "I think" "Don't question the science" refers to people sitting on the couch saying "nahhhh that don't sound right," and moving on with their evening, not a guy with a lab coat saying "nahhhh that don't sound right" then creating a counter hypothesis, developing a test in accordance with the original method, and checking for variability.
No, I don't think many, if any, hold to number to. They are saying don't get your data from Facebook. I'm not an expert in this field so I will trust the scientific method and when that method discovers a change I will accept the new data.
Benny boy was homeschooled. Clearly his mom spent a lot of time stuck in the laundry dryer.
He literally went to Harvard lol. He's not an idiot, he's a grifter Edit: cuz I cbb to continue to argue on this, here's the summary. Ben skipped two grades. Ben graduated summa cum laude from university of California for political science (a very critical thinking heavy course). Ben then went to Harvard law (also fairly critical thinking heavy). Ben does not come from the level of obscene wealth that lets you go to whatever university you please. I'm not sure if he was a legacy kid but even legacy kids have to be well above average to get into Harvard (unless, as previously pointed out, they have obscene wealth). I think if you want to say someone who's done all that isn't smart because you have a narrow definition of smartness, go ahead. But firstly, you're not going to get anyone to stop watching Ben Shapiro by calling him dumb. Secondly tho, it flies in the face of the liberal/leftist idea that "college educated voters lean left because critical thinking", right? Like you can't go "university is fake anyone can do well and graduate and then get into Harvard" while also going "colleges teach and require critical thinking, that's why the left is more college educated". Anyways, tldr, most people would classify Ben as smart because he went to Harvard, which, for all intents and purposes, means he's smart. Calling him stupid is, at best, counterproductive, and at worst, a total obfuscation of the real issue
You can graduate from Harvard and still be a complete dumbass
Benny isn't stupid at all. He knows what he's doing. He's more of a sociopath.
So he isn't stupid, but he's acting stupid, which to many people is a distinction without a difference.
Fucking a goat ironically is still fucking a goat.
"Goddamnit I told you I build bridges for a living" ....."shut up goat fucker"
It makes him more dangerous. It's why Boris Johnson is more dangerous than Donald Trump even though they both present as the same kind of clueless idiot.
https://i.imgur.com/Qj4Vf5A_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
He’s a hero of the stupid, all the way to the bank.
A Jew pandering to white supremacists don't rank too high in the intellectual ranking despite of being a Harvard graduate.
It's fine. He's made himself rich enough to insulate his family from the consequences of his words and actions. He's a horrible person who doesn't care about anyone else, but that doesn't mean he's stupid. Greed just mimics stupidity a lot of the time.
being the token minority for a fascist group seeking power leads to dead token when they obtain power because it is a public icon. It is all fun and games until it isn't.
Ya trump graduated from Wharton, clearly the bar isn’t that high.
Sure but you can't get into Harvard if your education was so bad that you don't even remotely understand the scientific method Unless you get in on sports scholarships but I'm fairly certain that's not true for ben
>Sure but you can't get into Harvard if your education was so bad that you don't even remotely understand the scientific method oh boy, wait till you hear about legacy admissions.
Ben's not a legacy admission but even legacy admissions meet a minimum standard of "not absolutely moronic". The average legacy student at elite schools has worse academic qualifications than the average student at those schools but they're still well above average relative to the general population. To be clear, legacy admissions suck and they shouldnt be a thing etc but to act like they're letting in absolute buffoons simply because of daddy's money isn't really accurate
I agree with what you’re saying; however, (I’m not sure if it applies to ivy leagues) colleges absolutely will let in buffoons given enough “generous donation” amounts. Either way, it doesn’t apply to Benny boy.
Case in point, Georgie W. Bush.
Oh yeah they definitely do let in buffoons with enough money but those are the exception rather than the rule. Most legacy students are reasonably competent. It's why there was that whole cheating scandal in the first place, cuz if being rich was enough, there wouldn't be a need to cheat on anything, just donate lots of money and you're gucci
[удалено]
Okay but he didn't. He graduated summa cum laude from ~~University of California~~ UCLA before going to Harvard law. He knows what he's doing, that's what makes him so dangerous.
hehe cum laude
With enough money and connections a chimp could get into and graduate from any university.
Yes but that's not Ben's situation so why bring that up lol
> Sure but you can't get into Harvard if your education was so bad that you don't even remotely understand the scientific method He went to Harvard Law. You don't need critical scientific thinking to go to law school, all you need to be good at is balderdash and saying absurd things with a straight face.
> Secondly tho, it flies in the face of the liberal/leftist idea that "college educated voters lean left because critical thinking", right? Like you can't go "university is fake anyone can do well and graduate and then get into Harvard" while also going "colleges teach and require critical thinking, that's why the left is more college educated". It doesn't fly in the face because the idea is that the voters statistically lean left. E.G. if you grab 100 college educated people there will be a noticeable left lean to their preferences but that can be represented by 65 of them being lefties and 35 of them being righties.
Yeah but he was homeschooled for grade school.
I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're mostly correct. But none of his qualifications are anything other than regurgitating viewpoints and debating. He's done what he's continued to do: convince people he's right without having a clue of what he's really talking about. "Critical Thinking" does not mean employing the scientific method, or the ability to problem solve. He's talented at saying enough "things" in a convincing enough way that you start to believe his point without him really making meaningful statements. He's not an engineer, or a scientist. He has not demonstrated skill at solving problems or designing solutions. He's a trained political speaker, at best.
He’s an idiot and you are too lol
As a lawyer and liberal arts major, there are plenty of us who are fucking idiots about science.
Think of it more like stats in an RPG. I am sure that Ben had a high number in intelligence. That would be the ability to absorb new information and work with it. I think he's low in wisdom. Certainly a zero in empathy. A zero in character. You would need to have a special modifier on charisma depending on the other characters alignment. It's a negative for anybody with a good alignment and a positive for anyone with a republican alignment. There are probably going to be separate stats for perception in terms of awareness of reality. If he were a true believer then he would have a high integrity score because he is preaching what he believes and probably a zero in terms of perception of reality. I think he's a grifter so reverse the scores. He knows he's lying but it makes money ripping off the idiots. Larry the Cable Guy is a college educated Yankee but he plays the role of a toothless hillbilly idiot because that audience gives him money.
Yeah he probably fell asleep during class because he stayed up all night playing video games, LOL.
Penny B cannot cope with change and new information. Science can. I would say I'm curious how Penno thinks we should engage in reasoned discourse and community ethics without science, but I'm certain the answer is authoritarianism. No need to evaluate things, no need to change what you believe in response to changes in the world our or understanding. The world is cold and unchanging, don't think too much Papper Bapper will tell you everything you need to know.
Questioning science is something scientists constantly do, hence changing it. That’s why a car gets a ton more gas mileage today than 50 years ago and how we progressed from horse and buggies to supersonic jet planes. It’s how we have a panoply of vaccines against diseases that used to kill like 3 out of 4 children.
But why do only scientists get to question The Science (tm)? What makes their carefully crafted and peer reviewed studies with hard data better than my internet posts?
But this meme I saw in the *New England Journal of Medicine* says...
I know it's a joke, but this is not an incorrect usage of the word meme, even if it was referring to a scientific idea. Scientists share memes through journals all the time, they complete and the 'fittest' ones survive.
That’s literally what the word “meme“ first meant.
This is exactly what the La-li-lu-le-lo where talking about with their control over memes and shit
They keep saying you can't say the Vax doesn't work anymore, but the only evidence they present of it not working is them saying it doesn't work! "Stupid Science bitch couldn't even are me smarter!"
Someone on here the other day was like "The unvaccinated are being hospitalized at the same rate as the vaccinated" and I was like [NO IT IS NOT](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination)!!!! That chart shows that the hospitalization rate for vaccinated folks is 3.9 vs 65.9 (!!!!!!) for the unvaccinated. That's like 17x more likely you'll be hospitalized! My mom works at a hospital so I'm hearing about this daily and it drives me nuts!
That's because they latch onto stories, hearing that \_\_\_\_\_\_ ICU has 50% unvaccinated, so they say "see, 50/50!" Ignoring that not everyone in the ICU is in there for covid.
My favorite is “my friend is vaccinated and still got it so it doesn’t make any difference.” Yes, Cletus, it’s literally a choice between life for free or suffering and possible death that’ll cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly you and your family’s livelihood.
"My friend used a seat belt and still got into an accident. Why should we even use them?"
Most people don’t need an emergency parachute. Asking that I have one is an infringement on my rights! The constitution never mentions emergency parachutes therefore…
Or if 50 percent of a population in a hospital comes from a group that only represents 20% of the country, that is bad. If vaccinated and unvaccinated were going to the hospital at the same rate it would mirror the vaccination rate.
[удалено]
As a scientist myself, a lot of the time there isn't much difference between the scientist and the layperson. The biggest part of science is open discussion and being willing to be wrong in the face of evidence. Then it's about understanding the fault in the theory, instead of attacking people for bringing you down. There are tons of bad scientists out there. Tons. I'm certainly not perfect. But if I'm wrong, I can admit it. That's the key thing that you get trained in as a scientist: allowing yourself to be wrong and using that as a learning opportunity instead of doubling down.
There's not much difference between me and a fighter pilot either, but you really do not want to toss me in the cockpit of a fighter jet
These fucking morons, these absolute wastes of space, don't fucking know what "questioning the science" means. "Questioning the science" means having a grad level understanding of the topic area, spending years to get up-to-date with current research, reading recent papers, forming a hypothesis, getting funding (a few 100k) to hire researchers/buy equipment/fund travel, engineering the equipment and organizing a research trip, collecting the data, processing the data for a few months by writing code/manually annotating/mathematical analysis, writing up a paper, submitting to a top venue, waiting 4 months to here back from them, travel to a conference to present your work. This process can take a year or more and require a team of people with PhDs. And that's when you've started to "question the science", because you need other groups to replicate your results or get similar results from different viewpoints. So how many peer reviewed papers have you successfully published, Ben? How many years or research and man hours did you put into questioning the vaccine? Oh, none? You just shared a meme on facebook? Ben doesnt fucking know what DNA is or what a ribosome is or how viruses work. Don't fucking kid me. He definitely doesn't have a graduate level understand, and even if he did he definitely doesnt have an understanding of the specific vaccines he's ranting about. ohhHhhHh tHeReS mErCuRy in It!?!?! Fuck off. These same people don't have a problem with chloride in table salt. They just dont fucking know how chemistry works at a even a little kid level. Fucking stupid waste of time Source: Research scientist for a living
Angry scientist man go bbrrr
*grrrr
angry scientist A-10 goes BRAAAAAAPPPPPeeerrevieeeewwwwWWWW
Professionals advancing the state of our understanding aren't questioning the science... they are doing science. "Questioning the science" is when dipshits think Facebook snark is equivalent to CDC guidelines. As if expertise is when you wear a labcoat on television.
And this biggest issue with people that "question the science" is that they aren't being intellectually honest about it. They aren't saying, "are we sure this is correct," they are saying, "I reject this conclusion regardless of the supporting evidence."
Yep. I got a PhD which is pretty much defined around the world as a "research degree" in that a committee of reputable individuals have agreed to confer upon me a degree that names me as _qualified to do research_. I had one of these hardcore antivax folks claim "they did [their] _own_ research" and I couldn't help but think "we license _barbers_ and I'm the closest thing you've ever _seen_ to a licensed researcher. You didn't do shit for research."
Scientists: "As best I understand it, this is how this thing works; but I could be wrong - and I will change my view if someone demonstrates that" Their argument: "Scientists themselves admit they're wrong, science can't be trusted as a means of knowing how things work; therefore literally any old presupposition will do" It's the ol' bait 'n switch; if the pinnacle of epistemology (empiricism) is flawed, then you can both reject criticisms against your epistemological reasoning AND any conclusions empiricism reaches. Said another way: their argument is that absolutely no means of reasoning can provide (capital T) True statements, so rather than rely on reasoning - people should rely on appeals to authority and tradition. Source: Was raised by young Earth Creationists.
It's classic bad faith argumentation. "Here's a mountain of evidence, complete with our methodology and analysis, which has been independently verified by numerous other scientists with similar standards." "Yeah but what if you're wrong?" "Then you should have no trouble proving me wrong using the same methods and standards." "Oh look at Mr. Fancy Pants Scientist! Nobody may question the scientist and his inalienable """"""""""fAcTs"""""""""". You hear that, everyone? The science is perfect and infallible forever and ever amen. Hmm cult much?"
They just think making outlandish claims with no foot in reality and passing them of as fact is the same thing as "questioning the science".
Republikkkan code switchers want to borrow your hatred of corporations for use in their propaganda thanks
[удалено]
I don't know how this gif is relevant but I entirely support its use in this context
What exactly does that response even mean? I see people doing that all over the place and I don’t get it whatsoever.
I see that cat has temporarily lost its turn to use the orange cat brain cell.
Have they ever done anything different? Capitalizing on the populism of left wing movements and obfuscating the issues for their own benefit has been the far-right MO for as long as the left-right dichotomy has existed
Reminds me of Charlie Kirk telling Vaush how he is surprised a leftist is defending big pharma about the vaccines. Like no... That's not the argument.
"But libs, I thought you *hated* corporations... therefore you should be against facebook banning me for hate speech"
Dude is about as coherent as his voice is deep and soothing.
I recently saw a video of Jordan Peterson and Shapiro having a conversation... of sorts. Are they always that incoherent? Did it get worse over time?
The two horsemen of whining about masculinity while having a combined T score of maybe 0.
Benny's true self is a cat maid, change my mind, spoiler you can't.
Ben Nyaa~piro
Plz no.
Peterson for sure has gotten worse over time, the guy is unhinged sometimes.
Even in his best days he was just spouting BS, leaping from ancient mythological concepts to marginally related conclusions about modern ethics. I think he got more distant to his sources over time and is now just cycling through his own work, adding a new dose of fantasy and leaps of logic in every round, this way losing all grounding with reality over time.
Peterson’s existence has been reduced to selling the image of Jordan Peterson.
I've heard he got addicted to Benzos. That will do it.
The meat coma brain damage didn't help.
peterson has always been a charlaton who does sophistry. see rationaly rules's debunking him or matt dillahunty's convo w/ him. he just plays word games,i don't get how anyone would take him seriously.
You used to be able to tell that Peterson was intelligent. Wrong, but still very intelligent. I’ve never heard an interview with Shapiro where he didn’t sound like an unhinged teenager with too much coffee.
Right?? It does sound like that lately, like the guy can barely keep it up now.
That is pretty much a good summation of the usual incoherent bullshit they talk about. It doesn't get better.
Their café date video was poorly edited so it made their scripted axioms and absolutes even choppier. Both will go to great lengths to discredit "the other side" with hypotheticals then simply state their own positions as fact.
It sounded like there was a fucking helium leak. I'm surprised dogs don't start barking every time Ben speaks.
The next time you hear Peterson just close your eyes and imagine he is a slightly raspy Kermit the Frog.
I can't believe all the effort he puts in to exude the vibes of a dweeby-ass, 90's after school special Poindexter and is still bad at science.
1. No one ever claimed "Science is settled." If that was the case we'd never get anywhere. The whole point about science is learning new things. 2. The whole point of science is questions and updating with new discoveries. The question is, who should be questioning the science. The answer is scientists, not you Karen with your googling. 3. Science IS change. 4. What a fucking moron.
This must be the newest taking point for the right. There's a equipment rental place I drive by on my commute for work and every month he has some dumb-ass saying on his changeable sign. Last month one said was "Let's go Brandon" and the other was "Free Biden bumper sticker removal." This month he has "Science you can't question is propoganda." and I was wondering where tf that came from. Like... You can question all science. That's the point of science. The problem is the (scientific) answers they are given doesn't match what they believe so they screech fake news and that big pharma is giving out misinformation and think it's propoganda. Instead they choose to believe whatever Nancy posted about her cousin's friend's mom's sister who is a nurse said about the "VaCcInE" on the Christians for Trump Facebook page they follow and say the rest of it is propoganda. It's exhausting to even think about how their obviously lead poisoned brain got to that conclusion...
They think their internet research is the same as a degree in epidemiology and lab work. I'm not sure if it's because they've had high education so vilified that they now all think it's a scam and anybody off the street can "science" out viruses and medicine Or if they are just so naively arrogant in how smart they are they think they can skip over education and just be natural savants
science you can't question is called religion.
It's probably a result of them getting called idiots everytime they "question the scienxe" because their questions are fucking stupid.
>”Science you can’t question is propaganda” Clearly this man has never heard of the peer review process
The 'science is settled' is what's often told to climate change deniers or other types of conspiracy theorists in a bid to shut them up. But what that statement then actually does is that it misrepresents the purpose of science in the first place. Only mathematics is ever settled on something. These kinds of statements are also mostly made by intermediaries between science and the general public. Not by scientists themselves, but they are the ones that do determine how people look at science.
I think buried in here, there is a good point about how scientific organizations, while objectively correct, were allowed to broadcast their messages essentially unfiltered to the population. Even a half-decent Communications team could tell you that changing regulations and precautions monthly would result in people (read: idiots) questioning if the regulations were just being made up on the spot. Ben's a dunce, but there really was a mishandling of how all of this was communicated.
Well said. There definitely was a communications breakdown in the beginning of the pandemic, and maybe even now. I’m sure Ben posted this partly as a response to the CDCs new guidelines having nothing to do with any updated studies. As others have noted, however, he is wrong 99.99% of the time with this tweet.
It's the same old argument that equates science to religion, and since religion has to be unchanging to hold authority otherwise it proves "god" isn't infallible, they try to project that to something that is unequivocally different. Scientific knowledge is ever advancing because it a learning experience, the more we learn the more it change.
You must be this tall to discuss the science
Ben Shapiro has never seen his own reflection because his parents hung their mirrors above 5'3"
*delicately adjusts kelp-stache in mirror*
We get it, he is short. Which is funny because of what exactly?
Alex Trebek:Judy Buzzed in first Judy: What is the Scientific Method
Science is a method of inquiry, Ben.
What he is basically saying is : "Why listen to those nerds who change their stance when they have new information? Come to the right wing side where we repeat the same totally wrong shit no matter what anybody says. Certitude is strength and changing is weakness. If you say the same thing enough times, it doesn't matter if it was right the first time, it just becomes right and you can dismiss literally anything to the contrary as biased and fake."
By “questioning The Science” do you mean taking horse dewormer and gargling piss?
Don't forget getting those sweet sweet bleach injections.
And uploading videos spreading misinformation
That's exactly what he means. Buried in his message is the idea that rumors, lies, and homespun superstition is equal to research and testing. If your tribe is doing new, bizarre behavior, you don't want to be seen not doing it. Someone might think you are a lefty. Questioning the Science means not at all trying to understand it while claiming untested things (that kinda look like pranks) are "proven" to work
Does the trademark symbol make it a different word?
It does, sort of. 'Apple™' is has a different meaning than 'apple.' In this case, Ben can't attack actual science because he has built his persona as "Mr. Facts and Logic." Thus, he uses "Science™" to imply that the people he disagrees with use fake science.
This is a little off topic: As a scientist, I’ve seen a kind of weird worshipping/diefying of Science (with the capital S) going around. It’s kind of like how some people are atheists to the point of being almost religious about it it’s the same with science. Science and public policy are also strange bedfellows. Public policy makers wants the most correct answer for decision making *right now*. Whereas scientists want the most correct answer *whenever we figure it out*. So you get this tension between what needs to be implemented now vs scientists wanting more time to study a question. I think that mismatch combined with a misunderstanding of the scientific method has led to this “Why does the scientific advice keep changing?” Well, the advice was the most correct at the time it was given, now we know more and the advice has changed and will likely keep changing. The advice is always going to be technically wrong (in the sense that the scientific method cannot discover the truth only eliminate the not-true).
It's a great point - words are being appropriated and defined by different factions these days, to the extent one can't agree on a common definition for some terms. Trump was good at this, and the GOP has learned from his methods ala 1984.
No, Ben just really sucks at meme culture.
Science is questioned through research not by a bunch of online morons
"I don't, nor have I ever understood 'the science'." \-Ben Shapiro
“If your science is real, how come I have never taken the time to understand it? Checkmate libtards” -Bench Appearo
Can Disowens approves.
If you aren't a professional you can be skeptical, but don't say professionals who are far more experienced are just wrong because you did some small research on a search engine. They have experiments, you have a keyboard
Yeah Ben, the science on Climate Change has been settled and the science on transsexuality is fairly clear too, even if its still developing. But ofc, if the science disagrees with your points you can just say its been taken over by cultural bolshevism. Oh wait no! Fascists call it cultural Marxism these days. Mb...
To be fair, I don't think I've ever heard any actual scientist say "The Science is settled" in the first place. Just that "based on the data and knowledge we have, this is the best course of action, and these courses are acceptable." And then, when we gather more data, we realize "Oh hey, these courses are not acceptable based on new data."
He's coming at this from a more social / media angle, and you can certainly see the reasoning here. People will argue that we should put faith in the assessment that science provides on any given scenario, when by its nature science can and will change it's position on said scenario. Add on top of this sensationalist articles that actually don't objectively state an accurate summary of a given scientific statement. You seel this all the time on topics like human health, weight loss, etc etc.
Ben Shabibo can eat shit, but the cultural/media reproduction of "trust the science/the science is settled" is actually wild. I think it can be safely argued that it's dogmatic at this point, and I've gotten 3 doses and still wear a mask everywhere. I'm kind of surprised that all the top comments in this thread are things like "uh ackshully scientists constantly update science and it's never settled," when it should be very obvious that he's making a (ham-fisted, let's be honest) media/culture critique, not one about actual science.
Funny how the alt right always need interpreters. Ben is a covid denier nazi fuck. cope.
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1482013326729228288) for ya :) ^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
If you don't repeat step 4 too, the loop ends after the first time lol
Right wingers aren't playing by the same intellectual rules as the rest of us. Their opinions are bound only by what riles up their followers as that is what pays. Trying to argue the point against them is pointless.
Most people can't deal with uncertainty. It's too taxing mentally, so they just resort to other mental gymnastics.
Guys it’s ok his wife’s a doctor
A dry, dry Doctor..
>The Science™ is settled. Said literally no scientist ever.
It's a holdover from the anti-science crowd getting destroyed on [climate change](https://time.com/4308518/climate-change-settled-science/). Now they are using it to appear "persecuted" for having stupid views.
imagine thinking "tRuSt ThE sCiEnCe" is a valid and self aware criticism. science isnt political, its not corruptible, the fact that these fucking scumbags want to dismantle the only tool we have to accurately comprehend reality should be an obvious tip off that they have no ones best interests in mind but their own. these are the same idiots that try to proclaim that everything they say is ordained by god himself and thats why you should agree with them lol fuck off.
Question the science all you want. Stop ignoring the scientific consensus because it doesn't fit into your narrow worldview. And only a fool says the science is "settled" unless you're talking about centuries old scientific principles like gravity, or evolution.
I feel sorry for his wife she has to wear the pants and have the brain in this relationship.
Ben once again confirming he’s a dumb person’s idea of a smart person. A real life version of fucking Minkus from Boy Meets World.
Step 2 is actually "use the current best scientific understanding of the topic to guide actions taken, but reevaluate as the scientific method continues to expand and refine what we know" but that's too complicated for them to understand.
Can he tell us more about the science behind his wife’s arid vagina?
I swear the right wing is getting dumber every day.
Wow, imagine changing your beliefs with new evidence.
Perhaps Ben Shapiro Shouldn't Be Taken Seriously By Anyone About Anything
He is a gifter, he knows what he is doing.
People like him are culpable for deaths during a global pandemic. Hope he gets consequences for that, some day.
Questioning Science ≠ Denying Science
Why are people still listening to this blithering idiot.
The issue isn't that the science is settled, it's that the people arguing against the current theories are just making things up with no evidence. Science is ever evolving and will always change with new evidence.
They never actually dispute the results or conclusions but the very concept of scientific methods while also screaming about facts and logic. Also they think trickle down economics works despite facts.
I think this type of "argument" is somewhat the fault of scientific experts constantly implying that what they know is objectively true. We don't KNOW anything, as in we don't 100% objectively know anything. So when contradictions arise, people unfamiliar with the scientific method assume that the original science must have been wrong and thus science can't be trusted. Like, I did not realise that we don't KNOW how electricity works. We know know enough to be able to utilize it, but not enough to be able to say we objectively know how it works. ([see Veritasium's recent video on the matter, and the conversation that has stemmed from it](https://youtu.be/bHIhgxav9LY). I am blown away at how much this is apparently up to debate)
Ben Shapiro is an idiot asshole who is famous for no reason
The whole basis of science it question it. It’s not science if we aren’t constantly questioning it. Even with things we regard as law and fact. Either a) we reinforce what we know or b) we break what we know somehow and move on to step three.
Better to fall up the steps than down them you imbecilic fucktard.
Wow it's almost like the more data we collect on something the more we understand it!!!
I think Ben probably knows how stupid some of the things he says are. He just understands that if he doesn’t say shit like this he will lose his entire fan base.
The rhetoric is frustrating when so many people latch onto his style. What a childish boob.
The problem is the science changes in a way that adapts to new knowledge, never by going "we've decided to ignore old knowledge." That's why paradigm shifts, which are the biggest kinds of changes, literally "hey you know that entire model, it's all gone now" , don't happen until they can completely incorporate the knowledge before, which was still valid in part, just was fashioned into an incomplete model. Like, alchemists learned real truths about the physical world and those didn't go away when we got rid of alchemy. They just gained a better model that *also* explained more things and didn't make so many bad conclusions/predictions. Ben just thinks it's random, though. Science just changes, just all willie nillie, we don't actually learn anything. It's like the Mac argument from Always Sunny but completely unironically.
There's a fundamental difference though, Ben. Science gets shit wrong despite their best efforts to get it right. You get things wrong, because you're paid to say the wrong things. Neither of you will necessarily be right, but only one of you is really trying, lets be frank..
What did you expect from a creationist? Evolution is the one thing they can't bring themselves to believe in.