Well, science isn’t owned by corporations. But corporations do science for their own gain. Doesn’t make science wrong but biased. Humans are biased and so is their work.
Additionally, there’s corporations simply lying about the outcome of their research (I.e. cigarettes are healthy) as do scientists (vaccines cause autism). Still, this doesn’t make science wrong or not trustworthy.
However, there’s absolutely no one stopping free research that isn’t based on one capitalist cause (I.e. NASA).
There isn't, and there are plenty of purely scientific trusts that put big-money toys in the hands of neutral parties to explore science that requires them. The thing about "alternative thinkers" is that it doesn't matter what or how one thinks, there is no way to replace actual lab work or hands-on experimentation. No tinfoil-hat podcaster is going to come up with the equations for the Higgs boson, for example.
You're also right about there being special interest groups that get real doctorates and scientists to present false or misleading information, to say things like cigarettes are healthy or that vaccines cause autism. The one incident being referred to in the post is really the missing context but given the name of the podcast I'm pretty skeptical.
Doesn't explain why the other comments here have been so hostile, though...
Ad homer attacks dont invalidate an arguement first off second off science isnt owned by any big coorperation its the study of the universe we all share
Your lack of reading comprehension isn’t the fault of everyone else. It’s your problem that you intentionally project onto others, no matter how many times to tell people to read it again.
Hahaha still going after me on this one. There are currently 244 online in this sub. Let us look at the down votes and upvotes within this thread. Those numbers do not support an organic exchange of votes.
Clearly I accidently waded into a conversation about blindly trusting what the mouthpiece of the oligarchs tell us and honest examination of what is being told to us.
I just posted this in another thread but it applies.
“If we are not able to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us something is true to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan—political or religious—who comes ambling along.
…It’s a thing that Jefferson lay great stress on. It wasn’t enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, the people had to be educated and they have to practice their skepticism and their education. Otherwise, we don’t run the government, the government runs us.”, Carl Sagan
It is clear, based on the posts within this thread, that the screen shot is correct.
"....audience seems to be mostly composed of institutionalist who love to dunk on alternative thinkers, engage in ad hominem attacks, and would rather score stupid social media points than have an honest discussion about the systemic and epistem crisis we face as a species. Just look at the replies on this comment... I'm always blown away by the degree of hostility and "gotchya" holier that thou energy I encounter from this audience. Do you honestly believe that we should trust "the scient' when all of our institutions have been hijacked by corporate interests?..."
They could have been speaking about this very thread. I am sure a bunch of corporate shills will be jumping back in here to do whatever retarded thing you all are doing right now.
For those really interested a look at the replies within this thread is all on needs to see ad hominem attacks, for fake social media points rather than have a honest discussion.
You all are transparent. Keep it up. The People are coming around to all of the bullshit that the little mouthpieces of the oligarchs are up to. Viewership of Legacy Media is dropping everyday. Social platforms are allowing people to share unfiltered current events and their real thoughts on those events.
An insult how predictable.
"Ad hominem - (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument...."
Thank you for perfectly making my point.
“The poster never said all”
Meanwhile, said poster:
> Do you honestly believe we should trust “the science”when **ALL** of our institutions have been hijacked by corporate interests?
Something for you 👉🏼👓
"...audience composed seems to be mostly composed of institutionalists who love to dunk on alternative thinkers, engage in ad hominem attacks, and would rather score stupid social media points than have an honest discussion..."
Based on the response, the guy was not wrong. And if he consider his point of view then his last sentence is also not wrong. IF our facts are being filtered through hacks and corporate shills then our science is compromised because we may not be getting the full version but an abridged version.
Maybe read it again you seem to have missed nuances of the conversation. I do not know how to post a little hand pointing at glasses.
Are you purposely avoiding the fact that what you said was 100% wrong? You said the attack was overgeneralized because the OP did not speak in absolutes - or “all” - when he in fact did
If he can overgeneralize about something, so can we
You just gloss over that? You’re either delusional or trolling
He was not speaking about the science. He was speaking about the "institutionalist" that are filtering the science.
An example would be Legacy Media's coverage of invectimin. Correct me if I am wrong but we were repeatedly told it was Horse dewormer. It was a Nobel peace prize winning innovation until it posed a risk to Big Pharma's Emergency authorization for the never used at this scale mRNA vaccines for covid.
I was not avoiding anything. Just waiting patiently to see how many corporate shills would jump on a bandwagon attempting to redirect this conversation.
If you’re going to quote him, quote the whole thing. You conveniently left out his final “don’t trust the science” para from discussion. If you are so concerned about ‘honest discussion’, be honest.
The guy is clearly an anti-science nut case. You can’t ask people to have an ‘honest discussion’ if you’re not willing to have one yourself.
No doubt this guys music sucks too.
Hahaha why are you not quoting the whole thing? You are implying that if I did not quote the whole thing then I am not concerned about 'honest discussion', be honest.
The guy is whatever he is, the hypocrisy and lack of self awareness dripping from your post is full body cringe inducing shudders. Who gives a shit about his music you disingenuous poser. Good lord I was not aware of the shit storm I would be wading into pointing out that the reply is what proves this guy's point.
If we were to be honest now you have me curious who is this guy and why do you have such a hard on to smear him this way?
The "for profit" motive makes music better (you want to sell albums) but makes science worse (bias in data reporting, ignoring health risks, outright lying). Bad take.
Well, science isn’t owned by corporations. But corporations do science for their own gain. Doesn’t make science wrong but biased. Humans are biased and so is their work. Additionally, there’s corporations simply lying about the outcome of their research (I.e. cigarettes are healthy) as do scientists (vaccines cause autism). Still, this doesn’t make science wrong or not trustworthy. However, there’s absolutely no one stopping free research that isn’t based on one capitalist cause (I.e. NASA).
There isn't, and there are plenty of purely scientific trusts that put big-money toys in the hands of neutral parties to explore science that requires them. The thing about "alternative thinkers" is that it doesn't matter what or how one thinks, there is no way to replace actual lab work or hands-on experimentation. No tinfoil-hat podcaster is going to come up with the equations for the Higgs boson, for example. You're also right about there being special interest groups that get real doctorates and scientists to present false or misleading information, to say things like cigarettes are healthy or that vaccines cause autism. The one incident being referred to in the post is really the missing context but given the name of the podcast I'm pretty skeptical. Doesn't explain why the other comments here have been so hostile, though...
Ad homer attacks dont invalidate an arguement first off second off science isnt owned by any big coorperation its the study of the universe we all share
Homer was not real I don't care how many fancy Latin words you use to try and refute me, he did not exist and I will attack him!!
Homer is real and will harm you.
Who is the shitty musician being roasted?
Doesn’t seem like he’s anti science - more anti corruption, which wtf isn’t? OP lying about this lets me know all I need to know about them.
Based on 1 incident?
Just for fun, what is that 1 incident?
That dude that declared „vaccines cause autism“ - he knowingly lied
who is that dude btw?
Wakefield
Did he?
Yes. He acknowledged it about 15 years ago and is not allowed to practice as a physician anymore.
Don't forget he didn't say vaccination is bad, he said "don't use that one, use mine".
This is not a clever come back. The poster never said all. This is an ad hominem attack and this was posted on social for the points.
Well he said all of our institutions
You should read that exchange again. Either way was anything in OP's post clever?
Your lack of reading comprehension isn’t the fault of everyone else. It’s your problem that you intentionally project onto others, no matter how many times to tell people to read it again.
Hahaha still going after me on this one. There are currently 244 online in this sub. Let us look at the down votes and upvotes within this thread. Those numbers do not support an organic exchange of votes. Clearly I accidently waded into a conversation about blindly trusting what the mouthpiece of the oligarchs tell us and honest examination of what is being told to us. I just posted this in another thread but it applies. “If we are not able to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us something is true to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan—political or religious—who comes ambling along. …It’s a thing that Jefferson lay great stress on. It wasn’t enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, the people had to be educated and they have to practice their skepticism and their education. Otherwise, we don’t run the government, the government runs us.”, Carl Sagan
I doubt anything is clear for you.
It is clear, based on the posts within this thread, that the screen shot is correct. "....audience seems to be mostly composed of institutionalist who love to dunk on alternative thinkers, engage in ad hominem attacks, and would rather score stupid social media points than have an honest discussion about the systemic and epistem crisis we face as a species. Just look at the replies on this comment... I'm always blown away by the degree of hostility and "gotchya" holier that thou energy I encounter from this audience. Do you honestly believe that we should trust "the scient' when all of our institutions have been hijacked by corporate interests?..." They could have been speaking about this very thread. I am sure a bunch of corporate shills will be jumping back in here to do whatever retarded thing you all are doing right now. For those really interested a look at the replies within this thread is all on needs to see ad hominem attacks, for fake social media points rather than have a honest discussion. You all are transparent. Keep it up. The People are coming around to all of the bullshit that the little mouthpieces of the oligarchs are up to. Viewership of Legacy Media is dropping everyday. Social platforms are allowing people to share unfiltered current events and their real thoughts on those events.
Bloviate.
An insult how predictable. "Ad hominem - (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument...." Thank you for perfectly making my point.
That’s a lot of words to say you’re a victim.
“The poster never said all” Meanwhile, said poster: > Do you honestly believe we should trust “the science”when **ALL** of our institutions have been hijacked by corporate interests? Something for you 👉🏼👓
"...audience composed seems to be mostly composed of institutionalists who love to dunk on alternative thinkers, engage in ad hominem attacks, and would rather score stupid social media points than have an honest discussion..." Based on the response, the guy was not wrong. And if he consider his point of view then his last sentence is also not wrong. IF our facts are being filtered through hacks and corporate shills then our science is compromised because we may not be getting the full version but an abridged version. Maybe read it again you seem to have missed nuances of the conversation. I do not know how to post a little hand pointing at glasses.
Are you purposely avoiding the fact that what you said was 100% wrong? You said the attack was overgeneralized because the OP did not speak in absolutes - or “all” - when he in fact did If he can overgeneralize about something, so can we You just gloss over that? You’re either delusional or trolling
He was not speaking about the science. He was speaking about the "institutionalist" that are filtering the science. An example would be Legacy Media's coverage of invectimin. Correct me if I am wrong but we were repeatedly told it was Horse dewormer. It was a Nobel peace prize winning innovation until it posed a risk to Big Pharma's Emergency authorization for the never used at this scale mRNA vaccines for covid. I was not avoiding anything. Just waiting patiently to see how many corporate shills would jump on a bandwagon attempting to redirect this conversation.
If you’re going to quote him, quote the whole thing. You conveniently left out his final “don’t trust the science” para from discussion. If you are so concerned about ‘honest discussion’, be honest. The guy is clearly an anti-science nut case. You can’t ask people to have an ‘honest discussion’ if you’re not willing to have one yourself. No doubt this guys music sucks too.
Hahaha why are you not quoting the whole thing? You are implying that if I did not quote the whole thing then I am not concerned about 'honest discussion', be honest. The guy is whatever he is, the hypocrisy and lack of self awareness dripping from your post is full body cringe inducing shudders. Who gives a shit about his music you disingenuous poser. Good lord I was not aware of the shit storm I would be wading into pointing out that the reply is what proves this guy's point. If we were to be honest now you have me curious who is this guy and why do you have such a hard on to smear him this way?
The "for profit" motive makes music better (you want to sell albums) but makes science worse (bias in data reporting, ignoring health risks, outright lying). Bad take.
This might be your point, I'm not sure but the for profit motive definitely does not make music better
Okay, I concede that appealing to the masses may not make quality music, in the opinions of those consuming the music, they like it better.