not a moral act though. evil scumbags or psychopaths also do science for progress
The seek for progress is still a moral act toward progress. No matter what kind of shape it takes.
the discussion started out with you saying "science leans left"
The left is at its core, a materialist side. And science will most often confirm the reality of materialism. The left will therefore be the side that will use and listen the most to science. And like I demonstrated, the act of science is a moral act toward more progressism and therefore more discoveries. So yes, the act of doing science is leaning logically toward leftism.
This is why you will see scientist be either leftist (those who understand the importance of social sciences) or liberals (those who are not interested in social sciences but only hard sciences and are sometimes still trapped in an idealistic vision of human behaviors), but quite rarely rightist and almost never (if not corrupted) far rightist.
then multiple people telling you the scientific method is supposed to be disconnected from the researcher so we get actual meaningful conclusions
Those people either never did science or never really listened to scientists and the consensus in social sciences like I did.
Science simply can't be disconnected from the researchers. The scientific method doesn't negate the potential bias of the scientific process.
Of course, the more you will lean toward universalism and replicable results, the potential for bias will diminished, that's why you will see very few biases in mathematics or physics but it can always happen. One of the biggest bias that can happen is sexism. I delivered you researches showing how sexism is still hurting the scientific process. Not only in the result but in the method and the scientific process itself. Women are less listenned to and recruted, and therefore potential new ways of looking at the world are deevaluated systematically. Its not always about the results, the scientific process uncompass everything from those who pay the bills to those who publish conclusions of scientists.
do you think the gravitational force F=GmM/r² between two objects would have been different depending on researchers bias?
This is a domain where you will see very few biases, so most likely not concerning the conclusion. But the process that can lead toward this conclusion, definitely. Again, science is not all about the conclusion.
The scientific process uncompass everything and every situations from the moment someone pays the bills or discover something to the moment someone publish the conclusions of scientists.
In hard science you will see very few bias in conclusions because of the universal characteristic of those disciplines (although you might see them in the process of making those conclusions. Those bias can someone prevent someone from ever reaching those conclusions or someone to produce or publish those conclusions.) In soft science on the other side, biases are a lot more problematic as they are more present because those are sciences studying human behaviors. So we need to be more careful.
which is why the scientific method is designed the way it is
Yes, but the scientific process (there is not really a scientific method) is not perfect. It does not make science a divine and non human discipline
No, just a logical fact.
"it will change if its different"
man holy shit arent you realizing how stupid you sound?
I'm not the one who said that the earth orbiting the sun won't change..
Respect yourself.
That's a fantasy, unless you post factual statistics, please don't entertain such notions.
Your prayer shall be answered:
https://www.businessinsider.com/imm...ans-commit-a-lot-more-crime-than-immigrants-2
https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...ation_of_immigration_in_the_united_states.pdf
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...ond-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/
Can you build a house over night?
Something that can help shelter people, yes. Definitely.
Can you build schools over night?
There is no need for that. There are a lot of spaces that can be transformed into school overnight if needed.
Can you create job opportunities over night?
More complicated, but you can for example redirect the part of the non necessary wealth of those who have a lot to permit for those who have very few to get something until they can have a job. And yes, you can do that over night if needed.
There are thousands of solution to allow people who have few to have access to stuff.
Can you build a house over night?
Can you build schools over night?
Can you create job opportunities over night?
Now, I replied to those. But you will need to understand that those assertion are completely fallacious.
People are not demanding to help the poor and those in difficulty since yersteday. Let's not forget that fact mate.
Resources doesn’t matter if you don’t have the means to provide for those who need them.
We have enough ressources to provide. Those ressources are just not well and ethically distributed. :cheers:
That's an excuse to do nothing. People have been trying to change the capitalist system for more than a century. It doesn't take a century to change a system.
The current liberal and capitalistic status co is not due to time or to our situation, its a choice.
America is at that point where it is a genuine problem
Its not. Not in America and not in Europe.
It could be the case in poor and countries in difficulties, but that's not the case for those super power states.
then there are people like you who think they are superior to the immigrant
So because I'm trying to help the cause of immigrant, I'm suddenly "superior" to immigrant ?
Are you sure you are thinking straight here ?
Sure.
and if I were you I would genuinely take a step back and reflect on your values.
I'm fine with my values thank you. But looking that the violence in the way you adress to me, I think you are not completely fine with yours.