retarded
Post automatically merged:

The reason why I'm so fixated on sociology is because I noticed that the legitimization of this specific scientific discipline is THE CORE POINT OF CONTENTION between the two sides of the political spectrum. EVEN if people in those sides don't realize it.
couldnt care less about what is contention between the sides of the political spectrum.

i value science regardless of politics. as do all science-minded people i know. when i started getting into science i was extremely apolitical. being interested in politics came years later
Post automatically merged:

Again, you are looking at the conclusions when in reality conclusion are just ONE PART of the scientific process (already explained that). What I'm talking in not only biases in conclusions, but in the entire scientific process.
ye but the peeps replying to your "science leans left" shit were talking about the conclusions, me included.

obviously people will do research based on their biases. the scientific process is designed as a self-improving system that continually challenges itself to get the right conclusions regardless of who does the science. thats what people here meant when they say science is supposed to be neutral. and thats correct.

its also obvious that some people give in to their biases to the point where they will actually skew data to get to different conclusions. and then other scientists will expose this shit, because:
Post automatically merged:

No. The reason why people don't value social sciences is because social sciences can create result that contradict big political values about the world. This discipline is therefore something that is very hard to accept as scientifically legitimate for some people.
or: the issue of social sciences being susceptible to the researchers biases. you lowkey agree then with some of the peeps here saying its basically propaganda if its not reliable like natural sciences.
Post automatically merged:

Actually teachers can appear overnight. The only problem is that those teachers won't be as reliable as educated teachers. But if there is no other choices things can be arranged and temporary mesures can be taken while waiting for real teachers to arrive.

But of course, we also need to be a lot smarter about our educations policies in the those nations and form teachers right now so we can be ready. In the meantime, this would be an extrem solution. In reality, we can tank the arrival of chidren from immigration quite easily. Education is not the prime problem. The distribution of ressources is.
ye well if you dont even have the appropriate quality and quantity of teachers for your current populace, bringing in more people that require special education (language barrier as an example) is a difficult to impossible task. i also know this from first hand experience
Post automatically merged:

Destruction of anything, be it art or something else is a great way to get people to not care about your cause due to its idiotic methods which produce no positive outcomes.
yep, like the glue shit this will make more people either not care or actively be against your cause. sadly
 
Last edited:
Leave art the fuck alone. Go protest a dealership or a dockyard
I see. Nothing surprising here.


Typical you would defend the destruction of the past. Your kind takes away but never creates.
Nothing surprising here either


Destruction of anything, be it art or something else is a great way to get people to not care about your cause due to its idiotic methods which produce no positive outcomes.
Hm, I didn't knew you, but now I do, thanks.


Pretty sure all these elites preaching 'save the climate'
Interesting.. What makes you say that those two women are part of the elite ?


Makes my blood boil honestly, people who do this has no respect from me
Noted. You are confirming my calculations.


The painting is behind a glass wall, no? So no damage was done
Now this is an interesting reaction :)


And.... Your point of view is noted.


couldnt care less about what is contention between the sides of the political spectrum.
Looking at the way you juggle with problematic values I will say that I'm not surprised.


i value science regardless of politics. as do all science-minded people i know. when i started getting into science i was extremely apolitical. being interested in politics came years later
And its okay.


ye but the peeps replying to your "science leans left" shit were talking about the conclusions, me included.
Well if they want, but that's not what I'm talking about. Science is not only about conclusions.


thats what people here meant when they say science is supposed to be neutral.
Only the results can be neutral (and even then then are conditions by the way we think the world and reality), science simply can't and never will be.

Again, if science was really neutral, we would allow scientists to test the H bomb on the entire planet to make researches on its effect on climate with no regards for the lives taken. This is an absolute example to show you that neutrality simply can't exist in science. Neutrality means the absence of morality. It would transform science from an act of progress into something else.


its also obvious that some people give in to their biases to the point where they will actually skew data to get to different conclusions. and then other scientists will expose this shit, because:
Talking about Dawkins and the impossibility to separate science from politic... you might wanna listen to this video instead:



or: the issue of social sciences being susceptible to the researchers biases. you lowkey agree then with some of the peeps here saying its basically propaganda if its not reliable like natural sciences.
Again, this is fallacious. The presence of biases doesn't mean that we can't create good science. You are basically denying the scientific process here.

What I say is that to make good science, you need to be careful for biases, not that because biases can exist, you can't make good science.

So the argument "its susceptible to biases therefore its unreliable" is fallacious.

Natural sciences have others biases in the scientific process they must overcome.


bringing in more people that require special education (language barrier as an example) is a difficult to impossible task
No, because the number of childrien originated from direct immigration is peanuts compared to the number of residential children going to school each years. So all we need to do is distribute correctly the population of immigrant (with their accords of course) in different state and you will see almost no differences.
 
Talking about Dawkins and the impossibility to separate science from politic... you might wanna listen to this video instead:
4 mins in and i kinda dont care to watch any further.
"if you notice that your work gets supported by nazis, its a good sign you should reconsider the political implications of what you're working on".

who gives a shit about the political implications. that gets me back to the "facts dont care about your feelings" statement. if the evidence points to it, who cares whether nazis support it. surely nazis supported all kinda legit science. that doesnt matter in the slightest. we shouldnt "reconsider" this shit when doing research. the only thing matters is what the evidence points to.



Post automatically merged:

Again, this is fallacious. The presence of biases doesn't mean that we can't create good science. You are basically denying the scientific process here.
No im not, other peeps here do though, and i was talking about them, not me. pretty rich for someone telling me to read more carefully


So the argument "its susceptible to biases therefore its unreliable" is fallacious.

Natural sciences have others biases in the scientific process they must overcome.
not as reliable as natural science =/= its unrealiable.

so yeah you are the one beign fallacious here.

and thats still not my opinion, just outlining the peeps in this thread who are against sociology. *sigh
Post automatically merged:

No, because the number of childrien originated from direct immigration is peanuts compared to the number of residential children going to school each years. So all we need to do is distribute correctly the population of immigrant (with their accords of course) in different state and you will see almost no differences.
you cant just put migrant childen in regular classes and expect that to work when they dont even speak the language yet. i experienced first hand how this creates problems for schools and teachers. but well, maybe germany is an extreme example considering how much refugees are taken in here. and depending on what you mean by "other states".
Post automatically merged:

Bros are acting like Da Vinci was responsible for global warming, somehow.

What a bunch of attention whores.
nah thats not the point. it doesnt have anything to do with da vinci or the mona lisa. they just want to generate attention, thinking it will generate more attention if they do this to a famous painting (or monuments like they did in berlin).
Post automatically merged:

Talking about Dawkins and the impossibility to separate science from politic... you might wanna listen to this video instead:
oof and his characterization of dawkins statement about eugenics is especially ridiculous and misleading.
 
Last edited:
Like imagine paying for a movie you were really hyped for. Say Avengers Endgame. And right when the avengers were about to fight thanos, a bunch of activists walked in front of the stage and started shouting Free Palestine.
Post automatically merged:

There’s a difference between strategic activism, and being annoying in public.
 
if you notice that your work gets supported by nazis, its a good sign you should reconsider the political implications of what you're working on
Well.. that's a logical assertion.
:kayneshrug:
If Nazi consider your work to be worthy of being shared to their sympathizers... you might wanna reconsider or at least recheck what you are working on.


"facts dont care about your feelings" statement
This video precisely demonstrate that this assertion is fallacious. You can't separate values from the scientific process, its impossible.

And if you try to do that.. well.. you will have good chances to be shared by Nazis.


surely nazis supported all kinda legit science
Are you certain about that assertion mate ? Do you think Nazi really care about social sciences or the reality of biology (for example) ? Remember that Nazi claimed to observe scientific proof of the hierarchy in the human "races"... You might wanna reconsider your statement "surely nazis supported all kinda legit science"...

.. i afraid to consider what this statement is making you right now...


No im not, other peeps here do though, and i was talking about them, not me. pretty rich for someone telling me to read more carefully
I read what you are saying mate, that's precisely the problem.


not as reliable as natural science =/= its unrealiable.
Its the same reliability. There is no hierarchization between scientific disciplines when clear results and conclusions are being reviewed and published. Your statement is anti scientific.


you cant just put migrant childen in regular classes and expect that to work when they dont even speak the language yet.
There are solutions and measures for that don't worry:

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/unaccompanied-children-2.pdf


i experienced first hand how this creates problems for schools and teachers.
What kind of problem ?

Is there an impossibility to pass on knowledge and education ? If that's the case there might be indeed a problem of structure. But the language barrier will never be the reason for it. There are always others political and more structural reasons.


nah thats not the point. it doesnt have anything to do with da vinci or the mona lisa. they just want to generate attention, thinking it will generate more attention if they do this to a famous painting (or monuments like they did in berlin).
Funnily enough, I think Leonardo - as open minded as he was - would have approved those kind of actions and even helped them in some ways.. I'm sure he would have been the kind of man to understand the issue and create a beautiful painting just for the sake of it being spashed by paint or soup. After all, what is art if not disruption ?

oof and his characterization of dawkins statement about eugenics is especially ridiculous and misleading.
Sure..
Because there is no other evidences of Dawkins strangely following those kind of ideologies...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/richard-dawkins-downs-syndrome-disability-b1848956.html

It was a meaningless display of vanity that did nothing except ruin the days of the people who came to see art.
Let me rephrase that :

Priviledged people were unable to see the work of one of the biggest disruptor this planet has ever carried and were "forced" to see "a disruptive act of activism" by two women trying to bring attention on the fact that 1 out of 3 french skip meal because of poverty and that farmers are dying while working..

But keep thinking that this is a "vanity display"

:cheers:

Like imagine paying for a movie you were really hyped for. Say Avengers Endgame. And right when the avengers were about to fight thanos, a bunch of activists walked in front of the stage and started shouting Free Palestine.
Well, I would walk on the stage and scream with them or at least applaud them of course ! Why missing an occasion to make people understand that a literal genocide is happening ?

The avengers waited 5 years, they can wait one more day don't worry.


a difference between strategic activism, and being annoying in public.
Those are the same things. There is no activism if its not annoying.

The purpose is to break the status co and the inaction. Breaking those things is always annoying.. what are you talking about mate ?

:kayneshrug:


that any publicity is good
Indeed


#PlexiglassLivesMatter



Sarcasm or not, Not every painting out there that's been targeted by these types have had such a thing to protect it.
Yes they did. Unless you are talking about this one:

(but I don't think it was a leftist militant act :milaugh:)

 
This video precisely demonstrate that this assertion is fallacious. You can't separate values from the scientific process, its impossible.


if science is just leftist values then why does it mean anything to dismiss it


it's just potitcal theory at the end of the day so why does it matter more then say right wing talking points


aside from your personal belief in the values why should they matter to people generally?
 


Science is not leftist, its leftism that is scientific.

Science doesn't negate leftism as leftism is just following scientific conclusions... with progressist values on top.


ok so if science follows an idealogy


then it literally only has a value insofar as you personally like that idealogy if my stance being progressive values are wrong



and im to prefer y idealogy over yours then objectively speaking anti science really has as much value as pro science or vice versa afterall it's just a idealogy
 
They all do in my knowledge. You're gonna need sources for this one. I'm pretty sure these actviists would shat their pants in front of the judge if they really touched a painting.
Brandenburg gate in germany was vandalized with paint by climate activists
Whats a painting compared to a landmark like this
 
Top