Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Irrelevant
Science in the best case scenario is disconnected from the one performing it anyway. If you let politics or ethics or whatnot get in the way science lowkey stops being science.
[automerge]1704021758[/automerge]
Science needs to be without bias generally. Some.peeps failing at that just means other scientists have to and will find out that their findings are subpar for that reason
[automerge]1704021821[/automerge]
Uhm not at all, its just science
Science in the best case scenario is disconnected from the one performing it anyway. If you let politics or ethics or whatnot get in the way science lowkey stops being science.
[automerge]1704021758[/automerge]
Science needs to be without bias generally. Some.peeps failing at that just means other scientists have to and will find out that their findings are subpar for that reason
[automerge]1704021821[/automerge]
Uhm not at all, its just science
Oh no, trust me, not irrelevant at all.
science without politic can become simply unethical or bias, I gave you three clear examples but I could also give you the example of animal testing of even, even darker, unrestricted development of nuclear technologies.
Science can exist without politic, but there is high chance that it can be used badly or even, done badly.
Science simply CAN'T avoid biases. Simply because science is made by humans. Even in the case of review it can't avoid them.
Plus, politic is not necessaraly synonymous of bias, it can also reorganize the mind to think more clearly about a subject. Sociology is one of the examples.
No no, its a liberal mindset that think that science must be apolitic. Its one of the reason in fact why a lot of sceptics are drifting toward the conservative right wing.
The goal is not to put science under political domination, but just to bring enough politic for science not to lose itself.
science without politic can become simply unethical or bias, I gave you three clear examples but I could also give you the example of animal testing of even, even darker, unrestricted development of nuclear technologies.
Science can exist without politic, but there is high chance that it can be used badly or even, done badly.
Science simply CAN'T avoid biases. Simply because science is made by humans. Even in the case of review it can't avoid them.
Plus, politic is not necessaraly synonymous of bias, it can also reorganize the mind to think more clearly about a subject. Sociology is one of the examples.
No no, its a liberal mindset that think that science must be apolitic. Its one of the reason in fact why a lot of sceptics are drifting toward the conservative right wing.
The goal is not to put science under political domination, but just to bring enough politic for science not to lose itself.
Or it will be done badly or unethically because politics influence it. Yknow, politics can be bad as well.
[automerge]1704105483[/automerge]
Disagree to an extent. Of course humans are biased. Science as a self-improving method with repeatable findings reduces how much bias fucks with the findings though.
Throwing ideology into the mix is counter productive
[automerge]1704105483[/automerge]
Disagree to an extent. Of course humans are biased. Science as a self-improving method with repeatable findings reduces how much bias fucks with the findings though.
Throwing ideology into the mix is counter productive
Last edited:
No. Apolitical peeps also think science should be apolitical. Science enthusiasts of varying ideologies think science should be apolitical.
This sounds like one of your takes that is over sinplified, black and white bs
[automerge]1704105814[/automerge]
Lul. I doubt that this is rare compared to "good politics" influencing science. Politicsl correctness also shouldnt influence science
This sounds like one of your takes that is over sinplified, black and white bs
[automerge]1704105814[/automerge]
Lul. I doubt that this is rare compared to "good politics" influencing science. Politicsl correctness also shouldnt influence science
Yes, my point exactly. Most liberals are apolitical or more exactly, most apolitical are liberals.
Which would be a very huge mistake.
Note that including politic into science doesn't mean that science should take a side between leftist and conservatist, just that science should be aware and take into consideration the political change of society to take them into account when needed in the scientific process, such as taking more women's voice into account.
This is what more politic in science means.
On the contrary, manichenism in that context would be to consider science as something that can't be influenced. But in reality, science just like human can be highly biased.
There is no such thing as political correctness in this debate. We are talking about the importance of taking into account political progress in order for science to be less bias with reality and make better and less unethical researches.
Which would be a very huge mistake.
Note that including politic into science doesn't mean that science should take a side between leftist and conservatist, just that science should be aware and take into consideration the political change of society to take them into account when needed in the scientific process, such as taking more women's voice into account.
This is what more politic in science means.
On the contrary, manichenism in that context would be to consider science as something that can't be influenced. But in reality, science just like human can be highly biased.
There is no such thing as political correctness in this debate. We are talking about the importance of taking into account political progress in order for science to be less bias with reality and make better and less unethical researches.
femmism is such a clearly idealogical thing rather then a fact
such as the inconsistent remarks on the nature of it
if it's about empowering women as compared to men, giving them more power and knocking down patriarchy then putting women in power instead of men then that aint equality
that's supremacy, if it's a solid fact as indicated by data or observable phenanon then there should be zero contradiction as that's how the law of non contradiction works
you cant say both evolution occurs by process of natural selection and then also suggest that some deity created everything as it exists today by some form of magic, those are mutually exclusive statements just as knocking down those toxic pigs is a direct contradiction to saying let's all just be equal
and suppose we all buy into the suggestion that these femminists are just altruistic nice people who just want things fair
im sorry so if you think that then where's the protest over men paying for dates, that's not equal wouldt equality mean both pay 50/50 not 100% of the burden put on men
and where's the protest for women being allowed to show emotions where a man not
if the notion was truly as the preachers say and femminism cared about everybody then these people wouldt spend all day on twitter bashing men.
what's really more likely that women made a group centered around women to gain personal power by virtue of collective might
like how every group has, gays,blacks,whites,trans or whatever
or that they are just nice happy people who love everyone and just want a more fair and just society
[automerge]1704160221[/automerge]
science is a valid thing exactly due to it's lack of poltics
if a bunch of leftists do a study on leftist idea then they gonna publish it promoting their personal belief system as ofc they are
that's the belief system they hold, same is true if you have right wingers doing all the reseach like if we just boil down studies to whatever group can better push it's idealogy then science as a idea no longer has any meaning to me
science can be universal cause it's not appealing to some personal belief, it's going based on data not on the personal feelings of the author
the scientific method includes testing your hypothesis for the exact reason that it dont turn into a propoganda mill
however ofc having it be a propoganda mill for your personal beliefs would be fine by you for the simple fact thereof
you wanna beat those right wingers, who cares about intergreity or facts so long as my side wins
i want to win
WIN WIN
literal child mentailty
it's the same shit that happened to the news, their vechicles for whatever idealogy no longer being about facts
fox for pushing right wing and cnn for pushing left.
want science to be as well regarded as news organzations which are blatant potitical idealogues
such as the inconsistent remarks on the nature of it
if it's about empowering women as compared to men, giving them more power and knocking down patriarchy then putting women in power instead of men then that aint equality
that's supremacy, if it's a solid fact as indicated by data or observable phenanon then there should be zero contradiction as that's how the law of non contradiction works
you cant say both evolution occurs by process of natural selection and then also suggest that some deity created everything as it exists today by some form of magic, those are mutually exclusive statements just as knocking down those toxic pigs is a direct contradiction to saying let's all just be equal
and suppose we all buy into the suggestion that these femminists are just altruistic nice people who just want things fair
im sorry so if you think that then where's the protest over men paying for dates, that's not equal wouldt equality mean both pay 50/50 not 100% of the burden put on men
and where's the protest for women being allowed to show emotions where a man not
if the notion was truly as the preachers say and femminism cared about everybody then these people wouldt spend all day on twitter bashing men.
what's really more likely that women made a group centered around women to gain personal power by virtue of collective might
like how every group has, gays,blacks,whites,trans or whatever
or that they are just nice happy people who love everyone and just want a more fair and just society
[automerge]1704160221[/automerge]
science is a valid thing exactly due to it's lack of poltics
if a bunch of leftists do a study on leftist idea then they gonna publish it promoting their personal belief system as ofc they are
that's the belief system they hold, same is true if you have right wingers doing all the reseach like if we just boil down studies to whatever group can better push it's idealogy then science as a idea no longer has any meaning to me
science can be universal cause it's not appealing to some personal belief, it's going based on data not on the personal feelings of the author
the scientific method includes testing your hypothesis for the exact reason that it dont turn into a propoganda mill
however ofc having it be a propoganda mill for your personal beliefs would be fine by you for the simple fact thereof
you wanna beat those right wingers, who cares about intergreity or facts so long as my side wins
i want to win
WIN WIN
literal child mentailty
it's the same shit that happened to the news, their vechicles for whatever idealogy no longer being about facts
fox for pushing right wing and cnn for pushing left.
want science to be as well regarded as news organzations which are blatant potitical idealogues
Last edited:
