Apparently Science Is Always Wrong

The presuppositionalists are at it again.

My Twitter: @MartymerM81

[cypherdk]

I find it hilarious how some people say that science is always wrong, while reaping the benefits of science by just being able to post their crap on the internet.

[DarkestVampire]

MARTYMER IS BACK?!
CANCEL THE AREA 51 RAID GUYS, HERES THE MAN WE NEED TO ASK IF ALIENS ARE ON PLANET EARTH
Welcome back man!

[DarthZ]

Science isnt about proving things true, it's about trying our best to prove things false and tentatively believing things when we fail to do so.

[Arrakiz]

A good way of visualizing the affirming the consequent fallacy is this simple thought experiment: in a meritocratic society, equal opportunities must necessarily lead to equal outcomes. Equal outcomes do not guarantee equal opportunities.

[FumbleSquid]

I can't tell if it makes me sad or angry that people don't understand that science isn't some absolutist/idealistic logic, but rather a continuously improved methodology for discovering the truth. Like they don't understand that even logic is just a tool for us to use, not something that magically tells us what reality is.

[CoolHardLogic]

Presuppositionalist: "Science is always wrong."
Ok. Science says your god exists according to creationists. Check mate, lunatics!

[treadingtheboards]

No 1, Observation is unreliable.
Hmm, isn't saying that an observation in itself, therefor your observation is also unreliable.
I wonder if they would understand that concept.

[CArnoldi]

The funniest thing about that picture is that if true, it also dismantles organized religion. How could you pass on any kind of religious dogma if observation were inherently unreliable? The bible would contain different gibberish for every reader.

[Fraterchaoraterchaos]

welcome back Marty, we've missed you! Hopefully we will see more new content soon?

[DrShaym]

_Affirming the consequent_ example:
All dogs are mammals, and humans are mammals. Therefore, humans are dogs.

[SC-zqcu]

You know maybe its time scientists limit who are allowed to use the results they come up with in science. People like these who deny science should be refused anything that uses science. Maybe then they will understand their mistake. Either that or they will eventually perish and humanity will have one less thing to worry about.

[tonydarcy]

I tentatively accept that the main reason people question the motives of scientists and their findings, is that they are religious. Whilst quite happy to use their iPhones or whatever, they are quite happy to dismiss science as irrelevant .

[DudeTheMighty]

Uncertainty seems to be a nightmare for the devoutly religious. Doubt, skepticism, uncertainty. It bothers them.
So, it's not really surprising that they go after science. Science, after all, thrives on doubt, requires skepticism, and admits uncertainty. Doubt, of course, is necessary for freedom of thought.
Remember that the villain of one of their favorite stories taught the first humans to think critically. Their favorite Big Bad Evil Guy spreads doubt among the faithful. Their perfect, loving creator, on the other hand, killed thousands of people in a flood because he thought they were icky.
These people were never going to get along with science once it started directly challenging their favorite book of stories.

[hugesinker]

This is a reason to why we should teach the philosophy of science in schools in addition to just the scientific process or performing scientific experiments.

[maliciousbloke]

I think Affirming the Consequent is becoming a bit of a meme in apologetic circles at the moment, i've definitely seen it crop up in a few other places recently.


I guess if your epistemology never gets beyond "Excuse to cover plot hole in my scripture of choice -> Simple declarative affirmation of my preferred conclusion", then it's easy to look at Inductive reasoning in science and conclude they're doing the same thing.


Also, obligatory welcome back Marty! We've missed you :)

[danmccarron]

"We do not prove things in an epistemic sense..." exactly right. Too many times I hear this shit in Flat-Earth debates and Creationist B.S.


The more observations agree the more SUPPORT we have for theories and laws. No proof - just support and evidence for acceptance. I can SAY the law works or the theory is valid and SHOW you by DEMONSTRATION, and that proves I am correct but the law/theory itself is not proven just supported.


Why is this so hard for them to understand?

[CteCrassus]

*SCIENCE*
If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't correct those mistakes, you're doing it *VERY* wrong.
If you don't admit you can be mistaken, you're not doing it at all.

[tommonk]

Welcome back. Love the description “I sometimes lose the spark.” I feel that way far too often.

[JennFaeAge]

It's good to have you back, I've been showing my step-dad WDPLASS...safe to say he is enjoying it

[zemoxian]

One of these folks apparently wandered into a pro-science video comment section. I’ve been online for 30 years now, and I try to live by the adage “don’t feed the trolls.” Sometimes I don’t do very well. I’ve been suffering from contact with the mud flooding Tartarian community. Trying to understand what makes people think this way?

This guy speaks up and I lay out the buffet for him and the next flat Earther I bumped into shortly after.

I’m amazed at your composure in this video!