all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"Science" doesn't do or advocate anything, it's just a method. It's like pitting Religion against Object Oriented Programming (They're the same picture)

Anyway, great shitpost

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've always wondered about this, because not only are they not mutually exclusive, they don't really fight unless someone really wants to create an issue.

    "It turns out the Earth revolves around the Sun, which in turn rotates around a galactic center."

    "But we've been teaching that the Earth is the center of the universe. What will we tell people?"

    "Well, we all thought it was the center, but it turns out it wasn't. Does anything in your religion specifically say we're the center?"

    "No..."

    "Then I guess we all found out together. Also, why are you even teaching stuff like that? The movement of celestial bodies seems a weird topic to be discussing in church."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    In a way I find pop sciency types that go after religion even worse. Like science doesn't argue anything about religion, it's set up to be unprovable - so don't argue, if it's not falsifiable it's not science you're just grinding a personal axe.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Literally today's politics

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    As a anti religious person this meme ignores the reality of science to present its "ideal" while not extending the same to religion.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    What is the relevance to my comment? I agree by the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's the ideal the commentor is talking about, this isn't reality. A significant number of peer reviewed papers are being published without replicable results or any hint of a falsifiable hypothesis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    And how do you know this? Is it because someone said "this is true" and then someone else was then able to say "no it isn't - and here's the evidence".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Well, that's kinda my point, a lot of modern theoretical physics doesn't present a falsifiable hypothesis - it can't be tested, there's no proposal for how it could ever be tested.

    In terms of evidence the unrepeatable results - some of it is being repeated and checked, a lot of it isnt. Predictions of how bad the problem is is derived statistically. So much so it's considered a crisis in modern science.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I’d say the latter is just dogmatism, which exists in both science and religion. As a radical skeptic, I simply suspend judgment about any claim — sometimes questioning it, other times engaging it for the sake of practicality.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Not only religion - narcissistic (and other kinds of) assholes exhibit the same behaviour. Does this mean that all assholes are religious?

  • source
  • Quality shitpost 👌

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    Fuck this kind of memes, it makes both end of the conversation hostile

    Enjoy your win against your strawman

  • source
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Also Science: "everything revolves around the earth and if you say different we‘ll burn you"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment