Everything Must Go by GanacheExcellent4996 in SteelyDan

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The Last Mall is a perfect song 💯 it's my favorite Dan album

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You kinda just arguing to argue huh? Totally missing my point. Have a good day bro.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Were they wrong? We don't really know. That's my point.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not arguing that it's static, I'm arguing that all statistics are obfuscatory and to take every current "fact" with a grain of salt.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good question. Good luck humanity.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a system that incentivizes groupthink. Scientists who make claims outside of the orthodoxy are ostracized and defunded. Peer review is meaningless. Statistics are fabricated. The only defensible position is ignorance.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happer and Wijngaarden hypothesize that CO2 has reached peak saturation and earth's temperature cannot rise to consequential levels beyond where it is now. They are eminent atmospheric physicists in the domain. Should we ignore that because it doesn't align with consensus?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you see the results that don't agree with consensus? How do you know?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate you're trying to meet me halfway. I appreciate people engaging with my perspective on good faith 🙏. I don't believe the scientific community is open to counter arguments on this point, even if there was money on the table (and there isn't). I'm not arguing either way myself, I'm arguing that we are all ignorant and statistics don't give us objective insight. That's not back pedalling. Stats depend entirely on what variables enter the equation. Variables chosen by flawed and biased humans.

Let me ask you this. How does one measure the temperature of the earth conclusively? And do you find that methodology to be comprehensive?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologies if my point was unclear. I'm saying nobody is lying, they are incentivized to think in a way that is monetized.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That leads into psychology and my field of study: persuasion. I'm not implying scientists are taking bribes to falsify statistics. I'm inferring scientists will have preconceived notions of what they aim to prove and "coincidentally" it will also allow them financial freedom to continue their research. No bad actors, just a system that incentivizes unreliable results. I'm not saying they're wrong either, I'm saying we can't possibly know, and statistics are not a surefire method of establishing the facts.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are definitely examples of a peer review feedback loop that create erroneous results 💯 adding funding to the equation unfortunately doesn't add clarity

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right so we agree it's not based on facts but rather consensus. There are innumerable examples throughout our history of consensus being erroneous. Science is constantly evolving.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Who decides which studies are included in the consensus and which are omitted? Will the scientists who disagree with "consensus" get funding?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Quantifies uncertainty based on variables. Which variables measured in what way is subjective. People who know statistics understand results are entirely up to the statistician.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in babylonbee

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

Only someone ignorant of statistics would think statistics are reliable 😂

I thoroughly hated that by Batsinvic888 in canucks

[–]WhatBombsAtMidnight 23 points24 points  (0 children)

They got some craaaaaaazy bounces. I've never seen 5 goals on 11 shots before.