Anti-Trump Witches trying to figure out which of them cast the spell to give Trump Covid-19

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
331
241
48
Country
4
Well the easy definition of science would be

"The search for truth"
.... by using that which is observable, recordable and replicable.

Ok so show me evidence that Witches spells gave Trump Covid-19.
That's what this thread is about ultimately remember.
No, it's about an amusing social phenomenon of a fringe culture that an internet website thought would create some interest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,299
1,654
118
The weird attempt by some to throw all of Science out because it was wrong in the past kind of show a failure to grasp that Science does evolve over time as our knowledge does and it's hard for fake research to survive long comparatively even in some of the more specialised areas.
Science has evolved and improved in large part not just because of the work of science itself, but the work of people like social scientists that you're busy slagging off here.

You forget perhaps that science is a societal activity. As such its practice is informed by societal assumptions, societal structures, and so on. Even today, common assumptions flow into science and determine aspects of what is examined and how is examined. Scientists often tend not to notice because they are not trained to see them, or that erroneous assumptions have been apparently bolstered by a body of work that justifies them, even if they are houses built on a foundation of sand because the key underlying assumptions have not been truly tested.

When I think about what threats to science are, I'm infinitely more concerned about groups like US right wing, who have literally spent decades undermining any science inconvenient to their economic and political ambitions - in health (smoking, diet), climate change, etc. These guys have spent many billions of dollars over the years funding fraudulent science, scientific misrepresentation, distrust of science and personal attacks on scientists doing their job. Compared to that, why anyone "pro-science" is worried about a handful of the crazier end of "postmodernist" activists who have virtually no influence at all is beyond me.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
213
79
33
I am not particularly impressed with the postmodernist take on science.

But i don't think it isactually dangerous. What people want from science is producing results. All those "alternative science" versions ignoring the empiric principles can't do so and won't ever amount to more than a fad. Faulty science just doesn't hold up

And while scientists are certainly not above prejudices and bias, no amount of wishful thinking will get the experiments to conform. As for race theory : How many people have tried to prove racist prejudices ? How many have actually succeded without getting flaws on their experimental setup pointed out in less than two decades ?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
403
298
68
Country
United States
And while scientists are certainly not above prejudices and bias, no amount of wishful thinking will get the experiments to conform. As for race theory : How many people have tried to prove racist prejudices ? How many have actually succeded without getting flaws on their experimental setup pointed out in less than two decades ?
Junk science still influences policy. Just look at how many corporations and government entities still try and use things like half-assed personality or IQ tests
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
266
219
48
Country
United Kingdom
We wouldn't even know about this bias without using the scientific method to find it.
How would you use the scientific method to find biases?

It sounds like you're equating the scientific method with any form of secular critical practice here, which for someone who thinks modern philosophy is "useless" is incredibly weird.

That is not how math works. Math itself has proven the Limits of math. Just look up Gödels theorems.
Presumably, you've heard of Anselm's ontological argument? It's one of the few bits of theology they teach in school because it's such a bad argument even children can dunk on it.

The argument is that God is defined as "that which no greater can be conceived". So we have two possible Gods, a God who does not exist and a God who does. Since both can be conceived by the human mind, the latter is the only one that meets the definition of God, and therefore God exists. Flawless.

You can see the circular reasoning right? You cannot use the definition of God to prove that God exists. The mental idea of God that exists in our minds does not imply an external referent.

Now, it's kind of cool that you can use maths to prove the limitations of maths. But that's not really what I'm talking about. The problem isn't whether math has limitations, it's whether math is actually capable of proving anything at all. Do the mental constructs of mathematics actually correspond to real things, or is it a closed logical system with no basis in reality, like Anselm's medieval scholastic theology. You cannot answer that question using mathematics. You could go and grab an abacus and start moving real beads around to show the validity of mathematical concepts, but then you're not really doing mathematics any more, you're making empirical observations, with all the baggage that implies.

But it goes deeper than this. Because I'm not actually talking about mathematics. Mathematics is just a simplified way of talking about the capacity to derive universal truth from reason (and no, the fact that maths can prove the limits of maths does not imply that mathematical reason is not universal).

But is not as if philosophers writing about math or science tend to actually understand a thing about it.
I mean, generally philosophy doesn't write about maths at all. Philosophers who do write about maths are called mathematicians (or sometimes philosophers of mathematics).

But you cannot even adequately define science without referencing the philosophy of science. The idea that philosophers don't understand science is genuinely ludicrous.

And why is that a crisis?
Because it is a problem or contradiction requiring the work of criticism and intellectual labour to resolve (in fact, it will in all likelihood never be permanently resolved). That's what a crisis, in the philosophical sense, means.

A crisis does not mean a sudden disaster, it does not mean people wailing or rending their clothes in the street. In an extremely oversimplified fashion, it means living in a world which does not make sense. The reason it's called the crisis of modernity is because modernity is an inherently incoherent state. It's not painful or distressing to live in an incoherent world, it's not a disaster, it just means never actually being able to substantiate the things that you believe.

Scientists don't assume that anything they know about nature are universal truths.
Of course they do.

We all do.

Think about what it would mean for a second not to assume any universal truths about nature. Heck, science didn't even invent the idea of universals. There was a massive theological controversy at the end of the 13th century over the existence of universals (incidentally, there is a pretty direct line of descent between theology and science, at least on the topic of universals.)

But what you're getting at is that scientists understand the limitations of an assumption, and that is true. That is part of why science works (a very important feature of my argument which I notice you've entirely ignored). The problem isn't that scientists are bad and think that they as individuals can have perfect knowledge because they did a single weak experiment (although that is sometimes true, it's not really an argument against science itself). The problem is, limited in relation to what.

Again, if science as a discipline is continuously iterating and progressing towards this point of hypothetical (and possibly unreachable) perfect knowledge when all flaws and inconsistencies have been ironed out, then how can you actually guarantee that that point of knowledge is perfect? How can you guarantee it is more truthful? Again, how do you use science to prove the capacity of science to even draw closer to truth?

You say that science is capable of resolving its own biases. If this perception of advancing truthfulness was the result of bias, how would you actually know?

There is no point in attempting to reduce nature to universals unless you believe nature can be reduced to universals.

Only philosophers need a universal truth and try to make a crisis out of it.
What a dumb, ignorant statement.

Again, the crisis of modernity is the failure of modernity to validate its own normative assumptions. For most modern philosophers, living in that state is actually very exciting and intellectually liberating, particularly if you try to compare it to some attempt to imagine a hypothetical modernity that is not in crisis and where STEM nerds actually are the universal authorities on the validity of all human knowledge that they sometimes pretend to be.

To quote some incel's fanfiction.

There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,381
697
118
Country
USA
And while scientists are certainly not above prejudices and bias, no amount of wishful thinking will get the experiments to conform. As for race theory : How many people have tried to prove racist prejudices ? How many have actually succeded without getting flaws on their experimental setup pointed out in less than two decades ?
Sam Harris still has a sizable audience listening to his junk science takes on race. You're assuming that people don't just cherry-pick data that suits their narratives.

Generally, I find people who shit on philosophy are just taking a sour grapes approach. They don't understand it, they're not willing to learn, so they decide that philosophy is beneath them. And this applies to a lot of other areas of study and discipline. Those who cannot often make excuses for why they shouldn't have to.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
1,717
799
118
Sam Harris still has a sizable audience listening to his junk science takes on race. You're assuming that people don't just cherry-pick data that suits their narratives.
The fact that humans behave in ways contrary to empirical science, because of bias and prejudice, doesn't invalidate the scientific method as being the best model for accurately determining how the universe works to the best of our abilities. Appealing to non-science, like the original post of this thread, isn't how you disprove and discredit a faulty premise. You use science to disprove it. Sure it might be flawed, but that's what peer review is for. Put up the premise, show your work, let others rip it apart like people in an online forum "discussion." If your findings actually hold up, then there is grounds that it has some validity...and then more study should be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Shadyside

Bad Hombre
Legacy
Aug 20, 2020
1,437
375
88
Country
Republic of Texas
Gender
Hombre
Well, supposedly he is now immune to the Chinese virus. These witches are going to have to try harder. Maybe give him brain cancer or accelerate his dementia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,381
697
118
Country
USA
The fact that humans behave in ways contrary to empirical science, because of bias and prejudice, doesn't invalidate the scientific method as being the best model for accurately determining how the universe works to the best of our abilities. Appealing to non-science, like the original post of this thread, isn't how you disprove and discredit a faulty premise. You use science to disprove it. Sure it might be flawed, but that's what peer review is for. Put up the premise, show your work, let others rip it apart like people in an online forum "discussion." If your findings actually hold up, then there is grounds that it has some validity...and then more study should be done.
I didn't mean to imply that it did. Just that the scientific method requires a degree of intellectual discipline that many people are not willing to work to develop. And Sam Harris is a particularly important example because he is a scientist and should know better.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Well, supposedly he is now immune to the Chinese virus. These witches are going to have to try harder. Maybe give him brain cancer or accelerate his dementia.
Since people have been reinfected, maybe this will make him get brave stupid and think he is invincible and go catch it again in his ignorance..
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
1,717
799
118
I didn't mean to imply that it did. Just that the scientific method requires a degree of intellectual discipline that many people are not willing to work to develop. And Sam Harris is a particularly important example because he is a scientist and should know better.
Which is why it's a group effort, and requires constant re-evaluation, to check for previously unnoticed biases and faulty premises.

My issue with this thread, not your posts in particular, is the posts where some people try and toss in the "yeah well science gets things wrong, so who are they to say magic and other shit isn't valid?" That makes me want to reach into my monitor and smack some people. Nobody who actually is familiar with scientific method, ever says that it's perfect, and knows everything. That kind of statement comes from CRITICS of science, trying to discredit it to prop up their own shitty system/idea they think merits consideration. What's equally frustrating and funny about it, is that they want it to be considered as "legit" as science, but the method they use to try and prop up their own thing, is to discredit scientific method. And all I can think is "Ok so, you want me to consider your proposition as equally as science...the thing you've spent 20 minutes rambling about how unreliable and invalid it is a method of determining what is real versus fake?....do you SEE the contradiction? No, of course you don't."
 

Shadyside

Bad Hombre
Legacy
Aug 20, 2020
1,437
375
88
Country
Republic of Texas
Gender
Hombre
Since people have been reinfected, maybe this will make him get brave stupid and think he is invincible and go catch it again in his ignorance..
I say let him hold his rallies. Maybe everyone else can get infected and not be able to vote when the time comes.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,381
697
118
Country
USA
Which is why it's a group effort, and requires constant re-evaluation, to check for previously unnoticed biases and faulty premises.

My issue with this thread, not your posts in particular, is the posts where some people try and toss in the "yeah well science gets things wrong, so who are they to say magic and other shit isn't valid?" That makes me want to reach into my monitor and smack some people. Nobody who actually is familiar with scientific method, ever says that it's perfect, and knows everything. That kind of statement comes from CRITICS of science, trying to discredit it to prop up their own shitty system/idea they think merits consideration. What's equally frustrating and funny about it, is that they want it to be considered as "legit" as science, but the method they use to try and prop up their own thing, is to discredit scientific method. And all I can think is "Ok so, you want me to consider your proposition as equally as science...the thing you've spent 20 minutes rambling about how unreliable and invalid it is a method of determining what is real versus fake?....do you SEE the contradiction? No, of course you don't."
Oh, totally. They absolutely want the credibility of science without all the rigorous work and admitting-where-you-got-it-wrong. I know I've said this before, but it's a damn good quote: "It's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
1,717
799
118
Oh, totally. They absolutely want the credibility of science without all the rigorous work and admitting-where-you-got-it-wrong. I know I've said this before, but it's a damn good quote: "It's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right."
And the funny thing is, whenever a previously declared scientific statement was proven wrong, do you know how it was disproven? By using the scientific method. It's never been proven wrong by appealing to magic or religion. It always boils down to "Hey, you got your math wrong." or "You didn't have access to these tools we now do." etc. But no, we have idiots who go on tv and say shit like "tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that"

 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,381
697
118
Country
USA
And the funny thing is, whenever a previously declared scientific statement was proven wrong, do you know how it was disproven? By using the scientific method. It's never been proven wrong by appealing to magic or religion. It always boils down to "Hey, you got your math wrong." or "You didn't have access to these tools we now do." etc. But no, we have idiots who go on tv and say shit like "tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that"

Ah, that episode. I first watched it when I was still in my "angry asshole atheist" phase. Fortunately, some of us grow out of that.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,381
697
118
Country
USA
I make no apologies for being pissed off at idiots.
I think there's a difference between being offended by stupidity and being a fucking dick about it. You're not a fucking dick as far as I can tell. I know that's a low bar, but this is the internet.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
1,717
799
118
I think there's a difference between being offended by stupidity and being a fucking dick about it. You're not a fucking dick as far as I can tell. I know that's a low bar, but this is the internet.
I'm fairly unapologetic about my criticisms of religion, specifically due to the harm that their mystical thinking has done to the world. If that makes me an "angry atheist" well, I don't really fucking care. I've lived my entire life around bigoted, religious assholes, who spout shit day and night that is demonstrably wrong, racist, harmful, and pretty much every other negative trait human speech has, but they think it's ok, because "hey, it's what I believe." And if it was JUST them, I honestly wouldn't mind. But nobody's beliefs live in a bubble. Their mystic thinking colors their perception of reality, it colors their choices for voting, it colors how they treat others around them. It colors their belief in things like a fucking plague, that is killing people everyday, but hey, we don't have to worry about it, because some televangelist "rebuked" covid, by literally blowing at it with "the breath of god". And now it's gone, mission accomplished everyone! We don't have to wear masks! It makes people, like an actual coworker I had once, who was a 20 year military veteran, who didn't understand the basics of the structure of the solar system. Like, how orbits worked, the basic concept of gravity. Because for him, religion was more important than pesky things like learning stuff. But he was a devout religious guy, who honestly told me, that gays can't be allowed to have children, because if there is even a 1% chance they might "convert" kids, we can't let them do it. Blissfully ignoring things like "ok well if there is a 1% chance a parent beats their kid, do we let them have the chance to have children? What about parents who might molest their children, in a purely heterosexual way? Hey it's just a 1% chance, but that's apparently too much for you to support gays having children, but it's not enough to support the idea of...well ANY kind of parenting, because there is a chance something might not go well."

And that episode I linked, their beliefs didn't save the day, it took people actually doing, tangible, real stuff that saved them.

So yeah, I don't consider myself an "angry" atheist, but people on this site have some pretty stupid ideas on what they think being an atheist means, and I've since stopped giving a shit about what people think on my criticisms of their bullshit. Not that what I linked actually had anything to do with atheism, I was talking about critical thinking and scientific method, but those are often attributed to atheists, often disparagingly from the other side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki and Buyetyen

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
Science has evolved and improved in large part not just because of the work of science itself, but the work of people like social scientists that you're busy slagging off here.

You forget perhaps that science is a societal activity. As such its practice is informed by societal assumptions, societal structures, and so on. Even today, common assumptions flow into science and determine aspects of what is examined and how is examined. Scientists often tend not to notice because they are not trained to see them, or that erroneous assumptions have been apparently bolstered by a body of work that justifies them, even if they are houses built on a foundation of sand because the key underlying assumptions have not been truly tested.
Well tell Social Science it's time to apply their critical thinking to their own house for a while because there's been a lot of stuff proving to not be very valid research being pushed out and the excuse normally is "But this one Science paper got withdrawn due to not being accurate" when it often turns out to be some super specialised Science area like 25 people in the world are experts in enough to dispute the paper.

When I think about what threats to science are, I'm infinitely more concerned about groups like US right wing, who have literally spent decades undermining any science inconvenient to their economic and political ambitions - in health (smoking, diet), climate change, etc. These guys have spent many billions of dollars over the years funding fraudulent science, scientific misrepresentation, distrust of science and personal attacks on scientists doing their job. Compared to that, why anyone "pro-science" is worried about a handful of the crazier end of "postmodernist" activists who have virtually no influence at all is beyond me.
And right wing groups have lost again and again.

I forgot where it was I read it but there was an account of a left wing journalist who said he went to cover the court challenges to put creationism in the Science curriculum in the USA.

I don't have it to hand but he talks about all these journalist eagerly packing the court to watch the spectacle and write pieces laughing about the silliness of the case and how backwards those bringing the case must be. Saying it was more of a circus show looking at people whose views were so different etc. The piece then went on to say how he then noticed silly stuff coming from others not the normal evangelical Christian kind and how people seemed to not want to cover it. How coverage of quack ideas and the same kind of joyful debunking of them wasn't happening because the people were deemed "On the same side" as journalist all against evangelical right wingers. He went on listing other such silly things that don't get called out and the basic conclusion was, we know what the right will do, we know the right and their nonsense attack on Science will get covered, get attention and be fought back against. But groups like "The Fallists" deemed to be on the side of "progressives" won't be. Hell you don't see that much dunking on he nonsense pushed by GOOP lab because that's presented itself as progressive somehow. About the only major criticism I've seen toward it was appropriation of indigenous practices.

You know what's harmed Science in the public perception more than anything recently? People being unwilling to argue.

This year it's worth pointing out the WHO was told by Scientists that Covid-19 could spread from person to person. They chose to go with the official line from CCP Scientists rather than other researchers. WHO to most is seen as a major Science institution and likely few people were aware they were warned about it spreading person to person. You know who called them out? Scientists who make youtube videos in their damn bedrooms explaining this stuff (and actual Scientists not people playing pretend) You know what happened? Youtube deemed it mis-information and suppressed a lot of it and had a "we will promote authorative sources" approach which meant the press, a lot of whom are reporters not Scientsts who didn't look at the data or understand it fully and just pushed out the CCP line that it wasn't spreading. We've had Kamala Harris saying she wouldn't trust any vaccine from the Trump Administration for months, because apparently Scientists in the USA not trustworthy or wouldn't fight to stop a vaccine that was dangerous being release?

One side is getting called out and has been shut down again and again for years. The Other side very much hasn't.

Any-one for one of the 15 different water from air devices that keep turning out to be modified de-humidifiers? How about another Solar Roadway? People are reluctant to call them out because they seem vaguely progressive and get spun as "Helping poor countries" or "Saving the environment by turning roads into giant solar collection systems when you could just install some Solar panels as sun shades at open air car parks and it would probably be cheaper and work better.

What's the phrase now "Better the Devil you know"
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
I am not particularly impressed with the postmodernist take on science.

But i don't think it isactually dangerous. What people want from science is producing results. All those "alternative science" versions ignoring the empiric principles can't do so and won't ever amount to more than a fad. Faulty science just doesn't hold up

And while scientists are certainly not above prejudices and bias, no amount of wishful thinking will get the experiments to conform. As for race theory : How many people have tried to prove racist prejudices ? How many have actually succeded without getting flaws on their experimental setup pointed out in less than two decades ?
Not entirely. There is quite a bit of dnager.

They want results that confirm their biases.

Lets say research came out suggesting Covid-19 had a genetic factor to it. Lets say that genetic factor was found in people of a certain ethnicity and cultural heritage. Well based on how things are going anyone who dared suggest that would face claims of racism from people who refuse to accept genetic heritage may impact people.

I say this as some-one who has had multiple people lookup from my file and then sound confused as they ask if I'm the person whose name is on the file. Part of my genetic heritage is Mediterranean and while I'm white as anything the particular genetic marker is normally only found in black people or Koreans I think and I've had multiple times either "Sorry I was expecting a Black man" or "You're not black though". Some stuff is important to research and it can and could help people.

There's pushes to shut down research into sex differences in humans. You might think it's nothing but apparently its being researched and found even on a cellular level it can make a difference. Add to that most medicine is tried on and the majority in a lot of trail groups are male and well the effectiveness of the new medicine and treatments on women aren't always known fully or it may not be as effective. Basically by researching the differences they can make medicine work better for men and especially women. But post moderism says there are no real difference between men and women other than the very basics of anatomical structure and people who argue otherwise or want to research further face backlash and being shut down because it's declared sexist and said people try to find who funds the research and go after them too to pull funding.

A recent example which will possibly upset some here which would be Mermaid UK sending a letter to every Primary school in the UK telling teachers if they see gender non conforming behaviour to report it so that said child can be sent to a mermaids endorsed specialist because it's an indication they're trans. In reality non conforming behaviour is mostly just that because no-one fully conforms to strict gender stereotypes We've had Tom Boys for years just because they're a tom boy doesn't mean they're trans. Same with boys exploring things traditionally deemed feminine. Would people say Gordon Ramsey is feminine because he's a chef and traditionally under gender binary cooking is still seen as more of a woman's activity? I doubt they would say he is lol.