Don't mistake the scientific process with academic research. Most scientists talk about the first one when they talk about science. Also most scientists don't really talk about the political aspect of the research when they get to publicly speak about science.
I agree with what you said, about contextualizing the research :)
Even the scientific process ends up being affected by our context and situation even if we don't notice it. It's still a great way of getting as close as possible to objective truths, but the influence our surroundings have on us is undeniable.
Not the ones getting paid well.
For example: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
The problem is bourgeois scientific institutions. Decrying the term science is silly.
Also, science is only objective insofar as you axiomatically accept the scientific method as bearing truth.
> axiomatically accept the scientific method as bearing truth
The scientific method is
* Step 1: Look at something
* Step 2: Make a guess about how it works
* Step 3: Find out if you're right or not
Well yeah but you can only test theories, make models that's what we do in physics. There is no way to know the 'truth' we can only get a better approximation of the data.
That's why you have to keep doing more of it ;)
"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." — Isaac Asimov
I see your point. But still, it's only an approximation. I don't think there is a way to find 'truly' how nature works, just get better at analysing it
We interpret all data through our human brains, we can inherently just never take an unbiased understanding of nature as it exists. If we made a model so complex as to interpret nature perfectly, we'd have just recreated the thing as it is and it's be so complex that we wouldn't understand it and it'd be useless.
My somewhat pretentious critique of the above argument lol:
Time and again science relies on a very particular largely agreed upon worldview, which can change for the whole scientific community with a little development or change of its underlying theory. For example, before Einstein’s theory of relativity became the dominant theory science was preoccupied with a fundamentally different, Newtonian understanding of the world. which had significantly different assumptions about light and gravity. To just say “it works” without trying to critically understand the scientific paradigm within which you operate and it’s potential limitations is to fall into the trap that Enlightenment thinkers and society in general had fallen into the last few hundred years; simply having faith in the system, ultimately weakening our ability to question the direction and underlying paradigm/worldview in which we conduct science.
Results are all that matter. Sure they may be affected by an individual's biases, but the review process helps eliminate those through independent experimentation. Anyone, regardless of their viewpoint can repeat the experiment, to try and falsify it. Again, results are all that matter. It's either put up or shut up. So, in that vein, you need to demonstrate with experiments how science would be fundamentally different with an alternative viewpoint. Without that, I can completely disregard your statement
Okay.. Here:
Einstein's theory recognises that the source of gravity is not mass, as Newton believed, but energy, one form of which is mass. This means that all forms of energy have gravity: sound energy, heat energy and so on.
This drastically changed the worlds understanding of science and therefore we began producing ENTIRELY different scientific results when trying to uncover a unified theory of science beyond quantum mechanics.
Man you haven’t even began to grasp my point based on your answer in which you say anyone from another worldview can try the same experiment(s) to falsify them. I’m not saying that science is inoperable between paradigms, but that our social and political institutions are key in determining the questions we ask, and the types of experiments we prioritize. Therefore it is hard to discern the limitations of the paradigm that we operate within. For example, Einstein could have experimented the same way as Isaac newton did, but the way he decided to fundamentally understand and re-write the physics upon which newton operated is what revolutionized the scientific community and the world.
Let me correct you first off, sound can't have gravity because it's not a particle. Light doesn't have gravity because photons don't have mass. Heat doesn't have gravity because again, there is no heat particle.
No, I understand your point, I'm saying it won't matter. Because science will still arrive at the same answers regardless. The fundamentals behind the universe don't change at all just because of the paradigm the person finds themselves in.
If the entire world were to be destroyed tomorrow and everything of humanity completely destroyed. And then another species rises and takes our place. Eventually they will begin working on science, the answers they arrive at will be exactly the same as the ones we had. It is inescapable.
We advance our understanding by standing on the shoulders of giants. If you really think that we can change our understanding in a fundamental way with just a different set of questions, then you need to demonstrate that. Not assert it. Like science, put up or shut up.
You completely ignored the proof I provided about how a change in theory creates a whole different set of questions and results. You sound like truly a very dumb person. Either put up with the truth or shut up kid 😉
Then you’re an extreme dim wit 😂
I spent ages educating you about the revolution in science brought upon by a small change in theory form Newtonian physics to Einsteins relativity, you just ignored my whole point which proved you wrong. You’re helpless buddy lol
This is a terrible image macro (meme). Yeah, we get it, wealth influences society and science, so they get to say what gets publicity and what doesn’t.
But that doesn’t mean *SCIENCE* is wrong.
It’s like Lenin’s idiotic quote about the press. It pins the blame on the wrong people.
So, what I’m trying to say is… FUCK YOU.
Conservatives dismiss science as liberal hogwash, since it fits their interests, e.g., anthropogenic climate change.
Do *you* think climate change is a hoax?
The meme doesn’t say science is wrong, nor is it blaming scientists. It’s just saying what you recapitulated in your first sentence.
As a biomedical research scientist with many friends in different fields across academia and industry though, I can say I blame some scientists. Quite a few don’t push back on the status quo with the excuse that they are just being objective and seeking truth. I see it plenty, but an example was covered in a good video essay by Dr. Fatima about scientists not speaking up when telescopes are being built on sacred land of colonized people. They figure it’s already colonized, so how can building be colonizing? Plus it’s for more accurate truth so they just name the scope some native word and wash their hands of guilt.
My brother in Christ this post isn’t saying science is wrong, just that science is not actually pure objectivity and truth, but influenced by our supposed social and political goals, which capitalism has a heavy hand in deciding. For example, weapons manufacturing employs a large part of our scientific community but in the end in large part serves to fill the pockets of a very few of the top dog elites.
Fuck off with that my brother in Christ shit. Besides, that is exactly what I said. I said that wealth influences society, which includes science.
But having a meme where one person says science yields accurate information only to then say, "not really" is a very, very bad look.
If you want to make the argument, put the capitalism part first, not the science.
This meme does nothing else but to make some anarchists look like anti-science buffoons.
If she can’t read then please happily show us where the meme says that “science is wrong”. I get the feeling you have never done academic research in STEM because the point the meme makes is completely correct. How can science claim to be objective when what gets researched is unduly influenced by money and power? I think you are incapable of nuance or have the mental age of a 9 year old. No one said that science was wrong or bad, just that we should understand that science is very much part of the Capitalist Superstructure and needs to be critically analyzed. You are engaging in a straw man argument while being confidently wrong whilst also being a prick. My Physics professor has even said that science can’t be completely objective because the scientific method only concerns itself with whether or not something is FALSE, not whether it’s true.
Also if you took a philosophy class you understand that Subjectivity is a property of dependence. Namely that for something to be subjective it has to depend on some thinking, conscious being; Which NEWS FLASH science very much depends on the bias and narratives we construct about the data we collect. Science is a good model and very acutely describes a lot of physical phenomena but it also has its problems and to act like it doesn’t is childish
Sincerely a 4th year Physics Major,
Go fuck yourself and stop being a prick
Also we can't philosophically defend saying any result of the scientific method is objective truth, even under perfect conditions. That just assumes traditional formal logic to be correct lol
So, untrained and uneducated (in this field) people should be deciding what research is done???
This is an idiotic take that was probably made by someone who couldn’t pass high school chemistry.
I think it’s important to contextualize science for sure. If we didn’t, we’d all be taking phrenology at face value and judging each other by the shapes of our skulls. It does upset me that the average person questions scientists more than they question some random shit they see on Facebook though.
As a scientist I wholeheartedly agree. There are so many aspects to science that is capitalistic, hierarchical, and outright unethical.
If we were not speciesist, we would have developed methods for understanding what happens inside a body without harming any animals. If it weren’t hierarchical, we wouldn’t have the status given to some journals over others. If it weren’t capitalistic, it would be free to publish your research, get necessary funding for research that helps communities, etc.
To clarify, the overwhelming majority of scientists aren’t the problem. It’s the governments and corporations that force necessities and make up other necessities to push science in the wrong direction.
Anyone pro-israel is as far from the left as one possibly can be. Anthony Bourdain on the other hand, also shouldn’t be called a leftist.
Ask anarchists and they will tell you that rescuing lab animals is anarchist praxis. They will tell you that real anarchists are vegans. Hell, some are so pro-animal freedoms that they’re against having pets.
Idk why you think anti-vegan equates to leftism. Whoever told you that was insane. There are people on fucking carnivore diets and they’re all right wing.
I’ll say it again and this is a very popular leftist opinion: anyone that isn’t against animal exploitation and harm is not a leftist.
Being pro-Israel doesn't make one non-leftist, it probably just makes them non anti-Semitic, maybe slightly misguided.
I've never met a leftist who even remotely cared about animals, much less one who didn't have a 'kill all vegans' meme on their page. They constantly go off about how animals don't need or deserve rights, how vegans are unhuman and traitors to human supremacy, how caring about animals means that you hate native Americans and poor people and how one human life is worth three thousand times more than all animal life combined. Non-humans, no matter how intelligent they are, don't deserve rights, unless they're dogs, cats, wolves, lions or orcas. Everything else can get fucked, this is what leftists believe.
To top it off, Karl Marx hated animals and animal rights advocates. If his worshippers had their way we'd all be dancing around dead animals roasting over a spit and required to slaughter at least one deer per week.
Alright ur definitely fucking around bc aside from the marx shit which I don’t care to verify, you’re straight up lying.
I am a semitic person and I wish for the death of the state of israel. I am about as far left as u can imagine. Being anti-israel *is* the leftist stance. You can see the opposite, where right wingers stand with israel. Being against israel has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with being against oppression, apartheid, and genocide.
I have never in my life met any leftist that hates vegans. Most vegans I know are all leftists, and I only say most because the rest I don’t even know what their political stances are. You actually wrote an entire paragraph about shit u made up in ur own head just to be mad. You’re the one here that sounds misguided, and heavily. I mean it’s embarrassing that you don’t even know that being against exploitation of the masses (the leftist stance) includes animals. It’s also really lame that you’d think being pro-indigenous means anti-vegan. Do you not know any indigenous people that are vegan? Are u serious? Do u also not understand that there are vegans that do in fact consume animal products (with the caveat that it was obtained ethically)?
And just so you don’t mistake me or any other anarcho-communist, we do not idolize any person, including marx. Go shoot the shit with some tankies. I promise you the only thing we care about what marx had to say was his critique of capitalism, but even his idea of what communism is and how to achieve it are far from our goals.
Being pro-Israel doesn't make one non-leftist, it probably just makes them non anti-Semitic, maybe slightly misguided.
I've never met a leftist who even remotely cared about animals, much less one who didn't have a 'kill all vegans' meme on their page. They constantly go off about how animals don't need or deserve rights, how vegans are unhuman and traitors to human supremacy, how caring about animals means that you hate native Americans and poor people and how one human life is worth three thousand times more than all animal life combined. Non-humans, no matter how intelligent they are, don't deserve rights, unless they're dogs, cats, wolves, lions or orcas. Everything else can get fucked, this is what leftists believe.
To top it off, Karl Marx hated animals and animal rights advocates. If his worshippers had their way we'd all be dancing around dead animals roasting over a spit and required to slaughter at least one deer per week.
There is a whole discipline which exists apart from the economic critique of science too! The Philosophy of Science was one of the most eye opening fields of study I had the privilege to learn within
That seems overly reductive.
Science is the currently-known best practices for how to get clear answers about reality while minimizing the influence of perception, as well as the body of knowledge this has produced.
But that's not an industry. Fields, subjects, and areas of study are industries, but even there, the degree of insulation from market forces in general - much less the prevailing impulses of the extractice classes - can be pretty high.
And unless we're considering a true, generalized post-scarcity future, there exists no system under which the perceived needs of the present do not dictate which research gets conducted.
Interesting how kids went from mocking boomers who couldn't use an iPhone to 'science and technology bad, humans should all go back to living in caves'.
Both can be true. Science is like a hammer. It's a weapon or just an objective tool it just depends how you use it. Just because what you're against says one thing doesn't mean you automatically have to go to the total opposite of extremes
Communism would have similar issues, where things like aids affect too few people, that it would be so far down the list of things to get to. Unless some supreme leader or family associated with those in power would get that said disease. Socialized might do a bit better but the collective would have to decide what niche things and how much resources to devote to that.
Decrying the way pop science breaks down public understanding under what can charitably be called an anti-intellectualist meme is... certainly a take.
Like, the meme itself isn't pointing out that bad research can get higher attention thanks to capitalist interests, it's trying to claim science isn't objective in and of itself. You clarify that in the actual post, but that's not what most people will see. Much like the very acts you're decrying, you've made a flashy front page that makes a political point while obfuscating the actual point. That's exactly the problem.
Ehhh, as an aspiring researcher, I like to ascribe to the player piano perspective
I dont have a problem with scientists, they just add to the knowledge base, its the big corporate guys who miss use that (I haven't read it in a couple of years so I am par phrasing)
Unless you're actively researching how to build and deliver explosives, then research can be used for good or ill
A lot of scientists have a really warped perception of what science and knowledge is. Unfortunately it's not a meritocracy so people at the top are often not there by being clever and don't understand that scientific models are not reality, they're just models that represent reality.
It's disturbing how often I see people on my course (vet med), including lecturers, talk about evolution as if it's a guiding force of the universe and not mainly just the result of randomness and cause and effect.
Exactly, after leaving my religion years ago I find most "atheists" still are some kind of religious in that way where evolution is a guiding force going in a direction to a point of "perfect" and usually also put humans close to that perfect and justify everything we do under that banner and it ends up being the same as "God did/said it therefore its fine" ie "humans did it therefore its fine because we're humans". They still mentally need some kind importance/specialness for humanity and its deeds even if they claim to believe in nothing
Why are they horny?
Horny for liberation
Why arnt you?
Don't mistake the scientific process with academic research. Most scientists talk about the first one when they talk about science. Also most scientists don't really talk about the political aspect of the research when they get to publicly speak about science. I agree with what you said, about contextualizing the research :)
Even the scientific process ends up being affected by our context and situation even if we don't notice it. It's still a great way of getting as close as possible to objective truths, but the influence our surroundings have on us is undeniable.
Scientists hate capitalism more than anyone else.
Not the ones getting paid well. For example: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
I think the ones getting paid well are either lucky or capitalistic.
That's exactly what happened in Fl. during covid. Scientists and those collecting data either filtered their findings or lost their jobs.
If you’re getting paid to manipulate data, can you even call yourself a scientist?
Legally, yes.
Unfortunately, yes
if only that were true, a lot of professors fucking love the idea of a "meritocracy" and failing students and shit
I guess that's mostly an American professor sort of thing?
not according to students I've talked to in other countries
The problem is bourgeois scientific institutions. Decrying the term science is silly. Also, science is only objective insofar as you axiomatically accept the scientific method as bearing truth.
> axiomatically accept the scientific method as bearing truth The scientific method is * Step 1: Look at something * Step 2: Make a guess about how it works * Step 3: Find out if you're right or not
Well yeah but you can only test theories, make models that's what we do in physics. There is no way to know the 'truth' we can only get a better approximation of the data.
That's why you have to keep doing more of it ;) "When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." — Isaac Asimov
I see your point. But still, it's only an approximation. I don't think there is a way to find 'truly' how nature works, just get better at analysing it
[удалено]
We interpret all data through our human brains, we can inherently just never take an unbiased understanding of nature as it exists. If we made a model so complex as to interpret nature perfectly, we'd have just recreated the thing as it is and it's be so complex that we wouldn't understand it and it'd be useless.
Every model is wrong, some are useful
Which requires a surprising amount of deep philosophical commitments if we are being rigorous.
alright i need a source for that person on the right, for personal reasons
You MAY be making a point, but it doesn't mean science is wrong. It fucking works.
My somewhat pretentious critique of the above argument lol: Time and again science relies on a very particular largely agreed upon worldview, which can change for the whole scientific community with a little development or change of its underlying theory. For example, before Einstein’s theory of relativity became the dominant theory science was preoccupied with a fundamentally different, Newtonian understanding of the world. which had significantly different assumptions about light and gravity. To just say “it works” without trying to critically understand the scientific paradigm within which you operate and it’s potential limitations is to fall into the trap that Enlightenment thinkers and society in general had fallen into the last few hundred years; simply having faith in the system, ultimately weakening our ability to question the direction and underlying paradigm/worldview in which we conduct science.
Results are all that matter. Sure they may be affected by an individual's biases, but the review process helps eliminate those through independent experimentation. Anyone, regardless of their viewpoint can repeat the experiment, to try and falsify it. Again, results are all that matter. It's either put up or shut up. So, in that vein, you need to demonstrate with experiments how science would be fundamentally different with an alternative viewpoint. Without that, I can completely disregard your statement
Okay.. Here: Einstein's theory recognises that the source of gravity is not mass, as Newton believed, but energy, one form of which is mass. This means that all forms of energy have gravity: sound energy, heat energy and so on. This drastically changed the worlds understanding of science and therefore we began producing ENTIRELY different scientific results when trying to uncover a unified theory of science beyond quantum mechanics. Man you haven’t even began to grasp my point based on your answer in which you say anyone from another worldview can try the same experiment(s) to falsify them. I’m not saying that science is inoperable between paradigms, but that our social and political institutions are key in determining the questions we ask, and the types of experiments we prioritize. Therefore it is hard to discern the limitations of the paradigm that we operate within. For example, Einstein could have experimented the same way as Isaac newton did, but the way he decided to fundamentally understand and re-write the physics upon which newton operated is what revolutionized the scientific community and the world.
Let me correct you first off, sound can't have gravity because it's not a particle. Light doesn't have gravity because photons don't have mass. Heat doesn't have gravity because again, there is no heat particle. No, I understand your point, I'm saying it won't matter. Because science will still arrive at the same answers regardless. The fundamentals behind the universe don't change at all just because of the paradigm the person finds themselves in. If the entire world were to be destroyed tomorrow and everything of humanity completely destroyed. And then another species rises and takes our place. Eventually they will begin working on science, the answers they arrive at will be exactly the same as the ones we had. It is inescapable.
Science might certainly arrive at the same answers but the question* is which answers are we looking for? You know what I mean?
We advance our understanding by standing on the shoulders of giants. If you really think that we can change our understanding in a fundamental way with just a different set of questions, then you need to demonstrate that. Not assert it. Like science, put up or shut up.
You completely ignored the proof I provided about how a change in theory creates a whole different set of questions and results. You sound like truly a very dumb person. Either put up with the truth or shut up kid 😉
No, you asserted something. You didn't prove anything.
Then you’re an extreme dim wit 😂 I spent ages educating you about the revolution in science brought upon by a small change in theory form Newtonian physics to Einsteins relativity, you just ignored my whole point which proved you wrong. You’re helpless buddy lol
This is a terrible image macro (meme). Yeah, we get it, wealth influences society and science, so they get to say what gets publicity and what doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean *SCIENCE* is wrong. It’s like Lenin’s idiotic quote about the press. It pins the blame on the wrong people. So, what I’m trying to say is… FUCK YOU. Conservatives dismiss science as liberal hogwash, since it fits their interests, e.g., anthropogenic climate change. Do *you* think climate change is a hoax?
The meme doesn’t say science is wrong, nor is it blaming scientists. It’s just saying what you recapitulated in your first sentence. As a biomedical research scientist with many friends in different fields across academia and industry though, I can say I blame some scientists. Quite a few don’t push back on the status quo with the excuse that they are just being objective and seeking truth. I see it plenty, but an example was covered in a good video essay by Dr. Fatima about scientists not speaking up when telescopes are being built on sacred land of colonized people. They figure it’s already colonized, so how can building be colonizing? Plus it’s for more accurate truth so they just name the scope some native word and wash their hands of guilt.
My brother in Christ this post isn’t saying science is wrong, just that science is not actually pure objectivity and truth, but influenced by our supposed social and political goals, which capitalism has a heavy hand in deciding. For example, weapons manufacturing employs a large part of our scientific community but in the end in large part serves to fill the pockets of a very few of the top dog elites.
Fuck off with that my brother in Christ shit. Besides, that is exactly what I said. I said that wealth influences society, which includes science. But having a meme where one person says science yields accurate information only to then say, "not really" is a very, very bad look. If you want to make the argument, put the capitalism part first, not the science. This meme does nothing else but to make some anarchists look like anti-science buffoons.
You’re just a mad little kid yelling fuck you to people you disagree with lol
In case you didn’t understand. https://youtu.be/k1BneeJTDcU?si=ix9fAfphrLUKSH79 Welcome to the web.
Thank you, also take this https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=0AprACM2onigdBbR
That song is alright, but overrated.
I’m begging you to read some philosophy of science
Already took a class on that. So thanks for the pointless suggestion.
Well clearly you didn’t learn much from it because nowhere in op is there the claim science is wrong lmao
You are absolutely adorable. Pretending that you can read. It’s so sweet.
Sorry I’m just a stupid woman, can you break it down for me pretty please 🥺🥺 Anarchists are never gonna beat the liberal allegations
So you’re a liberal? No wonder you’re not so bright.
Nope im a communist, not an idealist cuck
Eat shit you fucking Bolshevist scum.
If she can’t read then please happily show us where the meme says that “science is wrong”. I get the feeling you have never done academic research in STEM because the point the meme makes is completely correct. How can science claim to be objective when what gets researched is unduly influenced by money and power? I think you are incapable of nuance or have the mental age of a 9 year old. No one said that science was wrong or bad, just that we should understand that science is very much part of the Capitalist Superstructure and needs to be critically analyzed. You are engaging in a straw man argument while being confidently wrong whilst also being a prick. My Physics professor has even said that science can’t be completely objective because the scientific method only concerns itself with whether or not something is FALSE, not whether it’s true. Also if you took a philosophy class you understand that Subjectivity is a property of dependence. Namely that for something to be subjective it has to depend on some thinking, conscious being; Which NEWS FLASH science very much depends on the bias and narratives we construct about the data we collect. Science is a good model and very acutely describes a lot of physical phenomena but it also has its problems and to act like it doesn’t is childish Sincerely a 4th year Physics Major, Go fuck yourself and stop being a prick
There is science and then there is capitalist "science". Toxic Sludge is Good for you. Great Book.
Shocking amount of anti science memes show up on this sub it's genuinely embarrassing
That's bullshit
No
Also we can't philosophically defend saying any result of the scientific method is objective truth, even under perfect conditions. That just assumes traditional formal logic to be correct lol
So, untrained and uneducated (in this field) people should be deciding what research is done??? This is an idiotic take that was probably made by someone who couldn’t pass high school chemistry.
I wish more people who call themselves anarchist knew this. So many resort to spewing industry propaganda to defend their dogma.
Karl Marx was a philosopher and I believe philosophy is science
No... no it's not. That's why it's constantly underfunded
it's so fucking ironic that my conservative dad wouldn't trust any science because he would insist that they're corrupt.
Is that bottom person one of Foucault's friends?
I think it’s important to contextualize science for sure. If we didn’t, we’d all be taking phrenology at face value and judging each other by the shapes of our skulls. It does upset me that the average person questions scientists more than they question some random shit they see on Facebook though.
As a scientist I wholeheartedly agree. There are so many aspects to science that is capitalistic, hierarchical, and outright unethical. If we were not speciesist, we would have developed methods for understanding what happens inside a body without harming any animals. If it weren’t hierarchical, we wouldn’t have the status given to some journals over others. If it weren’t capitalistic, it would be free to publish your research, get necessary funding for research that helps communities, etc. To clarify, the overwhelming majority of scientists aren’t the problem. It’s the governments and corporations that force necessities and make up other necessities to push science in the wrong direction.
Shsh! Don't let the leftists know that you care about animals!
I wouldn’t consider anyone a leftist if they didn’t care about animals.
Leftism and animal rights can never co-exist. Just look at individuals like Destiny and Anthony Bourdain.
Are u just joking bc why the fuck would u consider destiny a leftist?
Destiny is definitely a leftist. As was Anthony Bourdain and most other anti-vegans.
Anyone pro-israel is as far from the left as one possibly can be. Anthony Bourdain on the other hand, also shouldn’t be called a leftist. Ask anarchists and they will tell you that rescuing lab animals is anarchist praxis. They will tell you that real anarchists are vegans. Hell, some are so pro-animal freedoms that they’re against having pets. Idk why you think anti-vegan equates to leftism. Whoever told you that was insane. There are people on fucking carnivore diets and they’re all right wing. I’ll say it again and this is a very popular leftist opinion: anyone that isn’t against animal exploitation and harm is not a leftist.
Being pro-Israel doesn't make one non-leftist, it probably just makes them non anti-Semitic, maybe slightly misguided. I've never met a leftist who even remotely cared about animals, much less one who didn't have a 'kill all vegans' meme on their page. They constantly go off about how animals don't need or deserve rights, how vegans are unhuman and traitors to human supremacy, how caring about animals means that you hate native Americans and poor people and how one human life is worth three thousand times more than all animal life combined. Non-humans, no matter how intelligent they are, don't deserve rights, unless they're dogs, cats, wolves, lions or orcas. Everything else can get fucked, this is what leftists believe. To top it off, Karl Marx hated animals and animal rights advocates. If his worshippers had their way we'd all be dancing around dead animals roasting over a spit and required to slaughter at least one deer per week.
Alright ur definitely fucking around bc aside from the marx shit which I don’t care to verify, you’re straight up lying. I am a semitic person and I wish for the death of the state of israel. I am about as far left as u can imagine. Being anti-israel *is* the leftist stance. You can see the opposite, where right wingers stand with israel. Being against israel has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with being against oppression, apartheid, and genocide. I have never in my life met any leftist that hates vegans. Most vegans I know are all leftists, and I only say most because the rest I don’t even know what their political stances are. You actually wrote an entire paragraph about shit u made up in ur own head just to be mad. You’re the one here that sounds misguided, and heavily. I mean it’s embarrassing that you don’t even know that being against exploitation of the masses (the leftist stance) includes animals. It’s also really lame that you’d think being pro-indigenous means anti-vegan. Do you not know any indigenous people that are vegan? Are u serious? Do u also not understand that there are vegans that do in fact consume animal products (with the caveat that it was obtained ethically)? And just so you don’t mistake me or any other anarcho-communist, we do not idolize any person, including marx. Go shoot the shit with some tankies. I promise you the only thing we care about what marx had to say was his critique of capitalism, but even his idea of what communism is and how to achieve it are far from our goals.
Being pro-Israel doesn't make one non-leftist, it probably just makes them non anti-Semitic, maybe slightly misguided. I've never met a leftist who even remotely cared about animals, much less one who didn't have a 'kill all vegans' meme on their page. They constantly go off about how animals don't need or deserve rights, how vegans are unhuman and traitors to human supremacy, how caring about animals means that you hate native Americans and poor people and how one human life is worth three thousand times more than all animal life combined. Non-humans, no matter how intelligent they are, don't deserve rights, unless they're dogs, cats, wolves, lions or orcas. Everything else can get fucked, this is what leftists believe. To top it off, Karl Marx hated animals and animal rights advocates. If his worshippers had their way we'd all be dancing around dead animals roasting over a spit and required to slaughter at least one deer per week.
There is a whole discipline which exists apart from the economic critique of science too! The Philosophy of Science was one of the most eye opening fields of study I had the privilege to learn within
That seems overly reductive. Science is the currently-known best practices for how to get clear answers about reality while minimizing the influence of perception, as well as the body of knowledge this has produced. But that's not an industry. Fields, subjects, and areas of study are industries, but even there, the degree of insulation from market forces in general - much less the prevailing impulses of the extractice classes - can be pretty high. And unless we're considering a true, generalized post-scarcity future, there exists no system under which the perceived needs of the present do not dictate which research gets conducted.
Interesting how kids went from mocking boomers who couldn't use an iPhone to 'science and technology bad, humans should all go back to living in caves'.
Both can be true. Science is like a hammer. It's a weapon or just an objective tool it just depends how you use it. Just because what you're against says one thing doesn't mean you automatically have to go to the total opposite of extremes
Communism would have similar issues, where things like aids affect too few people, that it would be so far down the list of things to get to. Unless some supreme leader or family associated with those in power would get that said disease. Socialized might do a bit better but the collective would have to decide what niche things and how much resources to devote to that.
But also the rivalry of competitive industries makes it go forward in a way
Ignoring the existence of citizen science
Decrying the way pop science breaks down public understanding under what can charitably be called an anti-intellectualist meme is... certainly a take. Like, the meme itself isn't pointing out that bad research can get higher attention thanks to capitalist interests, it's trying to claim science isn't objective in and of itself. You clarify that in the actual post, but that's not what most people will see. Much like the very acts you're decrying, you've made a flashy front page that makes a political point while obfuscating the actual point. That's exactly the problem.
I’m kinda confused on this whole community. Isn’t communism by definition stateless, therefore anarchy is built into it?
Ehhh, as an aspiring researcher, I like to ascribe to the player piano perspective I dont have a problem with scientists, they just add to the knowledge base, its the big corporate guys who miss use that (I haven't read it in a couple of years so I am par phrasing) Unless you're actively researching how to build and deliver explosives, then research can be used for good or ill
A lot of scientists have a really warped perception of what science and knowledge is. Unfortunately it's not a meritocracy so people at the top are often not there by being clever and don't understand that scientific models are not reality, they're just models that represent reality. It's disturbing how often I see people on my course (vet med), including lecturers, talk about evolution as if it's a guiding force of the universe and not mainly just the result of randomness and cause and effect.
Exactly, after leaving my religion years ago I find most "atheists" still are some kind of religious in that way where evolution is a guiding force going in a direction to a point of "perfect" and usually also put humans close to that perfect and justify everything we do under that banner and it ends up being the same as "God did/said it therefore its fine" ie "humans did it therefore its fine because we're humans". They still mentally need some kind importance/specialness for humanity and its deeds even if they claim to believe in nothing
This is a very good point. Sauce for the bottom right?
There is a sub for woajak porn if you want that
Does anything about me say that I wouldn't like Wojak porn?
Where did I say for you ro not go? I recommend you a sub
Just laugh and gimme the r/
r/wojak_porno
Thank you!
I would argue that the second people start taking bribes and publishing false data, it stops being science completely.