News flash buddy
My political opponents are Nazis.
deleted by creator
I miss the 1996 internet, when it was just us nerds arguing about Star Trek versus Star Wars. We never should’ve invited the rest into our space. That was the beginning of the end.
that’s post eternal september.
At one point usenet and irc was nothing but… well it was mostly white males who were egocentric but there were some gems in there, I swear! i met a few!
I miss the wild days of usenet.
We could always argue how many days are in a week like on the bodybuilding forums
for those who haven’t seen it: https://web.archive.org/web/20150105082427/http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751
honestly go in there with a solid frame cuz some of them will make you question reality with their confidence.
If I go every other day I will be at the gym 4-5 times a week, is that over training?
That makes no sense. There are only 7 days in a week. If you go every other day that is 3.5 times a week
https://web.archive.org/web/20150105082427/https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751
i replaced my link with your better one. I haven’t read this in years but i recall by the end i wasn’t sure how many days were even in a week lol
There’s another guy off camera claiming that it used to be a 6, then the Jews made it a 9 and now China made it a 4.
I’m not naming any names today 🤭
As someone who argues on the internet alot it’s true, I’m part of the problem.
deleted by creator
It’s obviously an e
gთ
Dumb fuck
There are no undeniable facts. Science doesn’t prove anything objectively, it merely provides evidence to support or reject certain ideas.
This is true to the extent that science can only prove things through induction and induction is not as good as deduction for logical proofs. Which means that it is not “objective” in the logical senses as it relates to physical reality. But science is “objective” to the extent that experiments are repeatable by any any given person following the same methodology will be the same results.
However the meme image is about interpretation of glyphs used to represent numbers. And the left guy on the bottom is a dumb fuck for not using one of the possible agreed upon options for the interpretation of that glyph.
This is more about interpretation of language and communication than science. Which puts you somewhere between the “9” and “6” guys because you are at least keeping the conversation in the interpretation of data / epistemology arena.
The problem are the people who see this and call it woke or start rambling about a flat earth. Those are the real dumb fucks who aren’t talking about any reasonable interpretation of the thing that is clearly being discussed.
But science is “objective” to the extent that experiments are repeatable by any any given person following the same methodology will be the same results.
No, the beliefs of the researcher are a confounding variable in any experiment. This is called observer bias. Most researchers believe in disputed ideas like personhood, spacetime, and objects, which influence their scientific conclusions. This isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Science exists within our socially constructed world. A truly objective epistemology would be incomprehensible to us, because we are not objectively perceiving or thinking creatures.
I already qualified that I meant objective in two different senses and conceded that pure logical objectivity is not attainable through the scientific method.
Objective in the second way means that people performing the same actions will get the same results regardless of cultural or personal biases.
Observer bias refers to the interpretation of the data, and the construction of a model using that data. Bias also exists in the formation of theories which determine which experiments will be done.
However, two people performing the double slit experiment, for example, will find the same results as long as they follow the same methodology. The idea of the double slit experiment and what the data mean are of course up to interpretation and that interpretation will have some amount of bias.
This is the same as saying basketball games have objective scores. The score is what it is regardless of who is reading the number on the scoreboard or who is playing the game. The rules of the game are arbitrary in the same way that an experimental hypothesis and methodology are arbitrary. What the score means is subjective to the fans in the same way that data interpretation is subjective to the observer.
Objective in the second way means that people performing the same actions will get the same results regardless of cultural or personal biases.
I guarantee you that if a Christian and an atheist are given the same prayer healing treatment, the Christian will see a stronger placebo effect. Try the same experiment on the efficacy of faith healing in Afghanistan and in Sweden, you’ll get different results.
But the data will be the same regardless of who is conducting the experiment. Changing the population that you conduct the experiment on is changing variables. Interpretation of the data may change depending on whether the experimenter is athiest or Christian.
The point of science isn’t to produce data. It’s to produce conclusions. The conclusions will be different.
No the point of science is to test theories. Data can confirm or de confirm a theory. So, part of science is data collection. In fact, the data colllection is the most important part, otherwise it’s just theory and philosophizing.
Science is the language of the gods, and by speaking it, we become enlightened.
You religious quacks are what’s wrong with science. Worshipping the idea of science instead of using the scientific method as a tool.
deleted by creator
Post structuralism is a mental disorder
questions the objectivity or stability of the various interpretive structures that are posited by structuralism and considers them to be constituted by broader systems of power.
Calling people who disagree with you mentally ill is one of the reasons poststructuralists say you’re oppressing them.
I am oppressing them because they deserve it for their beliefs.
If you have a problem with that, ask yourself how much you enjoy living in the world run by alternative facts.
(Obviously their challenge of power structures is itself based, their conclusions are simply flawed in rejecting structure itself rather than the institutions that try to define them for personal benefit)
Are you saying the Trump administration are poststructuralists who believe everything is open to interpretation?
No, I’m saying post structuralism creates an environment that doesn’t value objective truth enough for being a proven and malicious serial liar to sink a presidency.
You don’t need objective truth to hate Trump. You can just subjectively believe rape is wrong. Are you saying you don’t have a subjective opinion against rape?
No, it’s objectively bad.
Tell me more about the rape you find acceptable.
You’re a moral objectivist, too? Shall I start calling you Ms Rand?
And then “4” guy will get upset about being called on his shit, and say, “Actually, you are the dumb fuck.”
Nah they’ll say “your the dumb fuck”
The “4” guy is simping for billionaires, who will buy the forum and censor the other guy for calling him out as a “dumb fuck.”
Also the 4 guy has a podcast and a social media presence and thousands of followers who are willing to back up his idiotic claims and silence anyone who disagrees.
The 4 guy is a lemmy.ml user and the dumb fuck guy has been banned for incivility
“Calling me a dumbfuck is infringing on my free speech”
Not calling you a dumbfucks is infringing on my freedom of speech, and in tie breakers you defer to calling someone a dumbfuck. Source: 13 years practice in bird law
Alternatively, “You’re rude. That is why your side lost.”
Better yet he will ask you to produce the “source” showing that it is not 4
And then say that source is discredited, without providing a source for that claim.
Many seem to trust only the sources that have lied to them over and over again.
Sea lions, am I right?
Very funny. And true. And sad.
And annoying because everyone, regardless of their political belief, thinks they are the second person.
well someone is, 50/50. the odds are good.
g
valid
its obviouly an incomplete 8
