File: What Has Science Become.swf-(8.49 MB, 1280x720, Other)
[_] Anonymous 04/30/17(Sun)18:02:43 No.3239986
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 04/30/17(Sun)18:26:00 No.3239992
Bill Nye the Voodoo Guy really *has* hurt himself.
He transcends Cringe, taking WTF to an entirely cosmic dimension.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/30/17(Sun)22:36:04 No.3240081
>>3239986
I started off watching this and as it went on I just got more and more saddened how much Bill Nye
has fallen.
Someone needs to throw the koolaid out and cleanse this pseudo fake science from society.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/30/17(Sun)22:43:40 No.3240084
>if has no tubes full of pink liquid, with smoke coming out of it, then it's no science for me!
topkek, literally children logic
>> [_] Anonymous 04/30/17(Sun)22:50:22 No.3240086
>>3239986
Oh boy, time for another thread with 80 replies
>> [_] Anonymous 04/30/17(Sun)23:35:39 No.3240101
>>3239986
>not the original nine inch nails version
you fucked up
>> [_] Rowen frazer is a fag 05/01/17(Mon)00:03:56 No.3240113
>>3240086
not my fault this time
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:06:30 No.3240115
>>3240101
Now wait just a minute. While fedora autismos keep getting triggered by the amazing discovery
that human studies can also be considered science, we must at least agree that Cash version is
the superior version of Hurt. Even Reznor said so.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:12:50 No.3240116
>>3240115
Cash's version is better as a single, but Trent's version is better within the context of the
downward spiral
I mean I think it's better either way but that's just because I like grimy sounding stuff
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:20:00 No.3240120
>>3240115
Man this is why people suck. They always let you down. Congrats on the quality and validity of
your musical taste, at least.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:22:26 No.3240121
was it all lies?
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:25:41 No.3240122
>>3240084
"Social sciences" are not nearly as respected as hard sciences for one good reason: they can't be
quantified and proven. They're more like philosophy. And the popular theories in many social
sciences are bad philosophy.
Shit thread, I'm not opening it again.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:26:08 No.3240123
>>3240115
>human studies can also be considered a science
a soft "science"
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:34:36 No.3240124
>>3240122
>>3240123
It literally started as social studies, you doofus. Politics were one of the first collective
human studies along with math. And, yes, politics is a science.
Also, besides what le funny strawman coming from /pol/ shows, mostly gender/social studies are
moderate and do not try to jump on conclusions. In fact besides the obnoxious approach, none of
those people on Bill Nye said anything alarming outrageous. Mostly backlash comes from people
moaning how SUPER KEWL SCIENCE is dead.
>gets triggered by a woman doing music about her vagina
>proceeds to laugh at "dick in a box"
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:52:38 No.3240126
>>3240086
>f-fuck talking n' shitt
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)00:58:29 No.3240129
>>3240124
Dick in a box was a joke though.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)01:12:27 No.3240132
>>3240124
dude you are such a meme I don't even know where to start
you can talk about your social constructs all day, but every cell in you body tells you what you
were born as
to deny that is delusion, and it shouldn't be coddled
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)01:23:54 No.3240133
>>3240124
It's not science unless it:
a)Involves the scientific method
b)Is replicable
c)Can be proven incorrect
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)01:24:49 No.3240134
>>3240132
>you are such a meme
Thanks, Pepe.
Also no one in the video is saying anything related to your counter argument.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)01:32:47 No.3240136
>>3240133
Nothing on behavioral nature can be applied on scientific method, however the interactions on
those subjects can. The collection of considerations, studies, arguments and research founds on
the said things are all considered part of a science, since it provides better understanding of
once was obscure.
If you go strictly by the "only scientific method" rule, things like metaphysics, psychology,
neurology and others are all erased as a valid science.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)02:10:03 No.3240146
>>3240136
The important distinction between "hard" and "soft" science is its basis in experiment vs its
basis in observational studies. "Hard" sciences like chemistry, physics, etc. are based on
experiments where all factors are held constant except for one variable, and thus causative
conclusions can be drawn. Behavioral "soft" sciences like politics, anthropology, psychology,
etc. are based in observational studies and therefore conclusions are correlative rather than
causative, and people have a hard time trusting these conclusions no matter how replicable they
are because they are always susceptible to the possibility of confounding by other untested
factors.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)02:45:42 No.3240158
>>3240146
You missed the point where the world does not work only on "experiment" levels. Language itself,
for example, is classified by you as a "soft" science, however without it this discussion would
not exist at all. At same time one can not predict how a language will sound in 2080. It can
surely speculate and present arguments, but never prove it by the scientific method. The method
can only say things for the immediate and the pragmatic use, almost as a cooking recipe does. One
could not put "possible future", "chaos" , "remote possibility" and many other variations on a
equation and expect it to only show square numbers and clear results. All in all separating
science as "soft", "hard", "real" , "fake" is just insightful as discussion if Metallica is real
metal or not. In the end does not mean a thing, and does not change a thing either.
Science is a fascinating subject and can be presented/studied in many ways. Just remember than
thinking only inside of the box, while considering everything outside of it as hostile or
terrible is the exactly the opposite of science stands for.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/01/17(Mon)03:18:28 No.3240172
Couldn't watch this for more than a couple episodes. Ya, some of the points he brought up were
valid and real issues but the way they were presented felt really cringy and hard to relate to
beyond knowing the underlying facts themselves were true. And then seeing some of the scenes on
here, I'm glad I didn't continue because it looked like he was going to go into some really...
"liberal" topics with the same cringe worthy attitude.
That said, I almost wonder if this childish method actually appeals to some of the less mature
adults out there.
