How the fuck is nobody reading my original comment.

Peer Reviewed + REPEATABLE Data meaning MULTIPLE studies from different groups came to the same result using the same parameters.

I am well aware of the abuse under the peer review system, but it does have an once of integrity and with the key word repeatable which everyone is overlooking, you can have some faith that it is correct.

Ah you’re doin the thing!

https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/

You're telling me none of these passed peer review? Look at the timelines, several of these took over a decade between publication and retraction.

Lol, Your comments are just comedy gold! What are you, like 15? :)

>The lies about "vaccines causing autism" is NOT SCIENCE!

>It was debunked by science!

>It was debunked BY the peer review process!

The paper claiming that took 12 years to be retracted from the journal it was published in. The peer review process sure took its sweet time.

Go be a scientist, go dedicate your life to actually understanding things because apparently nobody else can do it.

Or you can just bitch and complain and be somehow more uselss.

Got it! Don’t mess with mah science or imma call you a big meanie! ;)

I'm not even sure what your objection to the goal of reducing of CO2 emissions that are verifiability causing anthropocentric climate change might be. Your opposition isn't passing Cicero's test of having a specific claim or being internally consistent. A skeptic should reject your claim unless you can provide a testable claim with evidence.

You do make the claim that was a clearly foreseeable outcome. As a skeptic you'd have evidence to support this position. What is your evidence that a limitation of the supply of natural gas was the clearly foreseeable circumstance when this decision was made in 2011?

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[deleted]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

The irony is unbelievable. How can you make the case for "scientific skepticism" and in the next breath talk about how we cannot accept vaccine and climate skepticism?

For better or for worse, these are some of the only laypeople practicing meaningful skepticism about the information they are fed. For the vast majority of people, "science" is synonymous with an appeal to authority that cannot be challenged.

If you are serious about the value of skepticism and strengthening our collective knowledge you should welcome this kind of dissent. I want more intelligent climate skepticism, and I want it out in the open. If you're confident in your position you should be ready to steelman its negation.

This is best achieved by using more precise criticisms. Calling people with legitimate objections to a vaccine anti-vaxxers serves only pharrnaceutical corporate interests, and that behavior has gotten super popular of late. Medical interventions should have clinical trial evidence of benefit exceeding cost in the demographic cohort for which it is recommended, and exceptions should always be permitted depending on the medical needs of the patient.

This was the norm for decades of public health regulation and was a completely uncontroversial position until extremely recently.

[removed]

Really easy to put you in the looney bin because you cant keep putting whatever the hell around science.

real crises in what we call « science» are for you «lame excuses»? Excuses for what? Here’s another one that will Get your juices flowing, publication bias: also a real problem and a huge threat to «science» as we know it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

The naive belief most People have in «science» borders on the absurd and betrays a profound lack of understanding of how the world actually works - i call this «scientism», it’s also akin to figuratively living in platos cave and actively denying that reality is more complex than the world of ideas. Reality is messy, and does not work like it says on the tin ;)

You really REALLY arent reading what im saying. I checked your links dont worry about that. Ive heard these lame excuses all the god damn time.

Especially economics. The amount of obviously moronic ideas that are accepted as dogma in economics is astounding

The ant vax movement must be stopped.

[removed]

[removed]

Skepticism is good, but group action is often also very good and often requires some degree of blind action.

You need both. A game of skeptics convincing followers and followers following what convinces them. AKA: democracy.

IMO skepticism is becoming less and less prevalent, which is a problem. It seems like the average person gobbles up anything set down in front of them nowadays, with no questions asked. It’s healthy to question things, even if you’re wrong.

The good motive and the bad motive occasionally strive for identical outcome. The motive can be selected to fit the narrative