Oletros

28 ms·

271.
by Oletros 9y ago
Funny thing is that NONE of the links are scientific papers
272.
by Oletros 9y ago
> Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems Still waiting any source, but I suppose youd don't have any
273.
by Oletros 9y ago
> it was predicted many years ago that even those who were in the field would be forced to change their numbers to be in agreement, Who has changed the numbers? Do you have sources for those predictions? > hoax or fraud, some of what
274.
by Oletros 9y ago
Fearmongers? > Everything described by the fearmongers has to do with too much human activity Then should read better, because it is not the case. Or perhaps you can give us links to those "fearmongers". And by fearmongers your
275.
by Oletros 9y ago
Full-communism? Who is advocating for that?
276.
by Oletros 9y ago
The article has nothing to do with overpopulation
277.
by Oletros 9y ago
I have a bridge to sell. Looking at the github repository code, comma is a joke.
278.
by Oletros 9y ago
> As Europe continues to add laws and regulations targeted at American tech companies Any example of those laws and regulations?
279.
by Oletros 9y ago
No, the opionion doesn't say that Uber should be treated as a taxi service, the opionion says thet UberPop should be treated as a transport service, not an information society services.
280.
by Oletros 9y ago
The bill is not to answer question, the bill is for removing material
281.
by Oletros 9y ago
But the mess is almost exclusively in the US. How do you explain it?
282.
by Oletros 9y ago
> There is no possible way to get this from the bones. Here is a picture of what they found of "Lucy" http://www.efossils.org/book/how-big-was-lucys-brain > Fossil remains of Lucy’s braincase are fragm
283.
by Oletros 9y ago
> As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur Lensky experiment, try an
284.
by Oletros 9y ago
> There's an entire discipline regarding how and when science switches paradigms, to borrow a Kuhnian word. Thing that has nothing to do with this bill > I think the best guard against any of this is the old Feynman test. And thi
285.
by Oletros 9y ago
> So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit? No, it is not bullshit. > The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example A
286.
by Oletros 9y ago
> The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit I expect that you can provide examples of this. Until now, the ones spouting bullshit is the anti science one.
287.
by Oletros 9y ago
Is nudity bad for children? Perhaps because I'm from a zone where nudity is not a great deal and you can even walk in beach promenades and see nudist beaches and no one cares.
288.
by Oletros 9y ago
> Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor. Any example of that?
289.
by Oletros 9y ago
> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm
290.
by Oletros 9y ago
It is a gift because the bill doesn't talk about the validity of the science
291.
by Oletros 9y ago
> The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine Eh, no, for decades now the Catholic Church has been pro science and accepting scientific theories like Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory, etc.
292.
by Oletros 9y ago
> It is better to be exposed to both sides. What sides? > Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks What's the problem with nudity in biology or anatomy books?
293.
by Oletros 9y ago
I think this bill is not for asking questions
294.
by Oletros 9y ago
Let's make Science teaching great again /s
295.
by Oletros 9y ago
Do, you don't accept the science because you think that perhaps in the furute it will be proven wrong. Good thing, isn't?
296.
by Oletros 9y ago
Perhaps it has been downvoted because the OP doesn't have any argument. When some of the ones talking about the irreproducibility can give any proof that climate science has the same problem, perhaps we can start to talk.
297.
by Oletros 9y ago
> That tells me that the entire concept of peer review is not immune to degenerating. And if it can happen in one field, it can happen in another, especially one that's harshly politicized (which psychology isn't, at least not
298.
by Oletros 9y ago
What you're advocating is that science would be done by judicial branch, not by science. More so when the new EPA policy depends of a subjective matter and we know what the position of the new chief is.
299.
by Oletros 9y ago
So, now the scientific studies have to be validated by courts? This is how science in the USA should work?
300.
by Oletros 9y ago
> Basically they say that the only reason so many scientists claim climate change is a problem is because their funding (and thus jobs and livelihood) depend on there being a climate problem for them to research. Thing that is false, if

More ›