/x/ - Paranormal

>>22443

That guy makes a bit of a fallacious argument, since there are few ways to test what a light in the sky is regardless of what you think it is, and most people making the claim that it is an e.t. provide claims that support their theory, such as odd maneuvers. Also many things on /x/ have no way to prove what they or aren't.

Lol I love folk like this who think we have no understanding of the sciences at all, its almost as bad as atheist fedora tippers. Most of the shit on here can't be proven nor disproven, I won't dismiss the possibility of something being genuine. If you want to try this again go to /fringe/, no one here really gives a shit

Am I the only one who think all this pop sci guys, De Grasse, Nye, Plaitt, Randi, Youtube Atheists are an embarrassment for real seekers of knowledge?

>>22458

Hey, dude, they wear white lab coats and thick glasses, they are so totally bonafide wiz…scientists!

Nice fedora you shitstain.

As for the rest of you.

Quit bumping shitty bait troll threads you idiots.

>>22467

WHAT DID I JUST TELL YOU?

>>22459

Most of the modern "thinkers" and "scientists" are an embarrassment to their profession. There are so many unexplained phenomena that will remain unsolved because people are too afraid to actually ask the right questions and just revert to virtue signaling and carefully crafting experiments to produce the results that their sponsors anticipate.

For example, even completely valid criticism of the SETI project by the UFO community is ignored (probably) because the wrong people are saying it. One of the points is that an advanced civilization most likely wouldn't utilize radio signals because they don't fit the requirements of such a civilization, e.g. long distance communication with minimal delay across vast distances.

>>22534

I have noticed that, it's like we have hit a loop and now we are back in the Baroque, where nobody dared to contest the authorities and every question was a menace o the powers established. Just replace kings and priests for politicians and "science guys".

Also, more than ever, the power of shame and ridicule keeps people from reporting a lot fo strange stuff happening.

We are living in horrible times.

>>22541

If I remember correctly, there was a French(?) guy back in the 1600s(?) that assumed that illnesses are caused by tiny microorganisms, maybe he would have come up with a way to prove it if he hadn't been ridiculed by the leading scientists of his time.

>>22548

If I'm not mistaken, even Galileo was scoffed at by his peers. After all, he went against the consensus of the time, against the established facts, against the authorities considered reliable on celestial matters. He attacked a model that worked well for that time. Scientists in Galileo's age even distrust the telescope. I'm sure he was roasted by some Renaissance Bill Nye.

>>22624

I never understood the cult of personality built around this guy. Maybe because I'm not Burger, and I only watched Beakman's World when I was a kid.

>>22554

His peers are the ones that got the whole "he is a blasphemer" thing started. I think the church was actually pretty chill with the guy, even gave him his own tower

>>22459

Neil Dank Grass Tyson is actually a pretty good astrophysicist, but people like to treat the title "scientist" is a catchall for someone who knows everything about everything. He's not the worst person in the world to replace Carl Sagan, in my opinion.

Now, Bill Nye? Bill Nye is a delusional cunt who thinks he's a science God and he's actively conflating what he wants to be true with scientific fact. Debating creationists is entertaining, but most don't do it because it's a massive fucking waste of time that just gives free publicity to delusional fools.

James Randi isn't much of a scientist. He's a debunker who is primarily concerned with destroying scam-artists and frauds who manipulate and abuse people's belief in the supernatural. He's a really fascinating individual but most modern day fedora-tippers and self-titled "Logical" and "Rational" faggots have no idea who he is.

Otherwise, yeah, I agree with the sentiment entirely. The popularized notion of "science" and "research" have made stupid people even more stupid and the obsessive need to use scientific methodology to confirm a bias has started to actively drag society down a bit more with each poorly made study popularized by some clickbait news-blog.

>>22554

Remember, they killed Nostradamus.

>>22445

>many things on /x/ have no way to prove what they or aren't.

That's not a good thing. If you can't prove it and/or disprove it, it might as well not exist, since it either doesn't interact with anything in a meaningful way or isn't repeatable.

>>22459

Tyson and Nye are fine. If you had strong evidence that disproved something they said, they would probably own up to it.

I agree with you on Randi, though.

>>22626

Nye was a slightly more serious Beakman a year later and on a different channel. Him not being as scatological meant his show got shown in schools, and it is pretty much the highlight of every American child's science class, since fun experiments had been outlawed in the early 90's.

>>22727

>Tyson and Nye are fine.

Didn't Nye deny the reality of race differences and other shit like that?

Milo wrote an article about DeGrasse: www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/scientists-who-are-actually-really-stupid-1-neil-degrasse-tyson/

>>22740

>www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/scientists-who-are-actually-really-stupid-1-neil-degrasse-tyson/

I retract everything nice I've said about Tyson.

>>22740

>>22744

>Milo wrote an article about DeGrasse

Most of it seems to be speculation, taking the other side of something subjective, or just whining about "liberals" (or just things his right-wing audience won't like).

And that's the parts that aren't just plain wrong. For example, Venus' climate *is* caused by the greenhouse effect, but Milo cites someone who decides to reinterpret "greenhouse effect" to mean "global warming" and declares it wrong, because words don't have meaning unless you bend them to fit an agenda. Milo also seems to think the "problem of evil" means the same thing as the anthropic principle. Normally, I'd let this sort of mistake pass, but when it's an article nitpicking someone, it deserves nitpicking in return.

And Milo seems to not be capable of reading the things he cites. He cites Tyson saying him being a lousy student, not racism, was the main cause of his failed master's program, but goes on to say Tyson blames racism, while quoting him from somewhere he didn't link to make it sound like he's talking about his master's thesis. This kind of dishonesty is why Breitbart is the "Huffington Post of the Right".

Milo only has a shred of credibility because he wasn't a complete idiot about GamerGate, but he didn't give a rat's ass about gamers until he found out "progressives" were against them. Which makes it really ironic that he accuses Tyson of being "a philistine with no love of learning except for popularisations and oversimplifications that serve his political purposes."

>>22751

Oh, and to add to this, he complains that Tyson hasn't published anything of note for years (which is since 2008 for research, after being active in research for 23 years). Of course he hasn't. He's committed to being a public figure for education now, instead of a researcher.

>>22751

>>22752

He is also a GMO shill.