Science & Skepticism Dump

Jan 18, 2016 3:25 AM

Snarktopus

Views

54054

Likes

1981

Dislikes

143

THATS WHY I LIKE CHATROOMS. NO YELLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This leads to LOTS of fucking stupid people online thinking they're hyper-intelligent just because they say "nah I don't believe that".

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Neil deGrass Tyson is a lying piece of shit who sold his soul for big corporate money and fame. He's part of what's wrong with the world.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 11

Science is not always accurate.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Especially university studies so poorly constructed by grad students, it laughable that in another year, they'll have a "masters" degree.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I think you would like my favorite podcast "Skeptics Guide to the Universe"

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Is santa real?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In #31 neither half is correct- science begins with the observation of a phenomena, not getting an idea.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I realized that fact about Scooby Doo, when I was a young child, and have kept it in my head for 30 years.

10 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 0

There's real vampires and mummies and shit in the new ones. They're pretty good too.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Unfortunately it's only true for the oldest series. The abomination of Scrappy Doo also brought "real" supernatural elements. Suuuuucks.

10 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

In that movie or was it in the series at some point? I can't remember.. although there was TIME SLIME, did that happen or did I dream it?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The first movie, Zombie Island, did as well. But the movie was pretty alright.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Regarding #25, Bill Nye suggested that we label them "proudly contains GMO"

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Merrily merrily merrily merrily eat a bag of dicks.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If this is reposted I hope the reposter numbers each picture because they are gold.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

MOAR! We want more!!! <3 all of this. I assume you've seen SMBC's comics on religion, they are hilarious & are similar to several you posted

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 7

Why do I get the impression that OP wears a fedora?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I cannot abide by an "in science we trust" logo that misuses a sigma as an e.

10 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 4

Agreed.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

ΔGRΣΣD.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

now listen here you lil shit

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well if they'd used epsilon (E) it would have looked boring as hell (although I guess they could have used a lower case one, but it's far1/2

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

less known), moreover none of the other symbols a representative of a sound, it's just a visual thing and I think it works. I do 1/3

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

understand how it could have annoyed you though (I also apologise for my numbering of these comments, what a train wreck).

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

If biogenesis were possible, we would be able to replicate it in a lab. WE CAN'T. There's some science for you smug little bastards.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What the hell is going on with Captain Vaccine's beard?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I scrolled down looking for the same answer. What is up with that?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Smallpox.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Looks a bit like a hipster - weirdly styled beard, super saggy stretched lobes

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A giant post violently decrying "faith" while simultaneously containing a quote about the implications of a violent defense of beliefs.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

I think you may be imposing your own assumptions on any "violence" in this post (except perhaps to antivaxx)

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I feel like a good read-through of this would blow OP's mind: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

If not for science how do you come to know things are false?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Logic. Even the Greeks recognized that logic can prove some things that empirical evidence can't.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Tell that to Aristotle who thought heavier things fell quicker. It took Galileo to do a test to prove it wrong.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well for example, even if you have the opinion that there is no afterlife, that is not a scientific opinion. 1/2

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Science can't disapprove what it can't test. With logic, you can think about about things that are potentially true and yet unobserved. 2/2

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Oh hey, another anti-religion fanatic.

10 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 20

There was like 3 total.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Pro-science things do tend to seem anti-religion

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 8

You can be pro-science and pro-religion and pro-science without being a dick, and pro-religion without being a dick, people tend to not know

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

I'm not anti religion.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Why can't we simply enjoy being here while we're here? Beliefs change nothing.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Beliefs in the right hands change everything

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There's a lot of pretentious bullshit mixed in with banal "we're science people, guyz!" in this list. This is political bull, mostly.

10 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 6

What in particular is political?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The 'you're wrong and I'm right 'mentality.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Sometimes people are objectively wrong or right so what in particular is in this post is political?

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Political broadly speaking. Lots of "make fun of these people, they're the outsiders, we're sciencey!". The 3rd image is deeply ironic.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

There was a good article (National Journal maybe?) lamenting how people these days look for evidence only to reinforce their opinions

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I have a feeling @OP Woke up rather salty today...

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Why is that, friend?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm here procrastinating on writing an essay about the conflict between religion and science, this isn't helping.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

"Research."

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Guess the subreddit this guy's subscribed to

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

/r/furry

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

/r/neckbeard

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

To be fair, the moral religious etc arguments against stem cell research was more prevalent when they were using aborted fetal tissue.

10 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 5

Except it's not aborted fetal tissue but what is left over from invitro (sp?) that is now thrown away.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Aren't they still?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Yeah. Adult stem cells have become more prevalent because of how much you can get, and how manipulatable they are in tests.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I read that as "Adult Swim cells" and was very confused.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Oh interesting, for some reason I thought embryonic stem cells were more easy to manipulate... I also know very little about this

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I also know very little, but I think we used to only be able to get them from fetuses, then we scienced into getting them from adults.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

They could always be used from either adults or embryos but the embryos offer more advances.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They could always be used from either adults or embryos but the embryos offer more advances.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fun fact, dogs aren't wolf decendents, wolves and dogs share a common ancestor that they evolved from together. Same with wolves and Wales.

10 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

And with humans and apes for that matter :)

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Whales*

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Nope. Wales. Why you think they both go after sheep? ;)

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

It was better to lose a finger than a hand. :O

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Solid science in movies is like solid acting or solid special effects - it's nearly invisible. Bad of any of them takes you out of it.

10 years ago | Likes 128 Dislikes 1

I'm willing to suspend belief to a certain point. I draw the line when I feel I'm being played for an idiot.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I was watching Galaxy quest with a fellow engineer and when someone said something sciency, we stopped and were like, that might really work

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

For instance, explosions going "BOOOOOM" in space... I literally walk out of the theater on those shit fests.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It so weird what will pull you out though. Some movies can use bad science, and you don't care. Others make one error, and it's all over

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Also some movies will spit out BS after BS and it's only a certain line of it that'll take you out

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

suspension of disbelief... If it's established that science works differently in the movie, it's fine

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Man it's even worse if you're a CS/IT person, and occasionally maths

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

If you're into computers, don't watch CSI. Or movies with computers. Cringeworthy af

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Especially not Numb3rs, oh god, I thought they were joking with the weird youtube videos

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Never heard of that movie. Now I think of it that's probably a good thing

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This will not due, you must suffer as I have https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h">D03yeLnU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2rGTXHvPCQ

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

DO, it will not DO, carry on

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

There's an awful lot of opinions here.

10 years ago | Likes 125 Dislikes 32

What is opinion here?

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

You scare me just a little bit.

10 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 7

Am I missing a joke? Why is this getting upvoted?

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Any of them in particular?

10 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 5

The Stem cell one doesn't indicate embryonic, which are the ones most had moral/ religious arguments against, or any of the other kinds.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I'd say the Scooby one for sure.

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

What's wrong with that one?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You put mega church-pastors, Michele Bachman, MLK Jr and The Pope in the same boat. Not cool IMO.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

On the scooby doo one?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hyperbolic perhaps but I think it's safe to say that this was at least one lesson to take away.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Anyone else miss Scooby Snacks?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Saying science is true is the same thing as faith. It's entirely possible we have most of it wrong.

10 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 37

Please tell me this is a joke.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You can make the assumption that I know something of what I'm talking about, then reconsider.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

All science is based on fact based research. What you just said amounts to "2+2=4 takes as much faith in believing there's a God".

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You forgot to add "Just asking questions!" man..

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

igetthatreference.gif

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1/? I agree that it's poorly worded. But "science" isn't true or false, it's a method. The truths we discover with it are based on evidence,

10 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 0

2/? which makes them true regardless of one's beliefs. This is meant to be in contrast with something like a god whose existence is not

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

3/? supported by evidence, hence his/her "existence" depends on people believing in him/her. In fact, it's not uncommon for religions to

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0