Starts to make sense how some conspiracies come out when you get examples like this of people being blatantly ignorant of evidence right in front of their noses
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
676 points (96.2% liked)
Skeptic
1290 readers
1 users here now
A community for Scientific Skepticism:
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.
Things we like:
- Civility
- Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
- Humor
Things we don't like:
- Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
- Wild speculation on events with no evidence
- Low-effort comments and posts
Other communities of interest:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In my experience it has less to do with stuff like this where people are just not looking close enough or are mistaken and more to do with the idea of them being wrong being impossible. Conspiracies that I interact with don’t even discuss evidence. Because they can’t be wrong and there’s no way to falsify their worldview.
A lot of it has to do with wanting to be superior. They have feelings of not having control so they tell themselves and each other that everyone else is stupid and being fooled but not them, they are the smart few, they know the truth, they are the in crowd.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This, in the post truth era, evidence is only useful to educated people that are willing. For most victims, we have to de program them first.
Every single discussion I have about climate ends with "yes, that's one side of the argument, but who really knows what's the truth".
Motherfucker, you said something that's false. I showed you you were wrong by a factor of several million. Where ever the exact truth lies, it's way on the other side of the fucking moon from your standpoint.
load more comments
(2 replies)
*every known letter of the alphabet.
The implication that there are undiscovered letters creates excitement for the reader. Who knows what is out there!
My favorite is D2, the sequel to D
"If the letter D is so great why isn't there a D2"
spits out drink
math nerds delve into Greek and even Hebrew for special cases.
Maybe it is like one of those ancient curses. Like every time someone says the undiscovered one it solves Bathla devour of souls
Those same people do math incorrectly and shout at everyone else to do it their way.
2+2=5
Don't take my word for it research about it yourself there are lots of good videos on YouTube the government and science liars don't want you to know the truth /s
2+2=5
For extrem values of 2.
For those confused
2.25+2.25=4.5 rounds to 2+2=5
2.5+2.5=5 truncates to 2+2=5
Both can crop up in programming, depending on the situation.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Remember when Terrance Howard tried to explain how 1x1=2 because bird people from Atlantis tricked us? Good times.
There are four lights
Just look at those viral math problems. I recently saw one that was something like (1+2*3)*(1*0) and most comments were arguing if it was 7 or 9
I think you mean (1+2*3)*(1*0).
Escape your asterisks, kids.
load more comments
(5 replies)
It has become impossible to tell if these people are trolling, stupid, or both.
Poe's law at its finest
Sphynx (SPHYNX) of black quartz judge my vow
Am I blind or is there no letter i?
There is a "y" in "my" so maybe "Sphinx" would complete the sentence?
load more comments
(7 replies)
I spelt 'sphynx' (sphinx) wrong, it's saved that way in my phone for some reason and I wasn't paying attention.
Edit: Ah, yep just saw that comment with the cats. It's because of cats.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
W is in brown
E is in over
V is in over
Z is in lazy
K is in quick
And I can't endorse any viewpoint that tells me to accept something on faith. You might not have time to do your own research on every single issue but you are certainly welcome too
This isn't about not doing your research. It's a lesson in the pitfalls of thinking you've competently done your research..
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
when people don't know how to spell English
How else would you spell it? I've only ever seen it as English. Inglish maybe?
Inglesh. Ingliti given the ti sound in words ending in tion. Englich if we use the soft ch option. I was functionally illiterate until my teens. By the end of highschool I had a college level reading comprehension but less than a third grade spelling ability. Trying to read something I wrote would have you convinced I wasn't a native English speaker until I was in my late 20s. The less you know about English the more ways you can find to spell any word it offers up.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
They're missing the V because they pronounce over as "o'er"
Da quik braun fox jumps o'va da lazy dog
No C, E, H or W either
the availability of text on the internet can make people believe they're an expert on topics that take a lifetime to understand
if people should do their own research, we may as well shutter the national labs and universities
we may as well shutter the national labs and universities
That's an extremely desirable outcome for the "do your own research" crowd.
I was doubting for a second there. I was like, wait where is the V...
load more comments
(2 replies)
Social media folks
Sphinx of Black Quartz; Hear My Vow!
(I vow never to become illiterate)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I especially like when the person who says "theres[sic] no letter e" is wrong 3 times and makes a spelling mistake. 😂
Absolute disasterclass.
This is actually a perfect representation of the shallow "research" conspiracy theorists do.
Quoting only the first few lines of an abstract outlining a problem/open question then ignoring the rest of the paper where they address the issue in the abstract.
This way, they can claim that the paper says the exact opposite of what it does.
view more: next ›