this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
537 points (96.1% liked)
Political Memes
9168 readers
2544 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Man, you do not understand science.
I'm a research chemist, and have been in the sciences for the last 15 years.
And science can test the hypothesis that astrology is accurate in various ways, and has shown time and time again that astrology is no better than random chance in its accuracy.
People have been trying to prove evolution is wrong since it was first posited, yet all evidence just further demonstrates it is the correct explanation for life.
Models aren't wrong by definition. Incomplete perhaps, but if a theory is able to accurately predict the world around us then it is still a good theory. Our theory of gravity can let us calculate the exact position of stellar bodies for millennia ahead, and has been consistently shown to be accurate.
This is true
This is also true
The moment you start making absolute statements based on the above, no matter how unanimous the evidence, you have left the realm of science and your brain begins to succumb to the rot. If we treated well supported models as gospel, we'd still be using the Newtonian gravitational model.
The entire point of science is to admit the fundamental uncertainty of all human knowledge, and develop the tools to develop better models. Yes, every model is wrong. Some allow us to make very accurate predictions, but they are all imperfect approximations.
No scientific model justifies absolute certainty
Yet every time astrology is tested it has failed.
Evolution is basically a scientific certainty at this point because every single test has shown it to be true, and no one has every been able to disprove it. We don;t understand every single nuance and mechanism of evolution, but the fact evolution is occurring and has occurred in the past is a certainty.
Gravity is a certainty at this point. Again we don't fully understand the exact causes of gravity, but the fact it exists is certain.
And every test to try and show any validity to astrology has failed, astrology is nothing but a scam.
Again, I tested it, I found some evidence of success. You can say that that test isn't statistically significant, you can question my methodologies, but you cannot say that every test has failed.
This conversation isn't about astrology, I don't believe in astrology. This conversation is about mental hygiene, and the creeping fundamentalism that stifles scientific progress. Certainty is unscientific.
"Gravity im not so sure about, astrology on the other hand..."
Astrology on the same hand I'm not so sure about. I'm not so sure about anything, because being so sure is brain rot at best and narcissism at worst.
"Scientific consensus is absolute truth" is the antithesis of science. Truth is fundamentally unknowable. Science is absolutely by far the best method we have for approximating truth, but it can only ever be an approximation. An extremely consistent, useful, and accurate approximation of course, good enough to make important decisions with. But it is epistemologically ridiculous to declare absolute truth.
Once you start letting that kind of absolutism in, you're lost. That's why scientific papers don't say "we proved that X causes Y", they say "we observed a strong correlation between the presence of X and the result Y".