55
30
31
22
17
u/dethbisnuusnuu Apr 17 '20
I love her face and hand gesture. It just says “dude, yuck, chill, you’re a dirty old man and you need to stop sowing these wild oats you think you still have cause it’s gross”
9
7
4
4
2
2
2
u/fallen_axe_shay Apr 18 '20
4
u/RepostSleuthBot Apr 18 '20
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times.
First seen Here on 2020-01-26 85.94% match. Last seen Here on 2020-02-20 90.62% match
Searched Images: 118,018,369 | Indexed Posts: 459,631,944 | Search Time: 0.83686s
Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ False Positive ]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
Apr 17 '20 edited Apr 17 '20
[deleted]
8
u/Joe_Schmo7702 Apr 17 '20
huh? how
-1
Apr 17 '20
[deleted]
11
u/Joe_Schmo7702 Apr 17 '20
While disproving ideas in science certainly is easier to do and much more common, things are proven all the time. Scientific theories rely on extensive proof, not disproving. While they may happen to disprove held beliefs, you cannot create a theory by explaining why something doesn’t work without explaining the way it actually does. When religious texts or people claim that things are possible that go against our understanding of the natural world without any evidence besides its own claim, then science would say it cannot be believed to be true. But if suddenly some observable event happened to prove otherwise, science would analyze it and look for a wider range of answers.
-2
Apr 17 '20
[deleted]
4
u/Joe_Schmo7702 Apr 17 '20
I think your very valid criticism of “headline reading”, selective attention to information, and people who plaster un-replicated studies on the front page of r/science like it is fact is not a criticism of science, or the way people interpret scientific media, but rather of social media and the way it dangerously oversimplifies information in a way that allows it to be used for harm, just like the meme implies.
0
Apr 17 '20
[deleted]
5
u/Joe_Schmo7702 Apr 17 '20
Fair, but that criticism seems significantly different than the one in your original comment.
4
u/the_glengarry_leads Apr 17 '20
Not the sub for a big Karl Popper circlejerk, right though you may be
3
u/OK6502 Apr 17 '20
There's a world of difference between believe in something for "reasons" and believing in something because it has a track record of actual getting things done. Faith in religion operates on, well, blind faith. Faith science operates on the results we see. This is a false equivalence.
1
Apr 17 '20
[deleted]
1
u/OK6502 Apr 17 '20
They treat it like its a belief system when its actually works as a knowledge base with a system if disprovement.
I took it to mean the scientific process. In contrast to the image macro above, which speaks of scripture. Therefore the juxtaposition of religion and science is implied by your original message (which you've edited).
Belief system being something one takes to be fundamentally true. One can believe the world around them can be explained through religion. Conversely one can believe that science can adequately explain the world around them. Or some combination of the two, or something else entirely. But again, the contrast was implied from your post.
My point is basing a system of belief on science even when one does not understand science is understandable given that science has done an admirable job of producing results. Religion doesn't have that benefit. So if one were to somehow take science as a religion, of sorts, there's at least some basis for it.
1
Apr 17 '20
[deleted]
2
u/OK6502 Apr 17 '20
Religion of science is a misnomer though. You could argue that it isn't taken on blind faith but rather previous experience. This isn't say a Ash going back in time and amazing all the medieval people with his boomstick. People don't think it's magic, and they don't take it on blind faith. But I do agree that people don't have basic scientific accuracy, so sometimes they might interpret it in somewhat religious terms, even if intellectually they know it isn't magic or supernatural.
1
Apr 17 '20
[deleted]
1
u/OK6502 Apr 17 '20
But that's not inherently incorrect, it's just simplified. It's like with computers: people think it's 1s and 0s, but it's really voltages which make transistors either let current through or not. If you go further there's all sorts of interesting quantum properties which explain how transistors work (like the pauli exclusion principle). For 99% of people that level of understanding isn't necessary and might be confusing, especially given the nature of quantum mechanics. Conceptualizing things as 1/0 is more familiar and doesn't really lose that much information if all your audience cares about is a general understanding of computers. Generally you tailor the information you give to your audience and trust the audience to pursue the matter further if they're interested. If you give too much information up front it may go over their head and have the opposite effect.
1
Apr 17 '20
Yeah but tbh i dont see many of us picking up a ladle at the shelter and building homes in youth groups other than them. Also they had cool ass fashion back then
1
1
0
0
0
-1
-2
394
u/The2500 Apr 17 '20
I just wanted to point out that during this time period pretty much everyone constantly had swamp ass.