Please tell me why anyone should trust scientists who might have ulterior motives, i.e. monetary or ideological

Someone called me a "disgusting breeder" the other day, for being heterosexual.

No mention of children, just merely being heterosexual.

>Someone called me a "disgusting breeder" the other day,
Disregard degenerates like that.

Of course.

Breeding is disgusting.

You have a sadistic desire to inflict existence on another consciousness and indoctrinate it with your own arbitrary ideas

Unironically kill yourself

>You have a sadistic desire to inflict existence on another consciousness and indoctrinate it with your own arbitrary ideas
You could kind of frame it like that, yes.

If I were to create a child, or children, the intent would be to breed for quality, and to provide them the means to be, do, and become anything they might come to desire. And anything they might see as valuable. This is less a statement about resource availability, and more a statement about genetic traits (affording this intrinsic viability), and developmental advantages, like proper diet, breastfeeding, early (and non-contrived) exposure to a wide spectrum of information. Yes, having children is a matter of engineering. This is the case, and this has always been the case. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying or has adopted a delusional perspective that doesn't accurately map to anything about the hard mechanical reality.

Otherwise, life is dualistic. Mine has certainly been miserable, for the most part, but it doesn't have to be that way. Parents should use what they've learned to try to give something a chance to have and be something better than themselves. Both internally, and externally.

Nigga you used way too many words to express those simple ass ideas

In a lot pain. That's just how it pans out.

I'm surprised that seemingly nobody ever calls me out for this same thing if/whenever they reply to my comments.
I've a tendency to use unnecessarily long words, not necessarily obscure or "smart" words as kids would call them in my early schooldays, just needlessly long ones with simpler synonyms, but sometimes using those lengthier words is useful because it reduces the overall amount of words needed to convey an idea if used a specific way.
This post is a good example of not economizing your use of words.

>TL: DR version:
Yes.

Yes, I construct my sentences this way to maximize information density and precision. If you looked at every sentence I generate you'd see repeating phrases and a clustering of word choices, relative to a given topic and type of interaction. There are reasons for this.

People who are more relaxed and not actively engaged in something, in a given frame of life, are less likely to build sentences this way. Simplicity becomes a better approach.

I've been both people, and I really don't care what anyone else wants. I'm more talking at them than with them, I don't expect a return on investment regardless of my approach, which drives a bias towards things an interested party could either unravel or find value in superficially. The value is in the post itself, not the interaction as a whole.

Political science isn't a science. It's literally a meme.

I have 2 children already. You will die alone.

You shouldn't

Video related: youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q

kys

>>Trust.
This board is for science, the empirical and logical evaluation of data. Motivation doesn't change data.

>Motivation doesn't change data.
Yes it does. Stop pretending to know anything about science and realize how representation, study methodology, and inclusion parameters can skew data.

Scientists are not reliable. Science is.
You might as well say "Why should anyone trust someone off the street, given that any of them could murder you right now?"
Well, that's true, but 1) most people probably aren't murderers, and have put systems in place to prevent murders from happening, and 2) you have no reasonable alternative.

To expound on those points.
1) Individual scientists shouldn't be trusted, generally. The guy who faked all the vaccines cause autism studies is a good example. Scientists are vulnerable to corruption and ignorance just like anyone else.

Science as a body of work, however, should absolutely be trusted. Andrew Wakefield, the guy who did vaccines cause autism, was heavily investigated by the scientific community, who found his results irreproducible, his methods flawed, and his motivations clearly biased. His license was revoked, his papers discredited, and generally everyone credible sided on the objective side of truth, that vaccines do not cause autism.

All scientific papers and journals have to go through peer review, and usually all experiments are duplicated to see if the findings are the same. There are very rigorous review processes before something can be accepted. Moreover, multiple independent papers and experiments must be conducted by various scientists before a conclusion can be accepted in the general community.

To assume that science as an industry is flawed, one must not only assume the natural rates of corruption in comparable fields, but assume rates far, far greater, because a significant majority of every scientist in a given field has to be completely corrupt and devoid of integrity for a result to make it past peer review.

I don't trust scientists, I trust the scientific consensus.

2) What kind of alternative to science do you have? Its trust science, or go back to living in the stone age. You act as if the computer you're typing on and every other modern amenity wasn't provided by science.

>he slaves away to feed his whore and wallet warts

No, I let the mother's husband do that shit. I just take them fishing and out to sports events.

t. 15 year old

Raising children is the most intellectually stimulating things you can do in life.
Also they're hilarious.

Why should you trust a professional doing his job if it's his profession and he could/should have monetary gain from this?

>I don't trust scientists, I trust the scientific consensus.

>Trusting consensus when human organizational and group dynamics are obviously biased towards tribalism, and perceived consensus is easily rigged towards whatever it's wanted to be

The best example is what passes for literature, and the "scientific consensus" in the US about the "benefits" of male circumcision. The WHO is somewhat on board, for obvious reasons. The rest of the world however readily sees most of the literature yields false conclusions, and is generally garbage.

It is delusional to assume the scientific consensus exists above and apart from the individual scientists.

I am not him but I just want to tell you this.

The only reason I don't like to shit on people with kids on Veeky Forums is that I feel that it would be too dangerous to tell them everything I know when they have already made the mistakes.

A guy with a girlfriend can still be saved. Simply dump her and start fucking around and achieve your sexual and emotional peak.

A guy with a wife will have a hard time dealing with divorce but he can handle it if he is strong.

A guy with kids? No, he is already fucked. He will never be happy again.

That is why I won't even try debating you over this. It makes me really sad inside to even think about you realizing the things I know and then killing yourself when you have kids to feed.

My kids are adorable and I love them to death.
Sorry your serotonin levels are fucked brah

Keep telling yourself that. Hell, you maybe even actually believe it.

You would have more money without them though.

Everyone has ulterior motives.

>life is about having as much money as possible
I don't understand what you're doing with all of this money? Or are you like 18?

Happiness comes from two places

1) base pleasures
2) intellectual stimulation

I have optimized this problem and found the best options. For number one you want to have as much sex as possible. Just fuck a lot. Also diversify your fucking, sticking to one woman will fuck you up.

For number two you need to watch good anime.

This means that the best life is a life spent watching anime and having sex. Having kids prevents you from both things, therefore kids are bad.

You made me say it now and I know that you are feeling like I am totally correct but at least leave your kids enough to money to get by in a bank account if you are going to kill yourself.

Escaping to mexico with a whore is also a valid option but leave your kids money man, don't be an asshole. They deserve pussy and anime too.

By the way, I actually am 18. How did you know?

Do you really love your kids, or do you tell yourself you love your kids because you're stuck with them?

Have you ever really examined that?

He's probably used to people doing that in documentaries or in study books where they ramble incessantly

You shouldn't trust them. You can usually assume that whoever has the most money is lying the hardest, though.

I think you are spot on in your last comment. Seems to be a flaw of the system we live in.
There is very little incentive for me to trust a doctor to undergo an operation when I know he is going to get paid for it.
How do I know he is recommending the operation for my own good and not to pay for his new boat? I don't unfortunately. And that's the problem of living in a monetary system.
There are proposals like a resource based economy proposed by Jacque Fresco, but I'll leave it at that before people start calling me a robo-communist without fully understanding what it's all about.

So I, the corp/shill, produce n studies in my favor for my obscure drug/position on meat/policial view, and - maybe - m produce some against it (let's say they are no shills, which is a stretch). If then ! m >> n, science cannot be trusted in this area at all.

Again, please tell me why I'm wrong, or how to fix this. Without trust in science I feel like an ape.

You shouldn't

no we can't fix it.

Luckily science is so specialised nowadays that there is but a handful of people and labs that you need to pay off and the vast majority of their fellow researchers wouldn't be able to check it.

In case of the doctor he will at least have some interest in your wellbeing, since a bad people mechanic is a more likely unemployed one. If some corp would have an interest in him fucking you up, you should only trust him so far as you trust him to be able to withstand corruption and threads.

>communist
Leftist positions should not be regarded as bad words. Capitalism is inherently broken; with accumulation of power you get more accumulation of power, which results in a more and more intense struggle consuming everything (human relationships, science, the ecosphere, democracy,...) and ultimately leads to the end of the free market and dictatorship.

Also, tell me how to fix this without a leviathan.

>peer review
Can't I just buy some peers?

>can't
no option.

>Also, tell me how to fix this without a leviathan.
free market

>fix the neccessarily self-defeating free market with free market

>Americans are unironically this stupid
JUST

Well ex-cuse me for extrapolating from experience!

>don't have kids
>Veeky Forums

The prophecy comes closer with every post.

youtube.com/watch?v=unoMMru4-c0

What's Veeky Forums's opinion on the tobacco industry? I obviously follow the logic that inhaling stuff other than air can't possibly be good for you, but my question is exactly how bad for you is it? I've read so many individual cases where the oldest man alive in some shitty country smokes tobacco every day yet is healthier than all the nonsmokers. I know there is a multitude of studies against tobacco, but I can't tell if this is from some kind of subconscious bias in the scientific community because as a scientist you know that if your data shows smoking isn't bad you'll just be criticized even if the results are valid. I don't believe that big pharma is bribing anyone to make tobacco look bad, that is a little bit insane to believe, but at the same time big pharma has done some worse shit so I can never be sure. Another thing that makes me unsure about tobacco is that everyone agrees it's bad for you. If the tobacco industry is so rich and corrupting, why aren't they shilling for tobacco? The fact that there are little to no cases in favor of tobacco use just makes me trust it even more. It's like they have nothing to hide. Help me sci, I don't want to believe that tobacco is bad for me but I also don't want to be classified with "moon landing is faked" scientifically illiterate asshole.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking

> 2) intellectual stimulation
>For number two you need to watch good anime.

Ahahaha. Holy fucking shit, man.

For "intellectual stimulation" I read physics/engineering books, work on a few problems and build some cool shit/experiment in my free time. I also read literature too, there are some good books. I watch a few acceptable movies/series in this Hollywood shithole too.

I don't watch that much, I don't have a problem with it either. However watching anime and dubbing it as the fucking holy grail of intellectual stimulus is fucking hilarious.

I hope you're baiting, otherwise get treatment for your schizophrenia.

>I don't watch that much, I don't have a problem with it either.
Typo.
it should be
I don't watch anime that much, I don't have a problem with it either.

y so mad u got the short end of the stick?

you shouldn't. duh.