A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Indeed, and in addition if your religion is not supported by the facts it's time to revise its assumptions. Religion can deal with new evidence, it's just rather slow compared to say human lifetimes. I suspect thats because the basis of many faiths reasoning is built on philosophy, Christianity in particular. Which is a kind of precursor to experimental science where progress is slow or even circular.
I need a tshirt of this
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little
See for example low carb nutrition
And your greasy greasy granny
What you seem to be forgetting is that somebody would have to pay for that science ... in that sense, "control over finance" does , in reality, refute science.
Foucalt would probably be opinionated on this.
Absolutely!! Unless of course we are talking about "burdening" certain women (or certain men) with the inconvenience of giving birth to another person.
In this case, science has absolutely no place in the conversation!! I don't care when life starts!! No scientist should be allowed to weigh in on whether or not abortion is murder!!!!!
Following this logic, someone who kills a pregnant mother shouldn't be held liable for the murder of 2 people! And fathers who do not want to be fathers but are being forced into the situation should not be held liable for caring for a bundle of cells that they didn't want!
All of these double standards are tiring and gross!!
I don't know whether or not this is sarcasm, and frankly - it doesn't matter. Science provides the facts - it does not provide values. You need to combine facts with values in order to come up with an ethical verdict.
If the resulting verdict is not what you wanted, you can always rethink your values. This is essentially what philosophers have done for millennia. It does mean you'll need to defend your new values, of course, but you don't have to stick with old values when it turns out they have bad implications.
What you don't get to do, is decide to ignore or twist the facts. The facts don't change just because they're inconvenient. If you lie in order to get the ethical verdict you desire, then you are tautologically in the wrong.
N@zi published multiple scientific researches to justify their doings.