• Cruxifux@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yes but have you considered this facebook post my friend shared that contradicts that?

    Facts dont care about your feelings, libt*rd

  • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    If understanding was caused by direct observation we wouldnt have local weather-persons who doubt global warming.

    • Štěpán@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Here in Czechia, far-right asshole was elected to the goverment recently and he announced that the climate crisis is over. It started snowing soon after and it’s really cold outside right now. Tons of snow also. By direct observation, I conclude that he is our savior and I’m voting for fascists from now on.

      • starlinguk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        What’s really annoying is that a lot of fascist voters believe climate change is a thing but are prepared to fuck it up because they hate brown people.

        • Štěpán@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Or just don’t care and saving the climate isn’t worth the pain for them. Lot of mildly right wing liberals I know say that climate change is a problem but are furious about every EU regulation and green deal. Basically only fight for climate as long as it doesn’t cost them anything.

    • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Telling me what you think about what somebody else thinks is basically the opposite of direct observation.

      • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes. And yet staring at twenty years of them reporting the weather would not at all improve my understanding of global warming. Especially if that observation was stretched out over twenty years.

        Accurately recorded and identified specific observations are necessary for scientific progress, but their mere collection is not sufficient for understanding.

        Science requires us to speculate, predict, test, and refine. And if all we do is observe without even having made a prediction, we’re not even testing.

        • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Nobody said anything about only observing. And understanding does not require that we manufacture hypothesis or model. You are thinking science, which is another thing. I am thinking mere empiricism. After that there are multiple options. But yes, empirical basis is key.

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    Unless you are someone who learns by doing.

    Watching someone cut up a plant of wood and mount it to a wall to be a shelf is all well and good, but some people will learn more by actually doing it.

    • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Or even EMPIRICISM, BITCHES.

      Because you don’t even need to craft a model at this point. And you can employ all kinds of fuzzy judgements that don’t encode into language, like vibe and aesthetic.

      Language really is a crude, shallow and convention-bound thing.