Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

[Poopadoop]

I've never gotten a call from Russian computer hackers pretending to be agents from Microsoft and telling me to let them log into my computer to make "security updates". However, my parents and all their friends have had it happen to them multiple times.

Yeah, 'cause Russian hackers really try to pinpoint their victims. I've had plenty of calls like this.

Basically,they have a dialling machine and whoever answers the phone gets a sell job. If you were ever home it might happen to you too.

[BananaStand]

Don't know if you watched the video, but this guy wasn't selling the clapper. He was selling vests with a bunch of inside pockets in them.

Jesus fucking christ man. Spend about.....oh, let's say 8 seconds outside. Watch the people walking by. Try to guess the age of every person you see wearing their cell phone on a belt-clip.

That's the target market for this fucking vest. What's the average age you came up with?

[BananaStand]

I've had plenty of calls like this. I'm old and gullible

Fixed your post

[Poopadoop]

Jesus fucking christ man. Spend about.....oh, let's say 8 seconds outside. Watch the people walking by. Try to guess the age of every person you see wearing their cell phone on a belt-clip.

That's the target market for this fucking vest. What's the average age you came up with?

Ok you're right. It's all old stupid people who watch Fox News.

[OngBonga]

Ok you're right. It's all old stupid people who watch Fox News.

The number 99999999999999999947569999999999937476599999999999 999999999999999999999999 isn't all nines, is it?

[BananaStand]

Ok you're right. It's all old stupid people who watch Fox News.

Well I know at least two very stable geniuses who check in from time to time, but for the most part your statement is true. Without googling it, what would you say is the average age of a Fox News viewer?

[Poopadoop]

Hmm a rough guess would be I don't care.

But try not to get lost in irrelevant details; it's a sign of a low IQ.

You're a moron for watching a "news" show watched mostly by gullible morons who buy vests with 17 inside pockets and support a moron con man president who can barely string a sentence together. That's the lesson here.

[Jack Sawyer]

Well I know at least two very stable geniuses who check in from time to time, but for the most part your statement is true. Without googling it, what would you say is the average age of a Fox News viewer?

69?

[BananaStand]

A two step movement...lol

[oskar]

Hahahaha, those two real people sharing their real opinions are so stupid! I am so much more smart than they are. I feel better about myself now. That was a real conversation I watched!

[Poopadoop]

That was really enlightening and informative, thanks for sharing. Once I got past the bad acting and shoestring production values, it actually made me want to learn more about what kind of loser makes a video like this.

Then I saw the links to other videos at the end and I got it

"Where's my white privelege? I can't find it anywhere!"

"Loathsome liberal late night and Trump's war with out of touch socialist Hollywood elites"

oh man, this channel is gold.



Wait till you see the interview with that genius, Roseanne Barr. Definitely off her meds.

[OngBonga]

What she's really saying is... blow job, no; titwank, yes.

[Poopadoop]

Oh snap, they really nailed those goddamn fake news guys! Yuk yuk, pass the moonshine.



This channel is the best thing I've found in ages.

[OngBonga]

I can't really figure out if those people are for real or if they're trolling. Neither would surprise me.

I want to punch him in the throat. Her... I want her to stop talking while I continue to stare at her cleavage.

[Poopadoop]

Well this has to be the best one. I love how the narrative is set in the context of dreamy music, dreamy pans of dreamy vistas, and a semi-transparent dreamy image of Trump. I guess that means what sounds like incoherent babbling is really just super profound.



"Question of the day: Was the world previous to Trump normal to you?"

"Our credentialed class had grown incestuous."

"Traditional American values were being replaced by multiculturalism."

"Trump relied on cunning and intuition rather than research, preparation, and reflection."

"Trump was savvy in ensuring the finest national security team."

Oh my god, I'm fucking gonna die laughing.

[oskar]

The only reason his name rings a bell is because my news crush is Natasha Bertrand, and there was this a while back: https://bernardmedia.org/2018/05/02/...y-to-be-fired/

[OngBonga]

Has anyone met Professor Neck yet?

Yeah, this guy teaches people. Well, he did until he said something about dead cops on Twitter.

[Poopadoop]

Natasha Bertrand is cute. I'd still rather spank Ana Kasparian with my dick though.

[Poopadoop]

Has anyone met Professor Neck yet?

Nope, and if I did I would pay no attention. I certainly wouldn't watch a youtube channel he started.

[OngBonga]

Nope, and if I did I would pay no attention. I certainly wouldn't watch a youtube channel he started.

But that neck...

[Poopadoop]

But that neck...

Haha, it is special isn't it.

[BananaStand]

Whether or not that video was real doesn't change the fact that it was realistic

[TheSpoonald]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezu...ion-supporters

Ooops, socialism did it again.

[Jack Sawyer]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezu...ion-supporters

Ooops, socialism did it again.

Venezuela is a complex situation, which I'm sure is helped massively by the US sanctions and the withholding of their dollars, just like they are also doing with Iran. But I'm sure you already know that.

Here, read about Árbenz instead, to see just how good foreign capitalism can be.

He took office on March 15, 1951, and continued the social reform policies of his predecessor. These reforms included an expanded right to vote, the ability of workers to organize, legitimizing political parties, and allowing public debate.[6] The centerpiece of his policy was an agrarian reform law under which uncultivated portions of large land-holdings were expropriated in return for compensation and redistributed to poverty-stricken agricultural laborers. Approximately 500,000 people benefited from the decree. The majority of them were indigenous people, whose forebears had been dispossessed after the Spanish invasion.

His policies ran afoul of the United Fruit Company, which lobbied the United States government to have him overthrown. The US was also concerned by the presence of communists in the Guatemalan government, and Árbenz was ousted in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état engineered by the US Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency. Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas replaced him as president. Árbenz went into exile through several countries, where his family gradually fell apart. His daughter committed suicide, and he descended into alcoholism, eventually dying in Mexico in 1971. In October 2011, the Guatemalan government issued an apology for Árbenz's overthrow.

[Jack Sawyer]

And before you go "But but but but the sanctions are just from recently, venezuela has been in the shithole forever"

First, the Trump administration had already imposed broad economic sanctions in 2017, though apparently both The Wall Street Journal and New York Times were unaware of this development.

[TheSpoonald]

Jesus jack, it's not like we bought misleading facebook ads to meddle in their elections. Calm down.

[Jack Sawyer]

Jesus jack, it's not like we bought misleading facebook ads to meddle in their elections. Calm down.

You are still under check, you gotta protect your king or lose on the next move

[TheSpoonald]

You are still under check, you gotta protect your king or lose on the next move

No i'm not. You do this thing where whenever something bad happens you pull out your Funk & Wagnalls and say "ooh look here, America did the same thing 700 years ago"

Live in the now man.

[OngBonga]

Jack is right, Venezuela is a complex situation. They have enough oil that socialism should actually be able to work there. That old meme about socialism works until you run out of other people's money... well socialism should work there until they run out of oil. In the meantime, quality education and healthcare all round. That's what Chavez wanted for Venezuela.

Venezuela has a lot of oil. Of course USA are meddling in their affairs.

...America did the same thing 700 years ago

Stop pretending America has 700 years of history.

[TheSpoonald]

Venezuela has a lot of oil. Of course USA are meddling in their affairs

This is really an old old talking point. Between oil sands and fracking, North America has enough fossil fuels to last multiple centuries.

Neoconservatism is pretty much over.

[OngBonga]

Between oil sands and fracking, North America has enough fossil fuels to last multiple centuries.

I don't doubt it, but I think there's a little more to it than simply having enough to run your big thirsty engines. This is about maintaining the dollar as the dominant petrocurrency. I get the impression that it's a matter of "at all costs".

Neoconservatism is pretty much over.

Sure. It's hardly "neo" any more, it's just conservatism.

[OngBonga]

Trump has all the hallmarks of a neoconservative. He's apparently less aggressive than typical neocons, but that strikes me as image manipulation. He shakes the hand of a guy he was never going to war with, and withdraws troops from a destroyed nation, while getting shitty with Iran and Venezuela. He's still actively persuing American interests abroad, with no regard for their sovereign integrity.

[OngBonga]

That said, the alternative would be far worse. I'd rather USA gets shitty with Iran and Venezuela than Russia and North Korea, purely from a nuclear pov.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Stop pretending America has 700 years of history.

Shows what you know.

Jesus was a Murican!

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is really an old old talking point. Between oil sands and fracking, North America has enough fossil fuels to last multiple centuries.

Uhhh.... Where'd you get that data?

America consumes 7.28 billion barrels of petroleum products per year.
https://www.americangeosciences.org/...-united-states

Proven oil reserves in the United States were 36.4 billion barrels of crude oil as of the end of 2014, excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_re..._United_States

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency fuel storage of petroleum maintained underground in Louisiana and Texas by the DOE. It is the largest emergency supply in the world, with the capacity to hold up to 727 million barrels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate...United_States)

A U.S 42-gallon barrel of crude oil yields about 45 gallons of petroleum products in U.S. refineries because of refinery processing gain.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...?page=oil_home

So that 36.4 B barrels amounts to 39 B barrels of petroleum products.
At a consumption rate of 7.28 B barrels per year, that gives us 5.35 years of reserve.

The SPR holds another 727 M * (45/42) / (7.28 B) = 0.11 more years.

Nowhere near centuries.

According to this link, Venezuela has the largest crude oil reserve in the world. 2nd to Saudi Arabia.
https://www.thebalance.com/oil-reser...argest-3305873

I have a friend who works as a plant engineer in the oil fields in Saudi. He has assured me that he will not be able to retire in that job because the oil will be gone within our lifetimes.
If the 2nd largest oil reserve is going to be depleted in the coming decades, then I'd say Venezuela has a prime position on the hot seat for the foreseeable future.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wait... you said North America? As in Panama to Canada?
That's not the US's oil, though.

[TheSpoonald]

Uhhh.... Where'd you get that data?

I don't know man. I just hear shit and remember it. But some fast googling found this...

https://www.business-standard.com/ar...2201397_1.html

I'm not familiar with the source, but it agrees with me so it's probably good.

with technological advances, reserves that were previously deemed unviable to tap have kept coming on board. Various studies show that the total remaining recoverable oil resources would last 190 years, natural gas 230 years, and coal, a whopping 2900 years.

EDIT: I found something else that said 52 years + whatever else we find. I found another source that said the 32 years but was dated in 1980. So like most environmental/climate data.....no one fucking knows shit.

[TheSpoonald]

Wait... you said North America? As in Panama to Canada?
That's not the US's oil, though.

Well it's mostly in canada. Not too worried about what's in panama.

And fuck canada, what are they gonna do? We have them surrounded.

[Jack Sawyer]

This is really an old old talking point. Between oil sands and fracking, North America has enough fossil fuels to last multiple centuries.

Neoconservatism is pretty much over.

Why can't the US use its own oil and not import?

Because we can't drill it as cheaply as Saudi Arabia is willing to supply it.

This changed recently. With new drilling technologies (i.e. fracking), the U.S. has been able to greatly increase it's oil production. However, the cost of these new technologies is a bit high. So, even though the U.S. can almost compete with Saudi Arabia in quantity, it can't compete in cost.

That's what Saudi Arabia is showing the world right now with the current oil glut. The U.S. and Russia have developed new technologies to tap into previously out of reach oil fields. The U.S. with fracking, and Russia able to penetrate the Siberian permafrost.

Both the U.S. and Russia started flooding the market, attempting to export oil. Saudi Arabia got a little mad and crushed demand by oversupplying the market. Oil prices dropped to ridiculous levels and many U.S. and Russian oil fields are in danger of shutting down because neither country can drill for anywhere near the cost that Saudi Arabia is willing to sell their oil for.

It's hard to believe, but there's a secret war going on right now in the world between Russia, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.

Of course, the low gas prices look really good for the government and getting votes right now in the U.S., but it's a red herring. A lot of U.S. oil companies are in real financial danger right now. Most have just strapped in and hope they make it through the storm.

I Agree with Gary Leverich.

Further to add: You must also look at the approach that it is not wise to use the most important natural resource the USA MUST have in this day and age to function. What happens if Saudi Arabia wakes up one day and says, "We will not supply anymore." What if the supply lines get cut-off with war or natural disaster of some sort. Oil is played very politically and played with in part to with the majority of US Citizens affected. I do not think we know how much oil is left in the world. And if we did know, I am sure that it would be really bad for business to let anyone on the other side know how much. Proven reserves are not real reserves. OPEC is not our friend and neither is Saudi Arabia. It is all business and power structures beyond most could conceive. If I had the money and the market it is best to buy something of equal value or less somewhere else and save my goods for last. If it was a commodity everlasting. Oil is going to be pumped till the wells run dry.

I would like to add what is seen at the pump is highway robbery. One gallon of gasoline in Venezuela is $0.08/gallon.

[Jack Sawyer]

EDIT: I found something else that said 52 years + whatever else we find. I found another source that said the 32 years but was dated in 1980. So like most environmental/climate data.....no one fucking knows shit.

Oh people know, it's just not in their current financial interests to act upon it.

Which is why they resort to denial. It's easier to just deny shit, to claim the sun isn't there by hiding it with your finger. And when other people claim they still see the sun despite the fact that you covered it with your finger, just keep claiming "fake news".

[TheSpoonald]

Oh people know, it's just not in their current financial interests to act upon it.

Stop. The dems are primed to drop $30 Trillion on this. They're dying to print money and spend it on any bonkers project with the word "green" in it.

"not in their current financial interests"....pffffffffffffffffffffffftt

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't know man. I just hear shit and remember it. But some fast googling found this...

https://www.business-standard.com/ar...2201397_1.html

I'm not familiar with the source, but it agrees with me so it's probably good.



EDIT: I found something else that said 52 years + whatever else we find. I found another source that said the 32 years but was dated in 1980. So like most environmental/climate data.....no one fucking knows shit.

You'll have to do better than an unknown source that starts with "It is argued" and no reference to by whom or what their data or credentials are. Then he waxes poetic about WTF, exactly? Cassandra of Troy?

I mean... I guess that's funny, but not evidence.

[TheSpoonald]

You'll have to do better

Oh? And what if I don't?

[Jack Sawyer]

Stop. The dems are primed to drop $30 Trillion on this. They're dying to print money and spend it on any bonkers project with the word "green" in it.

"not in their current financial interests"....pffffffffffffffffffffffftt

What about the republicans?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh? And what if I don't?

Then you admit you're making an irrational argument. Whether or not you say the words, it's what you've done.
Your position boils down to base nationalism. You don't want them illegals here, 'cause they're not from here, so they're bad for here.
If that's the whole of your argument, and there's literally no data or reality to back it up, then ... thanks for sharing. Run along, now. The grown-ups are talking. If you're not going to bother to ground your thoughts in reality, then your opinions on how we should work toward our best future are moot.

If you can't state a rational reason for your position, then you're not in the conversation. You're on the sidelines with the rest of the rabble, reacting to the whimsy of fake news that appeals to you.

If you want to be taken seriously, you can't behave like an idiot.

[TheSpoonald]

What about the republicans?

What about them?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Then you admit you're making an irrational argument. Whether or not you say the words, it's what you've done.
Your position boils down to base nationalism. You don't want them illegals here, 'cause they're not from here, so they're bad for here.
If that's the whole of your argument, and there's literally no data or reality to back it up, then ... thanks for sharing. Run along, now. The grown-ups are talking. If you're not going to bother to ground your thoughts in reality, then your opinions on how we should work toward our best future are moot.

If you can't state a rational reason for your position, then you're not in the conversation. You're on the sidelines with the rest of the rabble, reacting to the whimsy of fake news that appeals to you.

If you want to be taken seriously, you can't behave like an idiot.

Oops. Wrong arguement.


I mean. Your position boils down to, I have no idea, so I'll just throw anything out there and stir up some shit.
Still not a rational argument.

[Jack Sawyer]

Meanwhile, in Venezuela

[Jack Sawyer]

What about them?

Oh people know, it's just not in their current financial interests to act upon it.

Which is why they resort to denial. It's easier to just deny shit, to claim the sun isn't there by hiding it with your finger. And when other people claim they still see the sun despite the fact that you covered it with your finger, just keep claiming "fake news".

Stop. The dems are primed to drop $30 Trillion on this. They're dying to print money and spend it on any bonkers project with the word "green" in it.

"not in their current financial interests"....pffffffffffffffffffffffftt

What about the republicans?

[TheSpoonald]

Your position ..... nationalism.

Why's that bad?

no data or reality to back it up

Dey tuk er jobz!!

If you can't state a rational reason for your position, then you're not in the conversation.

I think I told you that your beef with the crime rate thing comes from the fact that the Yale guy *can't* know how many crimes illegals commit. Even though he says he does. He doesn't. I know he's lying because he is saying something that is impossible for him to know. It is literally illegal to collect the data he would need to make that claim. I don't know what else to tell you man. The guy is straight up lying. Or, more likely, he just presumed something erroneous and then confirmation biased himself into believing the data says something it doesn't. Does that ever happen to Ivy League Academics? Hint: Fuck yes it does.

If you want to believe that he somehow knows the citizenship status of people who are arrested just because he says he does, then you go right on believing that. Climate change is real too. Good luck with life.

rabble,

BAN

idiot

BAN

[TheSpoonald]

What about the republicans?

i'm kinda lost man. Are we talking abotu climate change? If so, then I think the Republicans have emphatically stated their completely rational position of not spending money on things that are imaginary.

That reminds me. I'm very anxious to see the uniforms they pick for Space Force

[Jack Sawyer]

i'm kinda lost man. Are we talking abotu climate change? If so, then I think the Republicans have emphatically stated their completely rational position of not spending money on things that are imaginary.

Ergo, they know, it's just not in their current financial interests to act upon it.

Which is why they resort to denial. "Climate Change Denial". It's easier to just deny shit, to claim the sun isn't there by hiding it with your finger. And when other people claim they still see the sun despite the fact that you covered it with your finger, just keep claiming "fake news".

[TheSpoonald]

"Climate Change Denial".

That's a slur, not an argument

[Jack Sawyer]

That's a slur, not an argument

Is it now?

Wonder of wonders, number one in this particular list is Jim Innhofe (R-OK), who took 2 million bucks from the fossil fuel industry to have an opinion

I wonder if someone flatly says "I DON"T BELIEVE IT" to the report of reports on climate change he'd be called a climate change denier.

These are sourced facts, not feelings.

[TheSpoonald]

These are sourced facts, not feelings.

Science isn't determined by consensus

[TheSpoonald]

Jack.....9:30......"The Pause"???!!!!

WTF??? That's a pretty big lie, don't ya think?

What else are they lying about?

Kinda weird how they all say that the only way to solve climate change is to coincidentally check off every box on the DNC wishlist.

[Jack Sawyer]

Jack.....9:30......"The Pause"???!!!!

WTF??? That's a pretty big lie, don't ya think?

What else are they lying about?

Kinda weird how they all say that the only way to solve climate change is to coincidentally check off every box on the DNC wishlist.

Steven Crowder?

Of all people you could cite, you decide on steven fucking crowder?

I raise you a Neil Degrasse-Tyson

[TheSpoonald]

Steven Crowder?

Not playing that game. If you have a problem with what he says, make your case.

If your argument amounts to "ZOMG, *THAT'S* YOUR SOURCE!!" then please eat a pine cone and enjoy the rest of your day.

[Jack Sawyer]

Not playing that game. If you have a problem with what he says, make your case.

If your argument amounts to "ZOMG, *THAT'S* YOUR SOURCE!!" then please eat a pine cone and enjoy the rest of your day.

But *THAT'S* YOUR SOURCE!! OMG

[TheSpoonald]

But *THAT'S* YOUR SOURCE!! OMG

[Jack Sawyer]

I really wonder about what Steven Crowder thinks about climate change

[TheSpoonald]

I really wonder about what Steven Crowder thinks about climate change

Steve was just telling you what I think about climate change. Better you hear it from him cuz he did all the research and shit. I just kinda smelled bullshit and went with my gut.

[Jack Sawyer]

Steve was just telling you what I think about climate change. Better you hear it from him cuz he did all the research and shit. I just kinda smelled bullshit and went with my gut.

Too bad you chose to have the same opinions as a walking talking confirmation bias

[TheSpoonald]

Too bad you chose to have the same opinions as a walking talking confirmation bias

I told you I'm not playing that game. Slurs are not arguments

[Jack Sawyer]

I told you I'm not playing that game. Slurs are not arguments

So nowadays, to apparent conservatives and possibly triggered snowflakes, calling a climate change denier a climate change denier is a slur somehow.

Excellent argument.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Science isn't determined by consensus

lolwat?
That's exactly how science is determined.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Not playing that game. If you have a problem with what he says, make your case.

If your argument amounts to "ZOMG, *THAT'S* YOUR SOURCE!!" then please eat a pine cone and enjoy the rest of your day.

You have another opinion. Good for you. I bet you can scrounge up some internet nonsense that is vaguely tangentially "proof" in your head.
Oh, i see that you did. Is that notorious internet douchebag Steven Crowder? Oh he is so controversial, isn't he?

Very cute.
Thanks for sharing.

[TheSpoonald]

Does Mr. Crowder say something you disagree with in that video?

[TheSpoonald]

lolwat?
That's exactly how science is determined.

WRONG

Science = reality & truth. Not what some artificially credentialed human beings *think* is reality and truth.

500 years ago, would I be derided as a flat-earth denier?

[TheSpoonald]

I did see that the AP was reporting that NY and Miami are likely to be under water within 10-15 years.

Did you guys see that? Probably not. It was in 1980.

CNN just moved a major division of its corporate HQ from far inland Atlanta to an office building in NY that is literally about 9 feet from the water. Think they're actually worried???

[TheSpoonald]

So nowadays, to apparent conservatives and possibly triggered snowflakes, calling a climate change denier a climate change denier is a slur somehow.

Excellent argument.

It is a slur.

First. It's inaccurate. I don't deny that climate changes. However, I do deny that it's a problem. I deny that there is definitive proof that humans are the cause. I deny that the consequences are catastrophic. I deny any statement that says "X is going to happen in Y years". And I deny the idea that the only way to fix the problem is a massive central government and planned economy.

I mean, this whole climate change agenda would be a little easier to swallow if it didn't coincedentally check off all the boxes on the democrat wishlist.

I also deny that those measures on the democrat wishlist would even work. America isn't the only country on earth, and we're far from the most egregious polluter. And if you're about to say "something something paris agreement something something", make sure you also mention how that retarded document allows China to increase it's carbon output.

[TheSpoonald]

We've been threatened with the 10 year countdown over and over and over again.

Serious question: How many times does it have to be wrong before I'm allowed to be skeptical? How many times does this have to prove out to be total bullshit before "denial" is justified?

Serious question. How many? I'd like an answer please. Hint: It's a positive integer >0

How many times do I have to be right before I stop being crazy?

[TheSpoonald]

I'm old enough to rememeber when they told us that we would be living through a new ice age by the year 2000, and we would all die when the ozone layer disappeared. They said oceans would be dead, and global cooling would destroy the world. They told us Acid rain will destroy all the forests. Overpopulation will result in worldwide famine. They said we would deplete our natural resources, and run out of oil. They said the polar ice caps would melt. Manhattan should be underwater by now. People in cities will need gas masks. Nitrogen build up will make land unusable.

and let's not even start with the lies they told us about coffee, fat, salt, and eggs.

Seriously now. NONE of this shit was real. Not one word of it, ever.

How come it's a problem this time

And why is it that the only way to fix it is to submit unconditionally to a worldwide super-government? That part really puzzles me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

WRONG

Science = reality & truth. Not what some artificially credentialed human beings *think* is reality and truth.

Adorable.

Where to start? OK.

You see, nanners, science isn't actually about truth or facts. This is a popular misconception, so I'm not surprised if you heard that from other people, but those people aren't scientists, or they are scientists who want you to think that what they do is more than it really is.

Science is really about knowledge and repeatability. Science is about predicting the outcome of something before it happens, like predicting the future a little bit. Whether or not the scientific model we use to make a prediction is "true," we don't know. We never have, may never at all. We only know if the prediction was "good enough" for our purposes.

The history of science is to disprove all the things we thought once were true. The things we think are true today will surely be shown to be not quite true by later scientists. It's easy to think that if a new scientific finding is better than the old one, that the new one is true, but that's not the case. It's probably (but not certainly) more true, but not necessarily capital T True.
For example, Newton figured out a bunch of stuff about gravity. Everyone thought it was true. Until Einstein came along and showed that Newton's gravity didn't really tell the whole story. Then everyone knew that Newton's gravity was not true. It's still workably close to the truth, but not the truth. Surely someday, some other scientist will show that even Einstein's gravity is close to the truth, but not exactly the truth.
That's what's happens in science. It's not so much about what is true, as it is about our best guesses so far.


Where does science come from, and why do scientists think it's a good way to find knowledge?
That's a long story, too. Let's try to boil it down.

The idea that science is a means to get knowledge comes from the philosophical study of epistemology - the study of how we, whose experiences may or may not be subjective, can determine the difference between knowledge and opinion. That field, as all philosophical fields, is based upon the agreement of the experts in the field, or by consensus.
The "Truths" of philosophical ideas must be subjectively accepted by people to be considered true. There's no way to collect data to prove it, so each person has to decide. A group of people decides they're educated and smart enough to figure it out and come to an agreement, or consensus, about it. In this case, the "it" is the question "What is knowledge and how shall we acquire it?"

An answer to that question goes something like this:
There's no personal basis to determine reality from hallucination. We posit (an unproven assertion) that if enough "reliable" witnesses agree on an observation, we consider that observation real. Everything about that is consensus.
Oh boy, that sounds very dangerous! Who is a reliable witness? What if reliable people hallucinate? What if reliable witnesses lie? What if a person guesses a truth and seems reliable, but is not?
That sounds like all this talk about "finding knowledge" is really just an elitist group deciding what is a fact, doesn't it?
I think it does, and I'm a scientist.

We definitely need a way to prevent ourselves from being fooled by some elitist group that probably wants to fool us or worse, have fooled themselves and want me to believe their foolery. (or even to be fooled by something we ourselves thought in the past)
That is the root of the scientific method. We need a way to combat the flaws in this "knowledge" acquiring method.

Uh oh... the method is about acquiring knowledge. How can we combat the flaws in finding knowledge without suffering the flaws of distrusting what it knowledge in the first place. We're facing a circular argument. Now you see why there's an entire field of philosophy that studies this question. It's very hard to not think yourself in circles once you question what is knowledge and how do you know when you have it.

So to build the scientific method, we take a risky step. We accept the flaws in this consensus based model and - risky - make another group to come to another consensus about how to handle the problems with relying on consensus. This sounds like a bad move. Still. I'm a reluctant supporter. The result feels good to me, but c'mon... circular logic. Whether or not it feels good should have no bearing on our determination. Argh.

This new group does an OK job, though. They say, "We can't trust people. People are not reliable witnesses. We need something else. We need to trust data, not people. We need to distrust the people who create the data, and to scrutinize their methods. Only when we cannot disprove their methods, do we begrudgingly accept their data. Once we accept the data, though, we embrace it whole-heartedly. Until and unless the methods are shown to be faulty, the data cannot be refuted. Not because of the scientists who created the methods, but because of the methods themselves.

But still... all this talk of "we" is just hiding more consensus. More agreement from other "reliable witnesses." Remember, we never solved that problem, we just put a bandaid on it.

So you see... it's a popular misconception that science is about creating true statements. Scientific Laws are not really "true" in the sense that, "I think nanners acts like a petulant teenager." is true. Ironic, right? Subjective statements can be true, but objective statements can't. You can "know" yourself, but you can never fully, 100% trust the consensus.

Now run along and check if Stevey has another controversial video for you to watch.

500 years ago, would I be derided as a flat-earth denier?

IDK, but Eratosthenes (c.276 - 195 BC) may have been.
500 years
lol


Run along, now.

[TheSpoonald]

Adorable.

BAN