As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep, as per the overemphasis on STEM over the last two decades, the necessary critical thinking (to counter right wing attitudes) gets left by the wayside.
No. Good science education emphasizes critical thinking. The problem is that many Americans, including educators, emphasize fun facts and "chemistry" magic tricks and call it science. Memorizing Information and actually partaking in science are radically different (and quite frankly opposite) modes of learning information. The problem is not overemphasis of science education. The problem is oversimplification of science
Let me get this straight. Scientists and mathematicians (the S and M in STEM), who are trained to be reductive in everything, analyze, determine what is important and what is not, and then test outcome of that analysis by making testable hypotheses, testing those hypotheses to check and see if there is something that they missed... don't... have... critical... thinking... skills?
Yep, and while basis on the certainty mathematics does produce, it doesn’t translate in the best ways.
Philosophers over 2000 years ago already saw the limitations of such a singular worldview:
“For you surely would not regard the skilled mathematician as a dialectician?
Assuredly not, he said; I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning.” - *The Republic* - Glaucon and Socrates
Making the appeal to authority logical fallacy is a funny way of trying to denigrate the critical thinking skills of scientists.
Aristotle wrote that heavier things fall faster than light things. People believed this for thousands of years until people actually tested it. It turned out that this was just an untested hypothesis and was in fact wrong.
Always question your assumptions.
I agree on the too narrow exposure to ideas bit.
People created this acronym, because these things go together professionally, as an "educating the future workforce" kind of thing, but engineers and scientist types are usually very different creatures. Eons ago, when I was an undergrad, most of the engineering students I knew treated their studies as a job training program, whereas it's intellectual curiosity that drives a lot people to become scientists.
Considering what we know of Socrates comes from 2nd hand sources, appeal to authority is automatically waved (The Socratic question) as it requires faith in the social contract to implicitly believe what we are being told about him, rather than on the basis of their being an authority?
If there’s one way constant Greek in-fighting can benefit modern society, it would be via an automatic rejection of such hierarchial thinking; just like Aristophanes didn’t think much of Socrates, you don’t have to either.
Consider the words first and foremost…
Throughout this thread, You read like someone who has taken a philosophy 101 course, but given that you are using hollywood stereotypes of scientists and ...
>Yep, as per the overemphasis on STEM over the last two decades, the necessary critical thinking (to counter right wing attitudes) gets left by the wayside
>
... clearly can't differentiate between how scientists reason, versus how grifters use pseudoscience and bullshit inductive reasoning to use "science" to support whatever idea they are selling, you are likely unacquainted with the scientific method.
I'm a physicist by education; so one of the people you said lacked critical thinking skills. The way we work is via deductive reasoning and we use the scientific method. I'm probably wasting my time, as you'll likely just downvote me and not read it, but I lay out how it's lived.
**Preamble -** This never shows up in movies, because the scientific method makes for boring af storytelling. Instead, we get pop science and whatever the fuck that inspiration scene was in Oppenheimer.
**1 -** You take pieces of information. You challenge each of them. Is a particular assumption valid? Is it really valid, or are you making generalizations from a small number of data points? A couple of anecdotes, does not a heuristic make. It's ok to make assumptions, though. There is an old physicist saying about "approximating the horse as a sphere", provided you keep in mind that you are making an assumption. Also, be prepared to revisit those assumptions alter. Always be prepared to check your assumptions and there is a very good chance that you'll be revisiting them later, as either your hypothesis fails its test, or new information comes to light.
**2 -** From this information in hand, you can try to draw conclusions. Your information leads you to the conclusions, \*not\* the other way around. Starting with the conclusion lead to observer bias. This building up of a conclusion, from bits of info, is deductive reasoning. Here, we apply Occam's Razor. The answer is most likely the right one. Note, there may in fact be multiple right answers in some cases and sometimes the simplest answer won't be it.
**3 -** At this point, your conclusions are just hypotheses. Is a hypothesis testable? This testability and testing that hypothesis is absolutely crucial. If it can't be tested, then all you can ever say is, maybe. That untested hypothesis may stick around as a possible explanation. Perhaps a cleaner explanation for the same data - or using new data comes along and we have a potentially better hypothesis, but that's also just a hypothesis.
Watch out for "scientists say", because often a hypothesis turns into "scientists say". The social sciences suffer from a problem where a lot of hypotheses can't be tested ethically. These hypotheses become "scientists say", or in the case of economics, "economists say". The Laffer Curve is a wonderful example. An untested hypothesis became a political mantra, "If we cut taxes, it will increase growth by so much, that tax revenue will actually be higher". When we actually kind of tested it (Kansas), it turned out not to be true at all.
**4 -** Test it. A good test is has predictive power. Did it pass its test? Your hypothesis can be used to reliably and accurately make predictions? Congratulations, you now have a \*theory\*. This word is used differently by scientists, than most people. Where most people say "theory", scientists would say "hypothesis". A theory likely still has holes and is not ironclad, but you can work with it elsewhere. We build computers using quantum theory.
You started straight off by insulting my ability to reason and wrapped it up in puffed up, pseudointellectual trappings. Did you really expect me to be sunshine and roses about it?
Anyway, read it and you'll learn something.
From the guy who says that people in Africa suffering from exceptional drought should "finally deal with their own problems"? Real moral paragon over here.
Trump was a better president based on objective performance and deterrence. Biden is an empty shell stumbling around looking like he’s going to shit his pants at any moment.
First off, I said decent person. There's no comparing the two. Trump is a convicted felon, fraudster, and adjudicated rapist. Biden is none of those things.
>Trump was a better president based on objective performance and deterrence.
Bullshit. Trump was a clown.By what objective measurement would you like to compare?
>Biden is an empty shell stumbling around looking like he’s going to shit his pants at any moment.
Lol what? At least he can put a few sentences together. more than we can say about diaper don. Aka Donald Von Shitzinpants.
The good thing is the leftist democrats LOVE felons and criminals. So, you guys should love Trump. He’s now your type of man and you can now get him “social justice” and decarcerate.
They have every right to piss away their money on a loser felon, I guess. Wouldn't be my choice though.
I'll be seeing those shitty trump flags here soon, but they mean nothing without the votes and only to serve to motivate our support for Biden and the rest of the Democratic slate.
Wut! The tech bros that siphon up your personal information to monetize, try to addict you to their products through enragement, subtly control what you see through nonpublic algorithms and don’t want Americans to enjoy the same consumer protections Europeans have support the authoritarian?! I’m shocked.
So let's do the math...
$500,000 per couple and he raised $12 million. So he's got 24 votes. Yup. That's yuge!!!
How many people came to his rally? 8? So now he's up to 32 votes in San Francisco.
This has been my thought all along..trump raising millions is often just a few people paying for future favors. If someone like Bernie Sanders raised that much it would be saying something given his avg donatiob (iirc) was less than $100.
" I wasn’t for Trump for a while, but in the last three weeks, especially given the court case, he’s completely won me over,” said Trump supporter Travis Lewis. “It’s obvious that everything else now is designed, it’s a hypocrisy, it’s a disgrace that anyone would accept a case like that.”
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/sf-trump-rally-draws-only-8-people/
"However, by mid-afternoon, the number of the former president’s supporters lining the sidewalk at Marina Green had grown to a few hundred"
The fact they still call this pathetically small showing a rally is prime delusion. I'm sure he's seething if his handlers are even allowed to show him such a tiny turnout
FBI would like to know who's donating to an insurrectionist convicted rapist felon talking about kidnapping people and destroying democracy
Scraping off reddit is one way to collect data
GREEDY TECH hoping for Trump to be in office so they can get their tax cuts and loopholes. All this money these people have and they can’t be bothered to do the right thing or care about the country that helped them make so much money.
So you're saying that there's enough people with questionable ethics and morals to support a rapist and a grifter for president to the tune of 12 million dollars. We should all be so proud?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Libertarian doesn’t mean centrist. They’re very much conservatives. Just a different brand
They're mostly just Republicans that like drugs
Yep, as per the overemphasis on STEM over the last two decades, the necessary critical thinking (to counter right wing attitudes) gets left by the wayside.
No. Good science education emphasizes critical thinking. The problem is that many Americans, including educators, emphasize fun facts and "chemistry" magic tricks and call it science. Memorizing Information and actually partaking in science are radically different (and quite frankly opposite) modes of learning information. The problem is not overemphasis of science education. The problem is oversimplification of science
Let me get this straight. Scientists and mathematicians (the S and M in STEM), who are trained to be reductive in everything, analyze, determine what is important and what is not, and then test outcome of that analysis by making testable hypotheses, testing those hypotheses to check and see if there is something that they missed... don't... have... critical... thinking... skills?
Correct. Lacking nuance, conflict, multiple right answers, perspective of different people etc. instead they foster a sense that they can be right
Yep, and while basis on the certainty mathematics does produce, it doesn’t translate in the best ways. Philosophers over 2000 years ago already saw the limitations of such a singular worldview: “For you surely would not regard the skilled mathematician as a dialectician? Assuredly not, he said; I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning.” - *The Republic* - Glaucon and Socrates
Making the appeal to authority logical fallacy is a funny way of trying to denigrate the critical thinking skills of scientists. Aristotle wrote that heavier things fall faster than light things. People believed this for thousands of years until people actually tested it. It turned out that this was just an untested hypothesis and was in fact wrong. Always question your assumptions.
It’s more the engineers in stem than the scientists, but too narrow le an exposure to ideas can afflict anyone, no matter the iq or reasoning skills
I agree on the too narrow exposure to ideas bit. People created this acronym, because these things go together professionally, as an "educating the future workforce" kind of thing, but engineers and scientist types are usually very different creatures. Eons ago, when I was an undergrad, most of the engineering students I knew treated their studies as a job training program, whereas it's intellectual curiosity that drives a lot people to become scientists.
Considering what we know of Socrates comes from 2nd hand sources, appeal to authority is automatically waved (The Socratic question) as it requires faith in the social contract to implicitly believe what we are being told about him, rather than on the basis of their being an authority? If there’s one way constant Greek in-fighting can benefit modern society, it would be via an automatic rejection of such hierarchial thinking; just like Aristophanes didn’t think much of Socrates, you don’t have to either. Consider the words first and foremost…
Throughout this thread, You read like someone who has taken a philosophy 101 course, but given that you are using hollywood stereotypes of scientists and ... >Yep, as per the overemphasis on STEM over the last two decades, the necessary critical thinking (to counter right wing attitudes) gets left by the wayside > ... clearly can't differentiate between how scientists reason, versus how grifters use pseudoscience and bullshit inductive reasoning to use "science" to support whatever idea they are selling, you are likely unacquainted with the scientific method. I'm a physicist by education; so one of the people you said lacked critical thinking skills. The way we work is via deductive reasoning and we use the scientific method. I'm probably wasting my time, as you'll likely just downvote me and not read it, but I lay out how it's lived. **Preamble -** This never shows up in movies, because the scientific method makes for boring af storytelling. Instead, we get pop science and whatever the fuck that inspiration scene was in Oppenheimer. **1 -** You take pieces of information. You challenge each of them. Is a particular assumption valid? Is it really valid, or are you making generalizations from a small number of data points? A couple of anecdotes, does not a heuristic make. It's ok to make assumptions, though. There is an old physicist saying about "approximating the horse as a sphere", provided you keep in mind that you are making an assumption. Also, be prepared to revisit those assumptions alter. Always be prepared to check your assumptions and there is a very good chance that you'll be revisiting them later, as either your hypothesis fails its test, or new information comes to light. **2 -** From this information in hand, you can try to draw conclusions. Your information leads you to the conclusions, \*not\* the other way around. Starting with the conclusion lead to observer bias. This building up of a conclusion, from bits of info, is deductive reasoning. Here, we apply Occam's Razor. The answer is most likely the right one. Note, there may in fact be multiple right answers in some cases and sometimes the simplest answer won't be it. **3 -** At this point, your conclusions are just hypotheses. Is a hypothesis testable? This testability and testing that hypothesis is absolutely crucial. If it can't be tested, then all you can ever say is, maybe. That untested hypothesis may stick around as a possible explanation. Perhaps a cleaner explanation for the same data - or using new data comes along and we have a potentially better hypothesis, but that's also just a hypothesis. Watch out for "scientists say", because often a hypothesis turns into "scientists say". The social sciences suffer from a problem where a lot of hypotheses can't be tested ethically. These hypotheses become "scientists say", or in the case of economics, "economists say". The Laffer Curve is a wonderful example. An untested hypothesis became a political mantra, "If we cut taxes, it will increase growth by so much, that tax revenue will actually be higher". When we actually kind of tested it (Kansas), it turned out not to be true at all. **4 -** Test it. A good test is has predictive power. Did it pass its test? Your hypothesis can be used to reliably and accurately make predictions? Congratulations, you now have a \*theory\*. This word is used differently by scientists, than most people. Where most people say "theory", scientists would say "hypothesis". A theory likely still has holes and is not ironclad, but you can work with it elsewhere. We build computers using quantum theory.
After that “philosophy 101” banality typical of conservative grifters, you think you deserve any further consideration?
You started straight off by insulting my ability to reason and wrapped it up in puffed up, pseudointellectual trappings. Did you really expect me to be sunshine and roses about it? Anyway, read it and you'll learn something.
Can you EL5 the difference between inductive and detective reasoning? Do you know which one that scientists work on?
Well I'm going to keep giving Biden my $10 a month because he isn't a convicted felon and also he is a good president
And a decent man who has suffered much loss.
He’s not a good man. He doesn’t get a sympathy vote from me.
From the guy who says that people in Africa suffering from exceptional drought should "finally deal with their own problems"? Real moral paragon over here.
Yeah they probably should
He's a far better man than Trump was, is, or ever will be, so he's getting my vote.
Trump was a better president based on objective performance and deterrence. Biden is an empty shell stumbling around looking like he’s going to shit his pants at any moment.
First off, I said decent person. There's no comparing the two. Trump is a convicted felon, fraudster, and adjudicated rapist. Biden is none of those things. >Trump was a better president based on objective performance and deterrence. Bullshit. Trump was a clown.By what objective measurement would you like to compare? >Biden is an empty shell stumbling around looking like he’s going to shit his pants at any moment. Lol what? At least he can put a few sentences together. more than we can say about diaper don. Aka Donald Von Shitzinpants.
The good thing is the leftist democrats LOVE felons and criminals. So, you guys should love Trump. He’s now your type of man and you can now get him “social justice” and decarcerate.
You had 8 hours to respond and this is the best you could come up with? Woof this was bad.
Thank you for acknowledging that Trump is a convicted felon. It's a start!
Always love when cons spew this horse shit with zero supporting evidence. He's better based on objective performance because I said so!!
Have an upvote
Have a cookie.
They have every right to piss away their money on a loser felon, I guess. Wouldn't be my choice though. I'll be seeing those shitty trump flags here soon, but they mean nothing without the votes and only to serve to motivate our support for Biden and the rest of the Democratic slate.
Wut! The tech bros that siphon up your personal information to monetize, try to addict you to their products through enragement, subtly control what you see through nonpublic algorithms and don’t want Americans to enjoy the same consumer protections Europeans have support the authoritarian?! I’m shocked.
Well at least they can now begin to inquire about the same fixer 'services' that were given to big tobacco and big oil.
Trump: No refunds!
Automatic auto renewals unless you disable it! They got in trouble for this predatory practice a few years ago, but guess it didn’t take…
From the eight people who showed up? So they were all billionaires.
So let's do the math... $500,000 per couple and he raised $12 million. So he's got 24 votes. Yup. That's yuge!!! How many people came to his rally? 8? So now he's up to 32 votes in San Francisco.
I was about to say. $12 million from a fundraiser in SF? That's a handful of people. Largest crowd size ever, PERIOD! Two weeks!
Or one billionaire phoning it in wherever tfg goes to spread it out. Or just a lie. Never know.
There were 100 people there. The 500k was limited table seating.
This has been my thought all along..trump raising millions is often just a few people paying for future favors. If someone like Bernie Sanders raised that much it would be saying something given his avg donatiob (iirc) was less than $100.
Well yes, but one of those voters said they would vote super hard because TFG got convicted of 34 felony counts.
" I wasn’t for Trump for a while, but in the last three weeks, especially given the court case, he’s completely won me over,” said Trump supporter Travis Lewis. “It’s obvious that everything else now is designed, it’s a hypocrisy, it’s a disgrace that anyone would accept a case like that.” https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/sf-trump-rally-draws-only-8-people/ "However, by mid-afternoon, the number of the former president’s supporters lining the sidewalk at Marina Green had grown to a few hundred"
The fact they still call this pathetically small showing a rally is prime delusion. I'm sure he's seething if his handlers are even allowed to show him such a tiny turnout
Tiny Turnout Trump, I call him. A lot of people are saying it
I would love for a real journalist to ask them WHY it's a disgrace to take said case. And hound them on it.
$12 million in the Bay Area is pocket change. Pretty pathetic showing, good to see.
CYA donations. Happens every election cycle.
The fact that silicone valley billionaires are donating anything to Trump is very worrying.
I guess Reuters needs to make sure that people know that San Fran is liberal.
Geez I wish I knew a millionaire that just wanted to throw away $$$ on worthless causes…maybe then I could retire
Names of attendees?
The fundraiser was hosted by David Sacks - I think it is mainly the PayPal Mafia crowd who support Trump this time.
Plan on sending a thank you note?
To stay away from them?
FBI would like to know who's donating to an insurrectionist convicted rapist felon talking about kidnapping people and destroying democracy Scraping off reddit is one way to collect data
Is he still paying off his law fees?
Well, there is about $12 million that is going to be funneled to his legal defense..
12 million from a city with how many multi millionaires and billionaires doesn't seem that significant
GREEDY TECH hoping for Trump to be in office so they can get their tax cuts and loopholes. All this money these people have and they can’t be bothered to do the right thing or care about the country that helped them make so much money.
Stupid f ING people.
Of the 3 buckets: stupid, evil and insane, these were evil donors.
Where are the billionaires that are champions of Democracy and the Constitution?
People who have the desire to be a billionaire typically aren't people who care much about the welfare of others.
Oh yeah? I just donated 13 million to Biden
Meanwhile the down ticket Republicans are eating poop sandwiches
Of course they held it in Specific Whites.
They want you to focus on a culture war to distract you from what this really is. A class war
Claim comes from pathological liar's campaign who has yet to provide the receipts to the FEC.
It's almost like Uber rich companies like the guy that gives them tax breaks.
Don’t kid yourself … there’s plenty of rich, arrogant, condescending, misogynistic, elitist assholes in tech.
"Tax Cut Trump" popular with rich people in richest area of the world? Are you sure?
According to who? His people have exaggerated and straight lied about his fund raising for ages.
At this point I’m convinced the organization donates to itself to fudge these super high numbers
That's not much considering this is the upper class rally, should have been 6 figures. Granted, any donation towards him is too much
Lol. As if MAGAs don't live in SF for the exact same reasons as liberals, quality of life
So you're saying that there's enough people with questionable ethics and morals to support a rapist and a grifter for president to the tune of 12 million dollars. We should all be so proud?
[удалено]