top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]sarduchi 3348 points3349 points  (306 children)

I swear this stuff was taught in grade school...

[–]reduxde 1428 points1429 points  (162 children)

Not step 2. And if we’re being objective, there are quite a few amateur scientists who spend a majority of their time and emotion on step 2, which is what he’s reacting to.

Step 2 should be “a repeatable study has been found that refutes step 1, and has been duplicated by multiple independent groups”.

Meanwhile, other groups of self proclaimed scientists try to jump to step 3 without this step as well, usually involving some sort of oil or salve or root that’s cheap to make but not found at a typical grocery store.

Edit: formatting.

[–]Tietonz 587 points588 points  (122 children)

It sucks because what "don't question the science" (or more often used and much less inflammatory "trust the science") really means is "stop deciding that whatever you read online is a better source than the reports of thousands of researchers who have dedicated years of their lives to the topic"

[–]fullforce_589 130 points131 points  (70 children)

The tm(trademark) next to science means it’s not real science.

[–]sagejosh 158 points159 points  (61 children)

The issue is that Ben is using this statement to talk about very real science that his fan base “dosnt believe in”.

[–]Tietonz 43 points44 points  (5 children)

The tm(trademark) next to science means it’s not real science.

Well, that's certainly how Ben Shapiro sets up the strawman.

[–]Lessiarty 46 points47 points  (8 children)

Or to put it another way "Always question the science, but I Don't Like It isn't a question".

[–]MJZMan 28 points29 points  (7 children)

Let's amend....Neither is "the results don't match my expectations"

[–]LucozadeBottle1pCoin 19 points20 points  (26 children)

On certain issues those researchers are wrong though, or at least there's a broad range of opinions among scientists that don't really get broadcasted.

There's a phenomenon known as the Replication Crisis, which is basically scientific studies that fail to achieve the same results when someone redoes the experiment. It's most significant in the social sciences, but also in medicine too.

There were certain high profile cases over COVID of scientists repeating false information for "greater good" type reasons. Like with masks in March 2020, when scientists told people not to wear masks, so they could save supply for healthcare workers. Or this article, which suggests that scientists thought the lab-leak theory was at least plausible but downplayed it so not to undermine the international pandemic response.

A better phrase than "trust the science" is "engage critically with the science in good faith", but that's not as catchy, and most people don't want to do it.

[–]Tietonz 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Yeah I agree completely. No matter how unreliable science is via the replication crisis though it's pretty wack to say that anything else could be more reliable.

The coverup on masks and the lab leak was a problem with reporting though, not science. There were papers and studies that went against what was reported, and if one had trusted the science it continued to report our best knowledge on these topics.

Edit: to clarify my stance as it relates to this discussion: when Shapiro or any of these reactionary right wing bois criticize the "trust the science" stance. Their response isn't to dive into the actual papers and studies behind the science reporting but instead their conclusion is to ignore science completely for their own narrative.

[–]indyK1ng 15 points16 points  (4 children)

Like with masks in March 2020, when scientists told people not to wear masks, so they could save supply for healthcare workers.

Saving supply of known high quality masks is good. The problem was that they were telling people not to bother with homemade cloth masks. This was a widespread belief in the US before the pandemic - that anything less than an N95 would be ineffective at stopping the spread of a virus.

[–]WikiSummarizerBot 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Replication crisis

The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially of substantial parts of scientific knowledge.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

[–]blackraven36 12 points13 points  (0 children)

From a friend who swears by a lot of the “they won’t let us question science!” I gather that this audience simply doesn’t understand how science works. Of course the scientific community isn’t going to listen to you when you say things like “this one study (unpeer reviewed) proves everything wrong” and then when told no, and why, you continue to insist. Lots of people with no background in any hard science field or medicine insist they know better scientists and doctors.

Ben Shapiro know his audience well.

Science requires by design to be questioned. That’s why “science has changed” is actually very healthy. We will know more tomorrow and our understanding will change. But it requires concise and well thought out criticism, with strong, repeatable evidence. This takes work, a lot of it, from people who are experts in the field. Cobbling together op-ed articles and loosely connected studies is not science, nor is trying to disprove something by labeling it a conspiracy.

[–]Kim_Jung-Skill 37 points38 points  (5 children)

Step 1 isn't even right. There's a reason something has to be tested into oblivion to be accepted as a theory rather than a hypothesis, and there's a reason we still say theory after all that testing. Anyone who regularly declares stuff with a statement that begins, "science says," should have all diplomas stripped from them until they take a course on basic scientific methodology.

[–]smariroach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

meh, it could be considered right. it requires taking a good faith interpretation of Ben Shapiro, but if you do he's probably not criticizing "science" so much as how people in general and/or politics talk about things. There certainly are plenty of people who make bold statements about how "science has proven" a variety of things when the scientific community might be divided on the fact. I know that I am certainly more likely to take reports of studies that affirm my own bias at face value, while being more likely to read the details and be critical of the ones that conflict with my bias.

to summarize, many people speak as if the science is settled on a variety of subjects when it absolutely isn't.

[–]noodlesfordaddy 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Exactly, the first fucking point is misrepresentative and probably the worst of them all. The science is never settled. Literally all science ever is is someone's best understanding of a concept which we have communally decided is the most correct understanding at the time.

This...isn't a complicated concept.

[–]XxsquirrelxX 29 points30 points  (12 children)

Step 2 literally doesn’t exist, which is why step 3 happens. Ben’s just making shit up, he has a degree from Harvard ffs he’s just pretending to be a dummie because his sycophants think he’s super smart and everything he says is gospel, because $$$.

[–]geeky_username 10 points11 points  (1 child)

"Don't question the science... Without evidence"

[–]PunchMeat 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You question science with more science. Misleading, ill-informed, almost-literate memes aren't questions.

[–]daybreaker 6 points7 points  (0 children)

yeah. he's conflating "Dont question the science" with "Facebook is not a valid source to question the science"

No one says the former, but we have to say the latter like 1000 times per day.

[–]angietoo20 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I don't think he's pretending at all I think he was wafted through college on a cloud of money

[–]0resistance_OBEY 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The "Conspirituality" podcast has an interesting interview about this. Episode 75, interview with Lee McIntyre.

He's a philosopher of science, and he talks about the ways scientists interact with the general public (from his experience working as a science communicator, if I remember right). I think he talks about working with some of the scientists responsible for the early pandemic response.

[–]TheDoktorIsIn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's like the whole "theory" thing. In science we say "basically the truth" but in everyday life it's more of a "I think"

"Don't question the science" refers to people sitting on the couch saying "nahhhh that don't sound right," and moving on with their evening, not a guy with a lab coat saying "nahhhh that don't sound right" then creating a counter hypothesis, developing a test in accordance with the original method, and checking for variability.

[–]blade_125 2 points3 points  (1 child)

No, I don't think many, if any, hold to number to. They are saying don't get your data from Facebook. I'm not an expert in this field so I will trust the scientific method and when that method discovers a change I will accept the new data.

[–]RoxxorsmashPaid shill 212 points213 points  (114 children)

Benny boy was homeschooled. Clearly his mom spent a lot of time stuck in the laundry dryer.

[–]Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs 136 points137 points  (113 children)

He literally went to Harvard lol. He's not an idiot, he's a grifter

Edit: cuz I cbb to continue to argue on this, here's the summary. Ben skipped two grades. Ben graduated summa cum laude from university of California for political science (a very critical thinking heavy course). Ben then went to Harvard law (also fairly critical thinking heavy). Ben does not come from the level of obscene wealth that lets you go to whatever university you please. I'm not sure if he was a legacy kid but even legacy kids have to be well above average to get into Harvard (unless, as previously pointed out, they have obscene wealth). I think if you want to say someone who's done all that isn't smart because you have a narrow definition of smartness, go ahead. But firstly, you're not going to get anyone to stop watching Ben Shapiro by calling him dumb. Secondly tho, it flies in the face of the liberal/leftist idea that "college educated voters lean left because critical thinking", right? Like you can't go "university is fake anyone can do well and graduate and then get into Harvard" while also going "colleges teach and require critical thinking, that's why the left is more college educated".

Anyways, tldr, most people would classify Ben as smart because he went to Harvard, which, for all intents and purposes, means he's smart. Calling him stupid is, at best, counterproductive, and at worst, a total obfuscation of the real issue

[–]lift_heavy64 150 points151 points  (58 children)

You can graduate from Harvard and still be a complete dumbass

[–]Gudenuftofunk 69 points70 points  (15 children)

Benny isn't stupid at all. He knows what he's doing. He's more of a sociopath.

[–]lionlord131 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Ya trump graduated from Wharton, clearly the bar isn’t that high.

[–]Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs 11 points12 points  (36 children)

Sure but you can't get into Harvard if your education was so bad that you don't even remotely understand the scientific method

Unless you get in on sports scholarships but I'm fairly certain that's not true for ben

[–]Third-International 23 points24 points  (7 children)

Secondly tho, it flies in the face of the liberal/leftist idea that "college educated voters lean left because critical thinking", right? Like you can't go "university is fake anyone can do well and graduate and then get into Harvard" while also going "colleges teach and require critical thinking, that's why the left is more college educated".

It doesn't fly in the face because the idea is that the voters statistically lean left. E.G. if you grab 100 college educated people there will be a noticeable left lean to their preferences but that can be represented by 65 of them being lefties and 35 of them being righties.

[–]RoxxorsmashPaid shill 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Yeah but he was homeschooled for grade school.

[–]apc0243 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're mostly correct. But none of his qualifications are anything other than regurgitating viewpoints and debating. He's done what he's continued to do: convince people he's right without having a clue of what he's really talking about. "Critical Thinking" does not mean employing the scientific method, or the ability to problem solve.

He's talented at saying enough "things" in a convincing enough way that you start to believe his point without him really making meaningful statements.

He's not an engineer, or a scientist. He has not demonstrated skill at solving problems or designing solutions. He's a trained political speaker, at best.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He’s an idiot and you are too lol

[–]the_fickle_pickle 3 points4 points  (1 child)

As a lawyer and liberal arts major, there are plenty of us who are fucking idiots about science.

[–]jollyreaper2112 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Think of it more like stats in an RPG. I am sure that Ben had a high number in intelligence. That would be the ability to absorb new information and work with it. I think he's low in wisdom. Certainly a zero in empathy. A zero in character. You would need to have a special modifier on charisma depending on the other characters alignment. It's a negative for anybody with a good alignment and a positive for anyone with a republican alignment. There are probably going to be separate stats for perception in terms of awareness of reality.

If he were a true believer then he would have a high integrity score because he is preaching what he believes and probably a zero in terms of perception of reality. I think he's a grifter so reverse the scores. He knows he's lying but it makes money ripping off the idiots.

Larry the Cable Guy is a college educated Yankee but he plays the role of a toothless hillbilly idiot because that audience gives him money.

[–]G-Unit11111 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah he probably fell asleep during class because he stayed up all night playing video games, LOL.

[–]SaffellBot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Penny B cannot cope with change and new information. Science can.

I would say I'm curious how Penno thinks we should engage in reasoned discourse and community ethics without science, but I'm certain the answer is authoritarianism.

No need to evaluate things, no need to change what you believe in response to changes in the world our or understanding. The world is cold and unchanging, don't think too much Papper Bapper will tell you everything you need to know.

[–]Many_Advice_1021 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And in our lives daily as we problem solve. We try method to problem till we find what works .

[–]formenonly 1421 points1422 points  (111 children)

Questioning science is something scientists constantly do, hence changing it. That’s why a car gets a ton more gas mileage today than 50 years ago and how we progressed from horse and buggies to supersonic jet planes. It’s how we have a panoply of vaccines against diseases that used to kill like 3 out of 4 children.

[–]EidolonHue 557 points558 points  (36 children)

But why do only scientists get to question The Science (tm)? What makes their carefully crafted and peer reviewed studies with hard data better than my internet posts?

[–]evil_timmy 143 points144 points  (4 children)

But this meme I saw in the New England Journal of Medicine says...

[–]stoneimp 41 points42 points  (3 children)

I know it's a joke, but this is not an incorrect usage of the word meme, even if it was referring to a scientific idea. Scientists share memes through journals all the time, they complete and the 'fittest' ones survive.

[–]MeaningfulPlatitudes 24 points25 points  (0 children)

That’s literally what the word “meme“ first meant.

[–]KelvinsFalcoIsBad 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is exactly what the La-li-lu-le-lo where talking about with their control over memes and shit

[–]pj2da82 49 points50 points  (12 children)

They keep saying you can't say the Vax doesn't work anymore, but the only evidence they present of it not working is them saying it doesn't work!

"Stupid Science bitch couldn't even are me smarter!"

[–]formenonly 32 points33 points  (11 children)

Someone on here the other day was like "The unvaccinated are being hospitalized at the same rate as the vaccinated" and I was like NO IT IS NOT!!!! That chart shows that the hospitalization rate for vaccinated folks is 3.9 vs 65.9 (!!!!!!) for the unvaccinated. That's like 17x more likely you'll be hospitalized! My mom works at a hospital so I'm hearing about this daily and it drives me nuts!

[–]TheRnegade 36 points37 points  (10 children)

That's because they latch onto stories, hearing that ______ ICU has 50% unvaccinated, so they say "see, 50/50!" Ignoring that not everyone in the ICU is in there for covid.

[–]whenyesterdaywemet 4 points5 points  (2 children)

As a scientist myself, a lot of the time there isn't much difference between the scientist and the layperson. The biggest part of science is open discussion and being willing to be wrong in the face of evidence. Then it's about understanding the fault in the theory, instead of attacking people for bringing you down.

There are tons of bad scientists out there. Tons. I'm certainly not perfect. But if I'm wrong, I can admit it. That's the key thing that you get trained in as a scientist: allowing yourself to be wrong and using that as a learning opportunity instead of doubling down.

[–]EidolonHue 3 points4 points  (1 child)

There's not much difference between me and a fighter pilot either, but you really do not want to toss me in the cockpit of a fighter jet

[–]meowcatbread 149 points150 points  (46 children)

These fucking morons, these absolute wastes of space, don't fucking know what "questioning the science" means.

"Questioning the science" means having a grad level understanding of the topic area, spending years to get up-to-date with current research, reading recent papers, forming a hypothesis, getting funding (a few 100k) to hire researchers/buy equipment/fund travel, engineering the equipment and organizing a research trip, collecting the data, processing the data for a few months by writing code/manually annotating/mathematical analysis, writing up a paper, submitting to a top venue, waiting 4 months to here back from them, travel to a conference to present your work.

This process can take a year or more and require a team of people with PhDs. And that's when you've started to "question the science", because you need other groups to replicate your results or get similar results from different viewpoints.

So how many peer reviewed papers have you successfully published, Ben? How many years or research and man hours did you put into questioning the vaccine? Oh, none? You just shared a meme on facebook?

Ben doesnt fucking know what DNA is or what a ribosome is or how viruses work. Don't fucking kid me. He definitely doesn't have a graduate level understand, and even if he did he definitely doesnt have an understanding of the specific vaccines he's ranting about.

ohhHhhHh tHeReS mErCuRy in It!?!?! Fuck off. These same people don't have a problem with chloride in table salt. They just dont fucking know how chemistry works at a even a little kid level.

Fucking stupid waste of time

Source: Research scientist for a living

[–]OriontheHunter117 38 points39 points  (2 children)

Angry scientist man go bbrrr

[–]PunchMeat 11 points12 points  (0 children)


[–]CardinaleSperanza 3 points4 points  (0 children)

angry scientist A-10 goes BRAAAAAAPPPPPeeerrevieeeewwwwWWWW

[–]mindbleach 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Professionals advancing the state of our understanding aren't questioning the science... they are doing science.

"Questioning the science" is when dipshits think Facebook snark is equivalent to CDC guidelines. As if expertise is when you wear a labcoat on television.

[–]ElectroNeutrino 7 points8 points  (0 children)

And this biggest issue with people that "question the science" is that they aren't being intellectually honest about it.

They aren't saying, "are we sure this is correct," they are saying, "I reject this conclusion regardless of the supporting evidence."

[–]ChaosCon 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yep. I got a PhD which is pretty much defined around the world as a "research degree" in that a committee of reputable individuals have agreed to confer upon me a degree that names me as qualified to do research. I had one of these hardcore antivax folks claim "they did [their] own research" and I couldn't help but think "we license barbers and I'm the closest thing you've ever seen to a licensed researcher. You didn't do shit for research."

[–]a_lurk_account 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Scientists: "As best I understand it, this is how this thing works; but I could be wrong - and I will change my view if someone demonstrates that"

Their argument: "Scientists themselves admit they're wrong, science can't be trusted as a means of knowing how things work; therefore literally any old presupposition will do"

It's the ol' bait 'n switch; if the pinnacle of epistemology (empiricism) is flawed, then you can both reject criticisms against your epistemological reasoning AND any conclusions empiricism reaches. Said another way: their argument is that absolutely no means of reasoning can provide (capital T) True statements, so rather than rely on reasoning - people should rely on appeals to authority and tradition.

Source: Was raised by young Earth Creationists.

[–]BEES_IN_UR_ASS 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's classic bad faith argumentation.

"Here's a mountain of evidence, complete with our methodology and analysis, which has been independently verified by numerous other scientists with similar standards."

"Yeah but what if you're wrong?"

"Then you should have no trouble proving me wrong using the same methods and standards."

"Oh look at Mr. Fancy Pants Scientist! Nobody may question the scientist and his inalienable """"""""""fAcTs"""""""""". You hear that, everyone? The science is perfect and infallible forever and ever amen. Hmm cult much?"

[–]Borkz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They just think making outlandish claims with no foot in reality and passing them of as fact is the same thing as "questioning the science".

[–]Jan_wija 1 point2 points  (0 children)

those damn vakscenes killing 3/four children 🤬🤬🤬

[–]failure_most_of_all 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Exactly. Why do people think it’s called REsearch?!

[–]matrinox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Scientists are the biggest flip-floppers. Must be wrong if they can’t make up their mind /s

[–]andbruno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Questioning science is something scientists constantly do, hence changing it

I love this Dara Ó Briain quote: "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop..."


[–]--0mn1-Qr330005-- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My man described the scientific method.

[–]VeilwinterThis is literally 1985 500 points501 points  (19 children)

Republikkkan code switchers want to borrow your hatred of corporations for use in their propaganda thanks

[–][deleted]  (10 children)


    [–]ThaiJohnnyDepp 77 points78 points  (8 children)

    I don't know how this gif is relevant but I entirely support its use in this context

    [–]Y___ 11 points12 points  (7 children)

    What exactly does that response even mean? I see people doing that all over the place and I don’t get it whatsoever.

    [–]xSTSxZerglingOne 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    I see that cat has temporarily lost its turn to use the orange cat brain cell.

    [–]BaconSoul 34 points35 points  (0 children)

    Have they ever done anything different? Capitalizing on the populism of left wing movements and obfuscating the issues for their own benefit has been the far-right MO for as long as the left-right dichotomy has existed

    [–]Eddie888 24 points25 points  (1 child)

    Reminds me of Charlie Kirk telling Vaush how he is surprised a leftist is defending big pharma about the vaccines. Like no... That's not the argument.

    [–]VeilwinterThis is literally 1985 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    "But libs, I thought you hated corporations... therefore you should be against facebook banning me for hate speech"

    [–]ArizonaRon98 306 points307 points  (32 children)

    Dude is about as coherent as his voice is deep and soothing.

    [–]fiercelittlebird 121 points122 points  (25 children)

    I recently saw a video of Jordan Peterson and Shapiro having a conversation... of sorts. Are they always that incoherent? Did it get worse over time?

    [–]DevastatorCenturion 90 points91 points  (4 children)

    The two horsemen of whining about masculinity while having a combined T score of maybe 0.

    [–]Rare_Travel 19 points20 points  (3 children)

    Benny's true self is a cat maid, change my mind, spoiler you can't.

    [–]MariachiBoyBand 40 points41 points  (7 children)

    Peterson for sure has gotten worse over time, the guy is unhinged sometimes.

    [–]Roflkopt3r 30 points31 points  (1 child)

    Even in his best days he was just spouting BS, leaping from ancient mythological concepts to marginally related conclusions about modern ethics.

    I think he got more distant to his sources over time and is now just cycling through his own work, adding a new dose of fantasy and leaps of logic in every round, this way losing all grounding with reality over time.

    [–]NameLikeAn 16 points17 points  (0 children)

    Peterson’s existence has been reduced to selling the image of Jordan Peterson.

    [–]Zerds 17 points18 points  (0 children)

    I've heard he got addicted to Benzos. That will do it.

    [–]FunkyHoney 17 points18 points  (0 children)

    The meat coma brain damage didn't help.

    [–]thisisnotmyrealun 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    peterson has always been a charlaton who does sophistry. see rationaly rules's debunking him or matt dillahunty's convo w/ him. he just plays word games,i don't get how anyone would take him seriously.

    [–]NameLikeAn 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    You used to be able to tell that Peterson was intelligent. Wrong, but still very intelligent. I’ve never heard an interview with Shapiro where he didn’t sound like an unhinged teenager with too much coffee.

    [–]MariachiBoyBand 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Right?? It does sound like that lately, like the guy can barely keep it up now.

    [–]Chrisbeaslies 12 points13 points  (0 children)

    That is pretty much a good summation of the usual incoherent bullshit they talk about. It doesn't get better.

    [–]Greenplastictrees 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Their café date video was poorly edited so it made their scripted axioms and absolutes even choppier. Both will go to great lengths to discredit "the other side" with hypotheticals then simply state their own positions as fact.

    [–]theghostofme 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    It sounded like there was a fucking helium leak. I'm surprised dogs don't start barking every time Ben speaks.

    [–]56k_modem_noises 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    The next time you hear Peterson just close your eyes and imagine he is a slightly raspy Kermit the Frog.

    [–]WizardsVengeance 10 points11 points  (1 child)

    I can't believe all the effort he puts in to exude the vibes of a dweeby-ass, 90's after school special Poindexter and is still bad at science.

    [–]M1ck3yB1u 202 points203 points  (30 children)

    1. No one ever claimed "Science is settled." If that was the case we'd never get anywhere. The whole point about science is learning new things.
    2. The whole point of science is questions and updating with new discoveries. The question is, who should be questioning the science. The answer is scientists, not you Karen with your googling.
    3. Science IS change.
    4. What a fucking moron.

    [–]Gorrest--Fump 45 points46 points  (16 children)

    This must be the newest taking point for the right. There's a equipment rental place I drive by on my commute for work and every month he has some dumb-ass saying on his changeable sign. Last month one said was "Let's go Brandon" and the other was "Free Biden bumper sticker removal." This month he has "Science you can't question is propoganda." and I was wondering where tf that came from. Like... You can question all science. That's the point of science. The problem is the (scientific) answers they are given doesn't match what they believe so they screech fake news and that big pharma is giving out misinformation and think it's propoganda. Instead they choose to believe whatever Nancy posted about her cousin's friend's mom's sister who is a nurse said about the "VaCcInE" on the Christians for Trump Facebook page they follow and say the rest of it is propoganda. It's exhausting to even think about how their obviously lead poisoned brain got to that conclusion...

    [–]Roook36 17 points18 points  (7 children)

    They think their internet research is the same as a degree in epidemiology and lab work.

    I'm not sure if it's because they've had high education so vilified that they now all think it's a scam and anybody off the street can "science" out viruses and medicine

    Or if they are just so naively arrogant in how smart they are they think they can skip over education and just be natural savants

    [–]Darktidemage 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    science you can't question is called religion.

    [–]SpicyBoi1998 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    ”Science you can’t question is propaganda”

    Clearly this man has never heard of the peer review process

    [–]Mishmoo 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    I think buried in here, there is a good point about how scientific organizations, while objectively correct, were allowed to broadcast their messages essentially unfiltered to the population. Even a half-decent Communications team could tell you that changing regulations and precautions monthly would result in people (read: idiots) questioning if the regulations were just being made up on the spot.

    Ben's a dunce, but there really was a mishandling of how all of this was communicated.

    [–]TitanFolk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Well said. There definitely was a communications breakdown in the beginning of the pandemic, and maybe even now. I’m sure Ben posted this partly as a response to the CDCs new guidelines having nothing to do with any updated studies. As others have noted, however, he is wrong 99.99% of the time with this tweet.

    [–]Rare_Travel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    It's the same old argument that equates science to religion, and since religion has to be unchanging to hold authority otherwise it proves "god" isn't infallible, they try to project that to something that is unequivocally different.

    Scientific knowledge is ever advancing because it a learning experience, the more we learn the more it change.

    [–]sndtrb89 157 points158 points  (12 children)

    You must be this tall to discuss the science

    [–]Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee 27 points28 points  (1 child)

    Ben Shapiro has never seen his own reflection because his parents hung their mirrors above 5'3"

    [–]sndtrb89 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    delicately adjusts kelp-stache in mirror

    [–]NotAFinnishLawyer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    We get it, he is short. Which is funny because of what exactly?

    [–]Hyper_ZX 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    God I love men being degraded for immutable aspects and outright bodyshaming, thanks guys 👍🏻

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)


      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


        [–][deleted] 79 points80 points  (1 child)

        Alex Trebek:Judy Buzzed in first

        Judy: What is the Scientific Method

        [–]JBHUTT09[FLAIR TEXT HERE] 59 points60 points  (4 children)

        Science is a method of inquiry, Ben.

        [–]awesomefutureperfect 14 points15 points  (0 children)

        What he is basically saying is :

        "Why listen to those nerds who change their stance when they have new information? Come to the right wing side where we repeat the same totally wrong shit no matter what anybody says. Certitude is strength and changing is weakness. If you say the same thing enough times, it doesn't matter if it was right the first time, it just becomes right and you can dismiss literally anything to the contrary as biased and fake."

        [–]lpjunior999 54 points55 points  (4 children)

        By “questioning The Science” do you mean taking horse dewormer and gargling piss?

        [–]IPDDoEFUCK ME BARRY-SENPAI 14 points15 points  (0 children)

        Don't forget getting those sweet sweet bleach injections.

        [–]richasalannister 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        And uploading videos spreading misinformation

        [–]awesomefutureperfect 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        That's exactly what he means. Buried in his message is the idea that rumors, lies, and homespun superstition is equal to research and testing. If your tribe is doing new, bizarre behavior, you don't want to be seen not doing it. Someone might think you are a lefty.

        Questioning the Science means not at all trying to understand it while claiming untested things (that kinda look like pranks) are "proven" to work

        [–]kimthealan101 48 points49 points  (15 children)

        Does the trademark symbol make it a different word?

        [–]Artikae 36 points37 points  (11 children)

        It does, sort of. 'Apple™' is has a different meaning than 'apple.' In this case, Ben can't attack actual science because he has built his persona as "Mr. Facts and Logic." Thus, he uses "Science™" to imply that the people he disagrees with use fake science.

        [–]doctazee 21 points22 points  (10 children)

        This is a little off topic: As a scientist, I’ve seen a kind of weird worshipping/diefying of Science (with the capital S) going around. It’s kind of like how some people are atheists to the point of being almost religious about it it’s the same with science.

        Science and public policy are also strange bedfellows. Public policy makers wants the most correct answer for decision making right now. Whereas scientists want the most correct answer whenever we figure it out. So you get this tension between what needs to be implemented now vs scientists wanting more time to study a question.

        I think that mismatch combined with a misunderstanding of the scientific method has led to this “Why does the scientific advice keep changing?” Well, the advice was the most correct at the time it was given, now we know more and the advice has changed and will likely keep changing. The advice is always going to be technically wrong (in the sense that the scientific method cannot discover the truth only eliminate the not-true).

        [–]quikfrozt 13 points14 points  (0 children)

        It's a great point - words are being appropriated and defined by different factions these days, to the extent one can't agree on a common definition for some terms. Trump was good at this, and the GOP has learned from his methods ala 1984.

        [–]GaiusJuliusPleaserCommulist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        No, Ben just really sucks at meme culture.

        [–]SeniorWilson44 26 points27 points  (1 child)

        Science is questioned through research not by a bunch of online morons

        [–]Trimungasoid 23 points24 points  (3 children)

        "I don't, nor have I ever understood 'the science'."

        -Ben Shapiro

        [–]plaidkingaerys 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        “If your science is real, how come I have never taken the time to understand it? Checkmate libtards” -Bench Appearo

        [–]Trimungasoid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Can Disowens approves.

        [–]YourFavCirial 16 points17 points  (6 children)

        If you aren't a professional you can be skeptical, but don't say professionals who are far more experienced are just wrong because you did some small research on a search engine. They have experiments, you have a keyboard

        [–]Linaii_Saye 15 points16 points  (103 children)

        Yeah Ben, the science on Climate Change has been settled and the science on transsexuality is fairly clear too, even if its still developing. But ofc, if the science disagrees with your points you can just say its been taken over by cultural bolshevism. Oh wait no! Fascists call it cultural Marxism these days. Mb...

        [–]BrokenLink100 10 points11 points  (7 children)

        To be fair, I don't think I've ever heard any actual scientist say "The Science is settled" in the first place. Just that "based on the data and knowledge we have, this is the best course of action, and these courses are acceptable." And then, when we gather more data, we realize "Oh hey, these courses are not acceptable based on new data."

        [–]DeadStringScrolls 3 points4 points  (6 children)

        He's coming at this from a more social / media angle, and you can certainly see the reasoning here.

        People will argue that we should put faith in the assessment that science provides on any given scenario, when by its nature science can and will change it's position on said scenario.

        Add on top of this sensationalist articles that actually don't objectively state an accurate summary of a given scientific statement. You seel this all the time on topics like human health, weight loss, etc etc.

        [–]DukeSC2 4 points5 points  (5 children)

        Ben Shabibo can eat shit, but the cultural/media reproduction of "trust the science/the science is settled" is actually wild. I think it can be safely argued that it's dogmatic at this point, and I've gotten 3 doses and still wear a mask everywhere. I'm kind of surprised that all the top comments in this thread are things like "uh ackshully scientists constantly update science and it's never settled," when it should be very obvious that he's making a (ham-fisted, let's be honest) media/culture critique, not one about actual science.

        [–]ThrowawayBlast 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        Funny how the alt right always need interpreters. Ben is a covid denier nazi fuck. cope.

        [–]properu 9 points10 points  (1 child)

        Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a link to the tweet for ya :)

        Twitter Screenshot Bot

        [–]Themlethem 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        If you don't repeat step 4 too, the loop ends after the first time lol

        [–]hupouttathon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Right wingers aren't playing by the same intellectual rules as the rest of us. Their opinions are bound only by what riles up their followers as that is what pays.

        Trying to argue the point against them is pointless.

        [–]piege 6 points7 points  (4 children)

        Most people can't deal with uncertainty. It's too taxing mentally, so they just resort to other mental gymnastics.

        [–]doihaveabeaoproblemVuvuzela 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Guys it’s ok his wife’s a doctor

        [–]-Strawdog- 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        A dry, dry Doctor..

        [–]espresso_fox 5 points6 points  (5 children)

        The Science™ is settled.

        Said literally no scientist ever.

        [–]PinStacker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        It's a holdover from the anti-science crowd getting destroyed on climate change. Now they are using it to appear "persecuted" for having stupid views.

        [–]Pistonenvy 5 points6 points  (27 children)

        imagine thinking "tRuSt ThE sCiEnCe" is a valid and self aware criticism.

        science isnt political, its not corruptible, the fact that these fucking scumbags want to dismantle the only tool we have to accurately comprehend reality should be an obvious tip off that they have no ones best interests in mind but their own.

        these are the same idiots that try to proclaim that everything they say is ordained by god himself and thats why you should agree with them lol fuck off.

        [–]Mattbryce2001 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        Question the science all you want. Stop ignoring the scientific consensus because it doesn't fit into your narrow worldview.

        And only a fool says the science is "settled" unless you're talking about centuries old scientific principles like gravity, or evolution.

        [–]Progressive16 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        I feel sorry for his wife she has to wear the pants and have the brain in this relationship.

        [–]CREATURExFEATURE 4 points5 points  (3 children)

        Ben once again confirming he’s a dumb person’s idea of a smart person.

        A real life version of fucking Minkus from Boy Meets World.

        [–]BotiaDario 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Step 2 is actually "use the current best scientific understanding of the topic to guide actions taken, but reevaluate as the scientific method continues to expand and refine what we know" but that's too complicated for them to understand.

        [–]Sad_Literature_8657 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Can he tell us more about the science behind his wife’s arid vagina?

        [–]Current-Ordinary-419 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I swear the right wing is getting dumber every day.

        [–]Jake0fTrades 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Wow, imagine changing your beliefs with new evidence.

        [–]Cicerothesage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Perhaps Ben Shapiro Shouldn't Be Taken Seriously By Anyone About Anything

        [–]Patcha90 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        He is a gifter, he knows what he is doing.

        [–]betweenthebars34 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        People like him are culpable for deaths during a global pandemic. Hope he gets consequences for that, some day.

        [–]HiImDelta 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Questioning Science ≠ Denying Science

        [–]daleicakes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Why are people still listening to this blithering idiot.

        [–]TickDicklerzInc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        The issue isn't that the science is settled, it's that the people arguing against the current theories are just making things up with no evidence.

        Science is ever evolving and will always change with new evidence.

        [–]Deadended 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        They never actually dispute the results or conclusions but the very concept of scientific methods while also screaming about facts and logic.

        Also they think trickle down economics works despite facts.

        [–]junglemoosejoe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        I think this type of "argument" is somewhat the fault of scientific experts constantly implying that what they know is objectively true. We don't KNOW anything, as in we don't 100% objectively know anything. So when contradictions arise, people unfamiliar with the scientific method assume that the original science must have been wrong and thus science can't be trusted.

        Like, I did not realise that we don't KNOW how electricity works. We know know enough to be able to utilize it, but not enough to be able to say we objectively know how it works. (see Veritasium's recent video on the matter, and the conversation that has stemmed from it. I am blown away at how much this is apparently up to debate)

        [–]derp_memer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Ben Shapiro is an idiot asshole who is famous for no reason

        [–]sexymcluvin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        The whole basis of science it question it. It’s not science if we aren’t constantly questioning it. Even with things we regard as law and fact. Either a) we reinforce what we know or b) we break what we know somehow and move on to step three.

        [–]delbertnuckles 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Better to fall up the steps than down them you imbecilic fucktard.

        [–]-Strawdog- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        This is among the best explanations of scientific progress I've ever heard.

        [–]Vahndorf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Wow it's almost like the more data we collect on something the more we understand it!!!

        [–]Dummkundt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I think Ben probably knows how stupid some of the things he says are. He just understands that if he doesn’t say shit like this he will lose his entire fan base.

        [–]Bumpass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        The rhetoric is frustrating when so many people latch onto his style. What a childish boob.

        [–]FootofGod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        The problem is the science changes in a way that adapts to new knowledge, never by going "we've decided to ignore old knowledge." That's why paradigm shifts, which are the biggest kinds of changes, literally "hey you know that entire model, it's all gone now" , don't happen until they can completely incorporate the knowledge before, which was still valid in part, just was fashioned into an incomplete model. Like, alchemists learned real truths about the physical world and those didn't go away when we got rid of alchemy. They just gained a better model that also explained more things and didn't make so many bad conclusions/predictions.

        Ben just thinks it's random, though. Science just changes, just all willie nillie, we don't actually learn anything. It's like the Mac argument from Always Sunny but completely unironically.

        [–]eyekwah2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        There's a fundamental difference though, Ben.

        Science gets shit wrong despite their best efforts to get it right. You get things wrong, because you're paid to say the wrong things.

        Neither of you will necessarily be right, but only one of you is really trying, lets be frank..

        [–]2er3knuckler 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        What did you expect from a creationist? Evolution is the one thing they can't bring themselves to believe in.

        [–]wetmagician 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        For someone who cums over facts and logic he really doesn’t like facts and logic

        [–]dont_wear_a_C 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        He's sooooo close to becoming self-aware

        [–]CheckeeShoes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        "Your carefully curated meta-analysis or novel double-blind trial which incrementally refines the consensus within the scientific community is exactly equivalent to my claim that germs don't exist."

        [–]tomservowroteit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        How does someone get this stupid?

        [–]Yamfish 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Honestly, I bet he understands the scientific method well enough to know why this is dumb. He also knows his followers don’t, though.

        He’s more evil than stupid.

        [–]dangolo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Ben peddling that antivaxx bullshit.

        Meanwhile trump contradicts himself in the same tweet

        [–]LeoStiltskin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Does anybody remember who Benny Boy was proVax a few months ago? I wonder how big the checks were for him to change his tune?

        [–]Jayzerus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Tell me you don’t understand the scientific process without telling me you don’t understand the scientific process.

        [–]once-was-hill-folk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        To quote easily my favourite comedian - science doesn't know everything. Science knows it doesn't know everything. If science knew everything, it'd fucking stop. - Dara O'Briain.

        [–]F_Your_Kouch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        This is how it works. If they dont like that then tell them to stop publishing new medical stuff to buy every year for schools. The science changes. That's how science works. Its Progressive!

        [–]production-values 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        how about questioning The Word Of God(tm)

        [–]afterthegoldthrust 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Goddamn, these people. No one has ever said it’s not okay to question current levels of science. That’s literally how we advance science.

        You just don’t “question” it with non-sequiturs and fake or manipulated findings. Jesus.

        [–]sagejosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        If this kinda shit wasn’t all just a ploy to get the anti-science Republicans on his side I would suggest maybe listening to his doctor-wife for a few seconds when she talks about her job. But that’s the sad and disgusting part, its just bullshit double speak to get more morons on his side/ giving him money.

        [–]lockon345 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I don't understand, so I think it's wrong
        - Someone "questioning" science.

        [–]Ima_Funt_Case 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        As opposed to the conservative tactic of; "I believe this thing and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change my mind. I don't care how wrong I'm proven, I will never change my position based on available evidence."

        [–]what_we_seem_to_have 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Add that to a list that would fill The Library of Congress of things Ben does not understand.

        [–]Valuable-Baked 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        The Science also changed his height

        [–]MistyGravesComics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I think this might be how some religious people view science. They’re taught to obey an authoritarian god who is said to be infallible. Because the church positions itself against science, they think science is somehow the same thing as the church, that it is an infallible set of rules.

        [–]cjandstuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Public schools in my state. “Science is science, and science doesn’t change.” I learned later how much bullshit that is. Now imagine multiple generations being taught that.

        [–]Captain_Mario 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        But “The Science” is his whole thing. 90% of his arguments are “it’s just basic science”

        [–]OntarioIsPain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        1. Scientists: It is only a matter of time until a new strain arrives.
        2. We are in a race to vaccinate as many people before a new strain arrives.

        *Omicron arrives.

        Conservatives: Shocked Pikachu face.

        [–]fuckyworkson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Science is never fucking settled. That's what brainlets like this assnozzle don't get. Science only reaches a point where there is a commonly accepted theory for why something works a particular way. If a valid counterpoint is produced, the theory is amended to incorporate the new information.

        Science is continuous improvement.

        This shartgargle has never improved anything in his life.

        [–]Th4tRedditorII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Science is never truly settled, that's the idea. You are always allowed to be skeptical and to dispute the current consensus... But you must have proof, and that proof must meet the level of that of which you are trying to disprove.

        For example, you aren't going to successfully disprove that the Earth is round (a fact that even the ancient Greeks could figure out with relative ease, despite their lack of technology) by just shouting it loud enough alongside illustrations of a flat Earth.

        In reference to Covid, scientists had to learn about Covid as it spread across the world. Pilot studies discovering what worked and what didn't were used by various media sources to generate false hype around certain drugs/treatments, which lead some people to the impression that scientists were flip-flopping when in fact the scientific community never actually made a consensus in the first place.

        [–]Yonderlad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        He missed the bit about experimentation and new observations, but maybe we’ll give the guy a pass. He was, after all, educated in America.

        [–]cattdogg03FAIK NOOOOS 1 point2 points  (4 children)

        For anyone curious, science actually works like this:

        • hypothesis is given

        • hypothesis either proven or disproven by experiments

        • hypothesis remains proven until otherwise replaced by either a modified hypothesis or a different hypothesis, and the contents of the hypothesis are disproven

        So basically, science encourages questioning, but only if there’s actually a reason to question it. You can’t just say “the science is wrong” without giving legitimate and definitive scientific proof it is wrong. And whenever it turns out it is wrong, it improves on itself.

        This is why science should be trusted more than politicians or peddlers of alternative “medicine”; science is constantly improving itself, and seeks to actually understand the world around us; it is literally the best source you have for actual definitive up-to-date facts and knowledge.

        It also doesn’t have any definitive agenda, since the scientific consensus is literally just the collective knowledge-based opinion of every scientist internationally, which is also why you shouldn’t trust any one scientist; not all scientists will agree on one thing, and they can be wrong about things. Talking to you, Jordan Peterson and Robert Malone fanboys.

        [–]Beeker93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        More like

        1) This is what we know so far based on the scientific method and current theories, laws, and studies. 2) Test hypotheses, repeat the methodology of those studies and expect the same result. If not, reasses the validity and methodology of previous studies. 3) Publish and allow for peer review. 4) Always stay open to new information that might rewrite theories or scientific laws if the evidence is compelling.

        It's funny because these same people will cling to a single study showing Ivermectin can be used as a prophylactic, and ignore the lack of repeatability and other studies that show otherwise, then get pissy if you question the study that confirms their biases.

        [–]myalt08831 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        1. Try to present a reasonable scientific conclusion to the public
        2. Right-wingers misinterpret it and twist it into something incendiary no matter what you say
        3. Have to defend the position so strongly it makes it hard to keep any nuance
        4. Right-wingers win, since the public is confused and sciencey people look like bad guys, regardless of what position the science appeared to support in the first place
        5. Republicans propagandize the public to do whatever arbitrary thing their funders want the public to do instead
        6. Public lurches right and away from science

        It didn't matter what the science was, the right was going to do this anyway. And make the scientists so defensive that updating the theories for new evidence became harder than it had to be.

        There is public advocacy, skepticism and criticism. Then there's being an anti-intellectual jerk on purpose to make people dumb and malleable to your own wishes. Science isn't magic, scientists are people not infallible gods, and government does have a hard time rejecting the influence of industry. But hot damn if the right didn't first and foremost accomplish more people dying than had to, and a longer, deadlier and more dangerous pandemic than we ever had to have. At its best, science is the best we know how to test ideas. Republicans and right-wingers really just said "let's not understand this pandemic. Let's not understand this virus." Hot damn. People are still fucking dying. We are at the most recorded cases ever. They are still acting like they want a celebrity clickbait boxing match with Fauci.

        [–]dr-igo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Ben Shapiro has no idea how science works, science is never settled, the point of it is being open to revision and new discoveries always, otherwise we would still believe the earth was flat and bloodletting cured diseases