Science is whatever Fauci - Forever Blessed and Exalted Be His Name - tells us it is. Also Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Forever Blessed and Exalted Be His Name.
While I have your attention, and since I know you've probably made yourself acquainted with Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Science cannot define what makes a thing alive, nor what makes a living thing a human, nor what makes a human male, or female, or both, or neither. Science can only make certain determinations that something is alive, or human, or male/female/both/neither, after the fact, and only in specific instances.
Two balls touching is never gay in Super Prison Dodge Ball.
With two, get egg roll.
The earth is "flat" if you do the math right. Up is down. One man's falling of the earth is another man's thrustless propulsion out of a gravity well. Don't try this at home.
That is uncalled for. You started out your post calling everyone mofos and you get triggered when someone tells you to calm down? She had a fair point and was making a joke.
No need to get ugly here. We are all in this TOGETHER, remember?
In my experience, unless a person studies science in school (college) they will likely not understand the tenants of the scientific method. Even then there are many that do not really get it, thinking it is something to use to get through class instead of a foundational philosophical approach to inquiry.
Wow. Maybe I am living in bizarro world, but the concept that people do not actually know what the word "science" means is shocking.
It explains the idiocracy, though, better than anything else.
I remember reading that TWO editors of leading science/medical journals (one was Lancet, but I forget the other) said that even in THOSE journals (considered to be some of the best in the world), MOST of what passes as "science" has nothing to do with the Scientific Method -- it is all dogma and propaganda.
I think you meant “idiocy” not “Idiocracy.” The former is anything demonstrating a lack of intelligence. The latter is an entertaining but frightening film ABOUT idiocy.
MOST of what passes as "science" has nothing to do with the Scientific Method -- it is all dogma and propaganda.
I read scientific papers daily and have for years. There is a lot of bad science, but its (generally) not because of misunderstanding or misapplying the scientific method. There are two main problems with "main stream" science:
There is a lot of incentive to not check other's work, especially in biology/medicine (especially in medicine (lots of money)). This is not in direct contradiction of the scientific method, but it does run contrary to a PART of what makes the method work.
The dogma and propaganda is not in the science part of the papers, but in the choice of topic to look at, and in the non-science part of the papers (abstract, discussion, sometimes intro). For instance, there are quite a few recent papers on the effectiveness of masks. They look at water droplet transmission. The science part is all perfectly fine. The measurements, analysis, all great. Where it fails is in the assumptions. It assumes that viruses are transmitted by exhaled water droplets. Other science does not support that assertion, though inquiry into this particular topic seems to be rare. It assumes that viral transmission of said droplets is of the size of the droplets studied. In most cases that runs contrary to other evidence. They might even say "it has not been established that this is how viruses are transmitted" yet they still go happily forward with the study anyways, then conclude with "if everything you already believe is true, we prove that masks work".
So it isn't science or the scientific method that is failing in the microcosm of any particular study, but a purposeful or unintentional misleading of the starting point, using real science that doesn't (or hasn't proven to) apply.
In a broader scope you could say that is a failure of the scientific method, but it isn't. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and works forward from there. This starting point can be anything an investigator wants. It is the foundational axiom of inquiry. It is the abuse of the hypothesis that is exploited in these instances. Many people don't catch that, either because they are insufficiently educated, or because their biases encourage them not to. That is supposed to be solved by problem (1) (checking others work).
It is the disincentivization of not checking others work where the whole thing falls apart. This disincentivization by control of money or job prospects is what drives this issue. Because it is money/livelihood based, I believe, this is likely the purposeful guidance of the Luciferians on our science.
While I agree with all of that, the only real explanation is that individuals have some reason to be dishonest or unscientific in their research papers.
It comes down to either (a) they do not understand the Scientific Method, or (b) they do but for some reason they do not follow it -- and this must be due to some bias.
Either that bias is due to financial incentive, political incentive, or personal opinion.
the only real explanation is that individuals have some reason to be dishonest or unscientific in their research papers.
They do, money drives what they can research, and it drives not looking at others work. That is not a failing in the individuals doing the science, but in those that control the purse (non-scientists generally).
It comes down to either (a) they do not understand the Scientific Method, or (b) they do but for some reason they do not follow it -- and this must be due to some bias.
Only if you don't realize that money is what controls the scientists. It is easy to justify a line of inquiry if you can get funding for it. It is easy to ignore a line of inquiry if you can't. Experiments costs a lot of money. You can't just "do them."
These have nothing to do with not understanding the scientific method (SM). The SM is not perfect. Legitimate SM inquiry starts with ANY question. You can and indeed are encouraged to explore any question you want. You are just encouraged more to explore questions that fit the narrative. Again, this is not a failure of the SM. Its important to understand that to identify the real problem.
Regardless, it is fraud.
Maybe on some level that is true in a lot of cases. Maybe in some cases it is completely true. But fraud requires intent to commit, and most scientists intend to not do that. They believe they are working within the system that exists by asking the questions they can get funding for. So yes, there is fraud at the highest level (non-scientists) i.e. the London bankers, who ultimately bankroll everything. But that can be said of everything we humans do, not just science or the SM.
Kary Mullis is a shining example of this, where he was interviewed about his skepticism of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
He said he was writing a request for a NIH grant (oh, the irony) for the research lab he was working at part-time. The grant was to request money to research AIDS.
At the time, he believed the "HIV causes AIDS" dogma. He had no reason not to. He was not a virologist, and he just assumed those guys must know what they were talking about.
So, he started his paper with a simple sentence: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." Then, he realized he needed a research study he could reference to back up that statement.
THIS is where the personal responsibilty comes in. He didn't know what the reference was, so he asked around. None of his collegues could name a paper, and many thought he didn't need to reference anything (just make the statement). They were being irresponsible; he was being responsible.
He looked up computer information, books, articles, everything he could find.
Eventually, he would spend the next 2-3 years going to various conferences and would ask the experts of the day to help him find a citation for the statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After all of that, his conclusion: NOBODY KNOWS. There has NEVER been a study to prove that statement. Even the world's top experts could not answer the question.
They were ALL faking it (this includes Fauci, who he specifically referenced).
Mullis was one of the very few, in the entire scientific community -- including the leading virologists -- who stood up and said that it is a lie (or at least, there is no evidence at all to prove it is even likely, much less probable).
That is what I am talking about. You can say that the individual scientist is caught up in the machine -- and he is -- but that does not change the fact that he also has a responsibility.
It is no different than the cop who is not trained properly (most of them these days), who falsely imprisons someone because the cop had no clue what the law actually is, or that what he did is unlawful. He still has responsibility (ignorance of the law is no excuse -- especially for someone who's profession it is to enforce it).
Yet, ignorance prevails because government corrupts everything it touches.
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts, absolutely." -- Lord Acton
And as you point out, the money behind the government is the real corrupting force.
That does not change the fact that people are still responsible for their actions.
That is what I am talking about. You can say that the individual scientist is caught up in the machine -- and he is -- but that does not change the fact that he also has a responsibility.
While I appreciate your point (and you made it well) I disagree with your conclusion. Every branch and subbranch of science starts with axioms. Every single area of inquiry has unproven starting points. If we already knew the real truth about every axiom science would cease to exist.
There are two main inquires in science. Sometimes people look into the axioms, other times they accept them because everyone else does and they use them to move forward. Science works quite well by accepting axioms as true. Science also works quite well by questioning axioms.
There is nothing wrong with accepting axioms, there is nothing unscientific about it, and there is nothing irresponsible about it. There is quite simply, too much stuff to look at. What is important in good science is to state your axioms (as your example did) and move forward from there. He decided to question that axiom and apparently made some discoveries (though I would have to look myself to corroborate). Both avenues are responsible science.
Science is not truth. Science will NEVER be truth. Scientific inquiry is the attempt to get closer and closer to the truth. It is nothing more than that.
Ron Paul is not exactly correct in this case. Science has ALWAYS been controlled by politics and money. That doesn't mean we have made no progress in science. On the contrary we have made great progress using the SM. It would be more accurate to say it would be BETTER science if we lost our Luciferian influencers, but the same could be said for all areas of the human experience.
Most leftists / progressives / pseudo-intelligent types are happy with the idea of science, provided they don't have to do the hard work to actually DO science, or learn about anything "hard". Then they can spout off what some other pseudo-scientist said without knowing anything about it. They don't know how to counter an argument properly because they've never considered that anyone would question what they repeated.
Source: many years dealing with PhDs without a shred of common sense.
Yes they have dummies down the education almost beyond repair. We have 3 generations of parents who have gone through this process themselves. No wondercthey can't help the kids
Such an idea has never occured to me. Now that I am in shock and realizing it is true, it's just so obvious that you are right. How the idea never occured to me is also shocking (lol).
This explains so much -- even more than the fake news brainwashing.
So-called "scientists" who know nothing about science promote propaganda that they were told by some blackhat who is intentionally pushing lies, then tells media zombies, who themselves don't know what science is, and they push out the lies onto the public, who also don't know what science is.
None of these people have any frame of reference grounded in reality. NONE of them.
Add to that the fact that the Dem governors (who are almost all lawyers) also do not know (or don't care) what the Contitution says, or that a lawful order is not the same thing as an unlawful order.
It's a mix of all of the above, and some other factors.
A lot of real scientists are too deep in their own niche to make time for reality. When they get approached with blanket statements like "help environment, people, xyz" then they'll be like "yeah that sounds good" and just add their name to the list.
There's also the career aspect. Funds are very limited and competitive. If you want to do research, you have to appease the grant writers. This always happens at the expense of real science.
The only sustainable way out is for people to put more effort into building wealth (e.g. investing more than spending), and for the same people to then put their funds towards real science.
One person doing this is Jim Simons (great interview with him on Numberphile). Not everyone is going to be a billionaire, but it only takes a small portion of people putting resources toward good causes to really tip the scales and trigger a paradigm shift.
I can attest to the fact that the Scientific Method is not taught in schools as it once was...it's embedded with scientific inquiry based on common core. It's a bunch of shit.
I don’t disagree with you but I think it’s simpler than that. People are not interested in solving problems, they would rather treat the symptom which is two completely different things. Take the pharmaceutical industry (science), they don’t cure shit, rather give people a pill that manages pain. The cause of the pain is still there but is temporarily stopped only to come back with more pain later.
The same is true throughout our society. I am poor, give me money. Politicians have been doing this with minority groups for centuries and why nothing ever gets solved.
The thing is, people solve problems every day in their lives. Want to move to a new city? Check out the school system, real esate prices, how far from grandma, commute times, etc. People solve problems every day. It's how we get through life.
pharmaceutical industry (science), they don’t cure shit
True, but now that is a specific set of indivuals (not society has a whole) who are engaging in fraud. They claim to want to cure people of illness, but their real motivation is money. Nothing is more important than the money. They are solving a different problem than they pretend to be solving. Same thing politicians do as a matter of routine.
Leftists, in particular, do this all the time. They claim to want to help the poor, or to educate children, etc. But they don't really give a damn about that because they don't ever pay any attention to how their ideas make things worse, not better. They really just want to be viewed by others as a "good person," and they don't give two shits about anything else.
I am poor, give me money
Right, this is why the founders did not create a democracy. The have nots have always been like this. They actually are trying to solve a problem, though -- their personal, immediate problem. It's just that they don't give a damn how it harms society as a whole.
Lack of critical thinking combined with no moral compass to be honest in intensions.
But in all of that stupidity and immorality, people are trying to solve problems -- they just are not thinking through the consequences.
Lack of critical thinking skills is the main reason, and the Scientific Method is part of that larger picture.
There was a game show called Street Smarts in the early 2000s. They would ask random people on the streets questions. One of the questions was, "How many states are in the US?" The answers should tell you all you need to know about the quality of our education system.
Don't be mad at the Anons, be mad at your Mother for inviting them all to climb aboard!
Look up an old adage that states, "You'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar."
You would do well to learn from this.
Science is whatever Fauci - Forever Blessed and Exalted Be His Name - tells us it is. Also Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Forever Blessed and Exalted Be His Name.
Awomen.
/s
While I have your attention, and since I know you've probably made yourself acquainted with Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Science cannot define what makes a thing alive, nor what makes a living thing a human, nor what makes a human male, or female, or both, or neither. Science can only make certain determinations that something is alive, or human, or male/female/both/neither, after the fact, and only in specific instances.
Two balls touching is never gay in Super Prison Dodge Ball.
With two, get egg roll.
The earth is "flat" if you do the math right. Up is down. One man's falling of the earth is another man's thrustless propulsion out of a gravity well. Don't try this at home.
That's just dumb.
I hope you are trying to be funny.
It's extremely dumb. It's also correct. Except for the egg roll part, where prohibited and in Canada.
The angular momentum of the galaxy is at your disposal.
The chromosomes make someone male, female, or a hermaphrodite.
The earth is flat only if you redefine the word.
Your drugs took effect awfully fast.
Chromosomes are necessary, but not sufficient.
The earth is flat if its surface occupies a plane in your reference coordinate system. Curve spacetime? No, curve your mind.
Jesus is my drug. I also snort abstract physics, but that's just for post-nasal drip.
Gee, I guess we aren't fans of Super Prison Dodge Ball. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Spot on. I would add "shaken not stirred"
Do we have a shill among us who can't take a true discussion?
Does op KNOW about what the QUEERS are DOING to the SOIL?
That is uncalled for. You started out your post calling everyone mofos and you get triggered when someone tells you to calm down? She had a fair point and was making a joke.
No need to get ugly here. We are all in this TOGETHER, remember?
Only with you beside me.
Yes, many do not.
Big Education is moving away from fact based to emotional based curriculum, 'wokeism'.
And that explains why "Idiocracy" has arrived.
It was planned. It was largely but not completely successful.
We are currently in Mitigation phase.
Next is Repair Phase.
Finally, Restoration Phase.
In my experience, unless a person studies science in school (college) they will likely not understand the tenants of the scientific method. Even then there are many that do not really get it, thinking it is something to use to get through class instead of a foundational philosophical approach to inquiry.
Wow. Maybe I am living in bizarro world, but the concept that people do not actually know what the word "science" means is shocking.
It explains the idiocracy, though, better than anything else.
I remember reading that TWO editors of leading science/medical journals (one was Lancet, but I forget the other) said that even in THOSE journals (considered to be some of the best in the world), MOST of what passes as "science" has nothing to do with the Scientific Method -- it is all dogma and propaganda.
Amazing.
I think you meant “idiocy” not “Idiocracy.” The former is anything demonstrating a lack of intelligence. The latter is an entertaining but frightening film ABOUT idiocy.
Oh, the irony.
Actually, I meant both.
I read scientific papers daily and have for years. There is a lot of bad science, but its (generally) not because of misunderstanding or misapplying the scientific method. There are two main problems with "main stream" science:
So it isn't science or the scientific method that is failing in the microcosm of any particular study, but a purposeful or unintentional misleading of the starting point, using real science that doesn't (or hasn't proven to) apply.
In a broader scope you could say that is a failure of the scientific method, but it isn't. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and works forward from there. This starting point can be anything an investigator wants. It is the foundational axiom of inquiry. It is the abuse of the hypothesis that is exploited in these instances. Many people don't catch that, either because they are insufficiently educated, or because their biases encourage them not to. That is supposed to be solved by problem (1) (checking others work).
It is the disincentivization of not checking others work where the whole thing falls apart. This disincentivization by control of money or job prospects is what drives this issue. Because it is money/livelihood based, I believe, this is likely the purposeful guidance of the Luciferians on our science.
While I agree with all of that, the only real explanation is that individuals have some reason to be dishonest or unscientific in their research papers.
It comes down to either (a) they do not understand the Scientific Method, or (b) they do but for some reason they do not follow it -- and this must be due to some bias.
Either that bias is due to financial incentive, political incentive, or personal opinion.
Regardless, it is fraud.
They do, money drives what they can research, and it drives not looking at others work. That is not a failing in the individuals doing the science, but in those that control the purse (non-scientists generally).
Only if you don't realize that money is what controls the scientists. It is easy to justify a line of inquiry if you can get funding for it. It is easy to ignore a line of inquiry if you can't. Experiments costs a lot of money. You can't just "do them."
These have nothing to do with not understanding the scientific method (SM). The SM is not perfect. Legitimate SM inquiry starts with ANY question. You can and indeed are encouraged to explore any question you want. You are just encouraged more to explore questions that fit the narrative. Again, this is not a failure of the SM. Its important to understand that to identify the real problem.
Maybe on some level that is true in a lot of cases. Maybe in some cases it is completely true. But fraud requires intent to commit, and most scientists intend to not do that. They believe they are working within the system that exists by asking the questions they can get funding for. So yes, there is fraud at the highest level (non-scientists) i.e. the London bankers, who ultimately bankroll everything. But that can be said of everything we humans do, not just science or the SM.
I understand where you are coming from.
However, there is a level of responsibility here.
Kary Mullis is a shining example of this, where he was interviewed about his skepticism of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
He said he was writing a request for a NIH grant (oh, the irony) for the research lab he was working at part-time. The grant was to request money to research AIDS.
At the time, he believed the "HIV causes AIDS" dogma. He had no reason not to. He was not a virologist, and he just assumed those guys must know what they were talking about.
So, he started his paper with a simple sentence: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." Then, he realized he needed a research study he could reference to back up that statement.
THIS is where the personal responsibilty comes in. He didn't know what the reference was, so he asked around. None of his collegues could name a paper, and many thought he didn't need to reference anything (just make the statement). They were being irresponsible; he was being responsible.
He looked up computer information, books, articles, everything he could find.
Eventually, he would spend the next 2-3 years going to various conferences and would ask the experts of the day to help him find a citation for the statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After all of that, his conclusion: NOBODY KNOWS. There has NEVER been a study to prove that statement. Even the world's top experts could not answer the question.
They were ALL faking it (this includes Fauci, who he specifically referenced).
Mullis was one of the very few, in the entire scientific community -- including the leading virologists -- who stood up and said that it is a lie (or at least, there is no evidence at all to prove it is even likely, much less probable).
That is what I am talking about. You can say that the individual scientist is caught up in the machine -- and he is -- but that does not change the fact that he also has a responsibility.
It is no different than the cop who is not trained properly (most of them these days), who falsely imprisons someone because the cop had no clue what the law actually is, or that what he did is unlawful. He still has responsibility (ignorance of the law is no excuse -- especially for someone who's profession it is to enforce it).
Yet, ignorance prevails because government corrupts everything it touches.
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts, absolutely." -- Lord Acton
And as you point out, the money behind the government is the real corrupting force.
That does not change the fact that people are still responsible for their actions.
While I appreciate your point (and you made it well) I disagree with your conclusion. Every branch and subbranch of science starts with axioms. Every single area of inquiry has unproven starting points. If we already knew the real truth about every axiom science would cease to exist.
There are two main inquires in science. Sometimes people look into the axioms, other times they accept them because everyone else does and they use them to move forward. Science works quite well by accepting axioms as true. Science also works quite well by questioning axioms.
There is nothing wrong with accepting axioms, there is nothing unscientific about it, and there is nothing irresponsible about it. There is quite simply, too much stuff to look at. What is important in good science is to state your axioms (as your example did) and move forward from there. He decided to question that axiom and apparently made some discoveries (though I would have to look myself to corroborate). Both avenues are responsible science.
Science is not truth. Science will NEVER be truth. Scientific inquiry is the attempt to get closer and closer to the truth. It is nothing more than that.
That's in number 1. Money drives our path of inquiry, and it drives not looking at others work.
Ron Paul and others have said that when politics and money control science, it will cease to be science.
Ron Paul is not exactly correct in this case. Science has ALWAYS been controlled by politics and money. That doesn't mean we have made no progress in science. On the contrary we have made great progress using the SM. It would be more accurate to say it would be BETTER science if we lost our Luciferian influencers, but the same could be said for all areas of the human experience.
I'm not aware of any government or institutional grants that helped Newton figure out gravity. Galileo was imprisoned for his ideas.
I don't agree it was always like this. It has been getting more and more corrupt over time. Today is a whole new level.
The whole world will be better. Hopefully, that is a job in progress.
Take a chill pill and stop yelling at us.
Do you mean tRuSt ThE ScIeNcE?
Good question anon.
Most leftists / progressives / pseudo-intelligent types are happy with the idea of science, provided they don't have to do the hard work to actually DO science, or learn about anything "hard". Then they can spout off what some other pseudo-scientist said without knowing anything about it. They don't know how to counter an argument properly because they've never considered that anyone would question what they repeated.
Source: many years dealing with PhDs without a shred of common sense.
That is amazing. Not surprising, really, but amazing.
Yes they have dummies down the education almost beyond repair. We have 3 generations of parents who have gone through this process themselves. No wondercthey can't help the kids
No, they do not. You would be shocked to see how many scientists haven't studied, let alone internalized, the scientific method.
Such an idea has never occured to me. Now that I am in shock and realizing it is true, it's just so obvious that you are right. How the idea never occured to me is also shocking (lol).
This explains so much -- even more than the fake news brainwashing.
So-called "scientists" who know nothing about science promote propaganda that they were told by some blackhat who is intentionally pushing lies, then tells media zombies, who themselves don't know what science is, and they push out the lies onto the public, who also don't know what science is.
None of these people have any frame of reference grounded in reality. NONE of them.
Add to that the fact that the Dem governors (who are almost all lawyers) also do not know (or don't care) what the Contitution says, or that a lawful order is not the same thing as an unlawful order.
Sums up 2020 in a nutshell.
It's a mix of all of the above, and some other factors.
A lot of real scientists are too deep in their own niche to make time for reality. When they get approached with blanket statements like "help environment, people, xyz" then they'll be like "yeah that sounds good" and just add their name to the list.
There's also the career aspect. Funds are very limited and competitive. If you want to do research, you have to appease the grant writers. This always happens at the expense of real science.
The only sustainable way out is for people to put more effort into building wealth (e.g. investing more than spending), and for the same people to then put their funds towards real science.
One person doing this is Jim Simons (great interview with him on Numberphile). Not everyone is going to be a billionaire, but it only takes a small portion of people putting resources toward good causes to really tip the scales and trigger a paradigm shift.
I can attest to the fact that the Scientific Method is not taught in schools as it once was...it's embedded with scientific inquiry based on common core. It's a bunch of shit.
I don’t disagree with you but I think it’s simpler than that. People are not interested in solving problems, they would rather treat the symptom which is two completely different things. Take the pharmaceutical industry (science), they don’t cure shit, rather give people a pill that manages pain. The cause of the pain is still there but is temporarily stopped only to come back with more pain later.
The same is true throughout our society. I am poor, give me money. Politicians have been doing this with minority groups for centuries and why nothing ever gets solved.
The thing is, people solve problems every day in their lives. Want to move to a new city? Check out the school system, real esate prices, how far from grandma, commute times, etc. People solve problems every day. It's how we get through life.
True, but now that is a specific set of indivuals (not society has a whole) who are engaging in fraud. They claim to want to cure people of illness, but their real motivation is money. Nothing is more important than the money. They are solving a different problem than they pretend to be solving. Same thing politicians do as a matter of routine.
Leftists, in particular, do this all the time. They claim to want to help the poor, or to educate children, etc. But they don't really give a damn about that because they don't ever pay any attention to how their ideas make things worse, not better. They really just want to be viewed by others as a "good person," and they don't give two shits about anything else.
Right, this is why the founders did not create a democracy. The have nots have always been like this. They actually are trying to solve a problem, though -- their personal, immediate problem. It's just that they don't give a damn how it harms society as a whole.
Lack of critical thinking combined with no moral compass to be honest in intensions.
But in all of that stupidity and immorality, people are trying to solve problems -- they just are not thinking through the consequences.
Lack of critical thinking skills is the main reason, and the Scientific Method is part of that larger picture.
What's up with the abrasive title and then no meat whatsoever
How did this get stickied
There was a game show called Street Smarts in the early 2000s. They would ask random people on the streets questions. One of the questions was, "How many states are in the US?" The answers should tell you all you need to know about the quality of our education system.
Don't be mad at the Anons, be mad at your Mother for inviting them all to climb aboard! Look up an old adage that states, "You'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar." You would do well to learn from this.
Acute observation.