I could listen to that man's voice all day. Couldn't agree more. He nailed it perfectly.
All they want is papers papers papers. It is such a corrupt institution that has completely perverted the application of reason and evidence. Most papers I read in my profession, apart from a few good ones, are unintelligible and woefully incomplete.
If you want to learn anything you are better off picking up a textbook, learning the fundamentals, and have a punt at something tangible and see how it goes. Rinse repeat. I am getting to the point where I refuse to believe anything on face value unless I can verify it for myself - which is sad because it is horribly inefficient.
My son is a PHD Biologist. He was a Patriot. When he got his undergrad and was moving to his masters he told us about the corruption in the grant distribution process. He explained if he went against things like "global warming" (at the time), then he would get no money. We spent several hours discussing everything from the peer reviewed papers and how they create a self-fulfilling prophecy and on and on. NOW, 6 years later, he is part of the system. He has evolved into a full-fledged institutional "scientist", left wing, Orange Man Bad, #getthejab, atheist ass hole. He was a vibrant, intelligent, curious, God fearing Patriot....now he a part of what I fight everyday.
We've prayed every single night at 8:32 PM for he and his wife since August 2017. IT's all we have at this point. It's was not radical, it took place over a 2-3 yr period. As a career "scientist" he was immersed in academia nearly 24X7. He moved out of state to start his masters, all his friends were academia, peers, boss, etc....all institutional science peeps.
He knows that the nail that sticks up is the nail that gets hammered. He doesn't HONESTLY believe a word of it. But he will fight you to his dying breath defending it. If they flipped tomorrow to staunch conservatives, he, and the rest of academia would be there in the chorus by the following day (or very soon thereafter). It is pure survival mechanism.
What you are describing is not science. It may be expert opinion. If you were describing science, you would be criticizing the methods, not the conclusions. This is what has bothered me during this whole pandemic. "Trust the science". And then nobody presents any science. They just spout expert opinion.
Show me a falsifiable thesis, the actual data, and the methods taken to try and disprove the hypothesis. If you have done that, nobody can claim it isn't science. The real problem is people have confused science and religion. They are not the same and they are not in conflict. Science, like anything, is certainly bounded by beliefs, but is distinguished by the continuing struggle to rise above them through rigorous processes.
Peer reviewed science is about the process. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, about conclusions. Genuine science does not make conclusions. If you are talking about conclusions from science being wrong, you haven't understood the basic tenets of what it is.
You mentioned peer reviewed science that was "completely wrong". That appears to be a comment about a conclusion, rather than a methodology. My apologies if you meant to imply something different and I misunderstood your message. However, I am quite certain I am not epistemologically challenged. We are supposed to be on the same side here. I didn't personally attack you. I questioned your analysis. There is no need for personal insults.
This guys a genius. He's 100 percent correct. Anything that goes against the mainstream view of science, their narrative whatever you call it, is deemed wrong and not worth looking at.
They don't really believe in observable, repeatable evidence. It's whatever fits their worldview.
They decide what they want or think to be true, and tailor their evidence to support it. If they find evidence that goes against it, they deem it wrong, and that's it. Instead of RETHINKING THEIR HYPOTHESIS.
I have a PhD. I’ve published multiple papers. One of the big realizations for me was after I got my first paper published. As soon as the relief of not having to make more revisions wore off, my next thought was, “Wait, if I can get this junk published, anyone can get published.” I realized that any published paper could be junk. As they say, garbage in, garbage out.
I think there’s a pride thing going on as well. My now favorite professor was very cynical, very skeptical of the whole system. At first I thought he was crazy, but now I appreciate his viewpoint (and think his was the most accurate). He used to say, “Being the expert just means you know more about a topic than anyone else in the room. That’s it.”
This man speaks the gospel truth. It seems everywhere in the world, in every venue and discipline, you have to go around the gate-keepers to get anything done. Peer review, which should be about weeding out bad methodology, incomplete experimentation, or untenable, badly formulated conclusions has become a tool for supporting specific interpretations of established theories, which they have chosen to promote as fact. No one is allowed to have a different idea after that is decided, and that's not science. That's politics. The man in this video is right. The biggest advances in science aren't coming from those tied to academia or those under the thumb of agenda-driven paymasters. They are coming from people who aren't afraid to question "settled" science in the face of mounting evidence that the science might not be so settled at all (should be a moot point). The situation only ever seems to change when the ones patching theory to save it begin to look like absolute idiots holding onto a crazy quilt that can no longer explain anything. But not to worry, this is actually happening right now, and the outcome is inevitable. The Great Awakening is affecting science, too, and it is gaining momentum from more and more people going against the grain to do what scientists used to do before they were hamstrung by bad education, politics, and fear.
This guy is an old school leftist. He actually believes what he says and doesn't back down from it and will accept rebuttal and debate. He believes in global warming and wants us all to live in thatched mud huts, BUT he actually lives in a mud hut! So for that I can respect him, unlike Al Gore or AOC living like the elites they are buying the most expensive products and working all day in an air conditioned room.
I could listen to that man's voice all day. Couldn't agree more. He nailed it perfectly.
All they want is papers papers papers. It is such a corrupt institution that has completely perverted the application of reason and evidence. Most papers I read in my profession, apart from a few good ones, are unintelligible and woefully incomplete.
If you want to learn anything you are better off picking up a textbook, learning the fundamentals, and have a punt at something tangible and see how it goes. Rinse repeat. I am getting to the point where I refuse to believe anything on face value unless I can verify it for myself - which is sad because it is horribly inefficient.
My son is a PHD Biologist. He was a Patriot. When he got his undergrad and was moving to his masters he told us about the corruption in the grant distribution process. He explained if he went against things like "global warming" (at the time), then he would get no money. We spent several hours discussing everything from the peer reviewed papers and how they create a self-fulfilling prophecy and on and on. NOW, 6 years later, he is part of the system. He has evolved into a full-fledged institutional "scientist", left wing, Orange Man Bad, #getthejab, atheist ass hole. He was a vibrant, intelligent, curious, God fearing Patriot....now he a part of what I fight everyday.
What happened that made him change radically? Do you pray about it?
Money and career being taken away.
In other words, a coward.
We've prayed every single night at 8:32 PM for he and his wife since August 2017. IT's all we have at this point. It's was not radical, it took place over a 2-3 yr period. As a career "scientist" he was immersed in academia nearly 24X7. He moved out of state to start his masters, all his friends were academia, peers, boss, etc....all institutional science peeps.
He knows that the nail that sticks up is the nail that gets hammered. He doesn't HONESTLY believe a word of it. But he will fight you to his dying breath defending it. If they flipped tomorrow to staunch conservatives, he, and the rest of academia would be there in the chorus by the following day (or very soon thereafter). It is pure survival mechanism.
Damn. This sounds like a page out of Atlas Shrugged. I’m sorry.
Thank you. We pray what we are going through wakes he and his wife the hell up.
I'm sorry. I have one of those too.
What you are describing is not science. It may be expert opinion. If you were describing science, you would be criticizing the methods, not the conclusions. This is what has bothered me during this whole pandemic. "Trust the science". And then nobody presents any science. They just spout expert opinion.
Show me a falsifiable thesis, the actual data, and the methods taken to try and disprove the hypothesis. If you have done that, nobody can claim it isn't science. The real problem is people have confused science and religion. They are not the same and they are not in conflict. Science, like anything, is certainly bounded by beliefs, but is distinguished by the continuing struggle to rise above them through rigorous processes.
Peer reviewed science is about the process. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, about conclusions. Genuine science does not make conclusions. If you are talking about conclusions from science being wrong, you haven't understood the basic tenets of what it is.
You mentioned peer reviewed science that was "completely wrong". That appears to be a comment about a conclusion, rather than a methodology. My apologies if you meant to imply something different and I misunderstood your message. However, I am quite certain I am not epistemologically challenged. We are supposed to be on the same side here. I didn't personally attack you. I questioned your analysis. There is no need for personal insults.
This guys a genius. He's 100 percent correct. Anything that goes against the mainstream view of science, their narrative whatever you call it, is deemed wrong and not worth looking at.
They don't really believe in observable, repeatable evidence. It's whatever fits their worldview.
They decide what they want or think to be true, and tailor their evidence to support it. If they find evidence that goes against it, they deem it wrong, and that's it. Instead of RETHINKING THEIR HYPOTHESIS.
Most of contemporary academia will simply need to be executed. Their single greatest achievement is they have created a factory for stupidity.
I have a PhD. I’ve published multiple papers. One of the big realizations for me was after I got my first paper published. As soon as the relief of not having to make more revisions wore off, my next thought was, “Wait, if I can get this junk published, anyone can get published.” I realized that any published paper could be junk. As they say, garbage in, garbage out.
I think there’s a pride thing going on as well. My now favorite professor was very cynical, very skeptical of the whole system. At first I thought he was crazy, but now I appreciate his viewpoint (and think his was the most accurate). He used to say, “Being the expert just means you know more about a topic than anyone else in the room. That’s it.”
HCQ isn't peer reviewed?
It's been peer reviewed as effective many times.
https://c19hcq.com/
Spot on. Emergent science never comes from within.
Natural order of life.
Can't fool Mother Nature.
This man speaks the gospel truth. It seems everywhere in the world, in every venue and discipline, you have to go around the gate-keepers to get anything done. Peer review, which should be about weeding out bad methodology, incomplete experimentation, or untenable, badly formulated conclusions has become a tool for supporting specific interpretations of established theories, which they have chosen to promote as fact. No one is allowed to have a different idea after that is decided, and that's not science. That's politics. The man in this video is right. The biggest advances in science aren't coming from those tied to academia or those under the thumb of agenda-driven paymasters. They are coming from people who aren't afraid to question "settled" science in the face of mounting evidence that the science might not be so settled at all (should be a moot point). The situation only ever seems to change when the ones patching theory to save it begin to look like absolute idiots holding onto a crazy quilt that can no longer explain anything. But not to worry, this is actually happening right now, and the outcome is inevitable. The Great Awakening is affecting science, too, and it is gaining momentum from more and more people going against the grain to do what scientists used to do before they were hamstrung by bad education, politics, and fear.
What a beautiful and wise soul he is
This man is brilliant! Everyone should be hearing this!
Great post thank you !??
This guy is an old school leftist. He actually believes what he says and doesn't back down from it and will accept rebuttal and debate. He believes in global warming and wants us all to live in thatched mud huts, BUT he actually lives in a mud hut! So for that I can respect him, unlike Al Gore or AOC living like the elites they are buying the most expensive products and working all day in an air conditioned room.