Funny how the totalitarians now hold up "science" as the unquestionable arbiter of all reality, where religious faith once held that position.
Because, unlike religion, where you get to at least act like something larger than humans is in charge, MEN are in control of science from top to bottom. What they say goes.
Thin loose cloth blocks viruses? Sure!
People farting causes the planet to warm up? Sure!
Global warming causes global cooling? Sure! As long as "scientists" say so! Because THEY HAVE NO AGENDA BUT THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH. Right?
I have been saying this for years. Science has become the new religion to the masses. It started with manmade global warming. Before that only nerds like me talked about science. Then the global warming propaganda from MSM / big tech told everyone they should panic and seek advice from the nearest mainstream scientist.
That's what they did, and unsurprisingly the bought-and-paid-for scientists told them they should panic harder - and give their money to the government so it could 'fix the weather.'
These people view scientists the way a 14th-century peasant would see a priest. They blindly place 100% of their trust in that authority. They cannot understand the data themselves but they are willing to go to war over what they are told.
This is not something new. Science replaced religion as the ultimate source of truth in the Enlightenment.
In actual fact, science does a good job of helping us to understand objective physical reality. However, much of what is called "science" today is not really science.
In other words, people don't distrust science so much as they distrust pseudo science.
In claiming for itself the role of ultimate arbiter of truth, science has undermined its own authority because a large percentage of the scientists no longer have the moral integrity, a byproduct of religion, to correctly practice science.
While Galileo is often held up as an example of religion getting in the way of science, in reality it is an example of authoritarianism usurping truth - and the multitude of hypocrisies surrounding the C19 response bears this out.
Hey former Doc, what is your take on those blood slides Dr. Jane Ruby exposed on the Steve Peters show? If you haven't seen them, let me know and I'll post the link. It's comparisons between vaxxed and unvaxxed people's blood smears. Thanks.
Its deeper than that. Read Propaganda by Edward Bernays. A key piece is authority which is why all those who are supposed to be smart have authoritative clothes and positions
Short dry read but incredibly frightening. Also he was Sigmund Freuds nephew
Many great scientists were priests.Hauy ,crystallography , ...Lemaitre ( physics.)
Mendel father of modern genetics. Science does not disprove God or Faith. Intelligent design THEORY. Just like big bang theory. www.realclearscience.com look some of them up.
Just another classic appeal to authority fallacy. It's the left's favorite. "These RESPECTED and ELITE AUTHORITIES and EXPERTS said its true, so it MUST be true. Who are YOU to question the EXPERTS."
Exactly. Science is not and never was the measuring stick. Science evolves, science changes, simply because our piddly flawed knowledge increases. And we revise and realize how stupid we were before.
Because THEY HAVE NO AGENDA BUT THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH. Right?
Even in cases where this is true, every scientist worthy of the title understands that no word or work ever produced by them is a statement of truth. It is at best a presentation of evidence that suggests a step closer to the truth than the body of human knowledge was before that work.
In other words, even if a scientist pursues only truth in earnest, the scientific process does not allow for it to ever reach truth, only iteratively move closer to it.
In addition, any such statement of findings must stand up to debatefor all time to be determined as even reaching the status of useful in the decision making process.
So "scientific advise" without debate is nothing more than a decree of personal dogmatic interpretation, having completely divorced itself from the scientific process.
There is no such thing as "settled science" or "scientific consensus".
That isn't how science has ever worked.
Those are buzzwords created by marketers and govt. stooges to fool the uneducated masses.
Consensus...when you hear that word grab your wallet. It's a marketing term. It means someone is about to ask for money because A BUNCHA OTHER PEOPLE SMARTER THAN YOU AGREE WITH THIS, SO YOU NEED TO JUST TRUST THEM AND PAY UP.
There is no such thing as "settled science" or "scientific consensus".
At first I agreed with this, but then I thought about it. While I agree that the phrases are oxymoronic, those ideas do exist within the scientific community and have for a long time.
I have had the opportunity to be involved in several subsets of the broader scientific community, having done research and/or been involved in extensive debate within the communities of physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and computer science/information. In each case there is pervasive dogma that is divorced from the ideals of scientific discovery.
In each case there are certain axioms that are unquestionable, and thus unquestioned and more importantly, unfunded. There are also axioms that are questioned, but remain caged, where any questioner is not allowed to think too far outside of accepted interpretations (and also research into such topics remains strictly unfunded).
So while the ideals of science do not allow for consensus, and there are many areas of research that still abide by those ideals, and it is certainly taught that way (except where it is not), the actual practice of science in every branch of it, from top to bottom and for a very long time, does have "settled science" and "consensus".
I used to think this was "the ruling of the old guard". Now I think it may be by design. If we are not allowed to look at certain things (identical to "conspiracy theory" but for the scientific community), we restrict our capacity to make certain world changing advances. If this is true, the implications are interesting.
We're on the same page. When I say science I mean real, ideal science, not the fake politicized bullshit of consensus and "settled" science. The very concept is utterly absurd: all science is about testing and re-testing hypotheses, trying to poke holes in them, trying to disprove them, not the opposite.
The irony of these Leftist imbeciles crowing about "trusting science" is that true science never asks to be "trusted". True science invites critique, query, constructive criticism and questions.
Right? They are literally discussing why Einstein might be wrong about the Theory of Relativity. I'm pretty sure global warming should be subject to debate. Remember that time they had us eating margarine trans fat for 45 years?
Remember the 'trust the science' push to use fetal stem cell lines for research back in early 2000. We had Michael J Fox and other celebrities telling us how preventing this research would prevent the cure for ALS and other degenerative diseases. Well the research went on - where are the cures 20 years later?
so, the wright brothers were scientist? I thought the were bicycle builders? the guy is an ass-wipe. I plumbed my house, I contracted out a well driller (fracker)and I did the rest, I guess I am a scientist too.
Translation. "Come on guys, the Scientists trust the science when we use can openers, faucets, and airplanes- so why not inject yourself with an experimental chemical cocktail... for science."
I find it amusing that he is saying science is responsible for:
Airplane : Invented by a pair of bicycle mechanics, the Wright brothers.
Plumbing: Invented by ancient Romans (and others - including Sir John Harrington).
Canning food: Invented by a brewer, confectioner and chef Nicolas Appert.
Engineers (not in most cases "scientists") have improved and updated all of these things, but to claim that "science" is responsible is ridiculous.
Science is a method - not a "thing" to be worshiped...
"Did you know that you trust science in a million different ways every time you use a can opener? Being unaware of it doesn't make it any less true. Get the jab!"
Globohomo has highjacked language to use as a weapon of division. What they are pushing is not Science. It is Scientism.
In the absence of true understanding and actual adherence to the scientific method, they can use it as a tool of oppression through the powers of spurious association and the neo-mysticism of pseudo-scientific jargon.
Their Dogma must be strictly followed and parroted or you risk the swift retribution of ridicule and ostracism.
Engineers have to been pragmatic and make things that actually work. Scientists sit around fingering each other’s buttholes and patting each other on the head with their stupid theories.
People point this out and the scientists quickly pull their finger out of their colleague’s butthole and point to a bridge and go, “But what about that! We built that!”
No, engineers built that.
Engineers don’t have the academic luxury of making up ridiculous theories about 96 genders or New York being under water by 2014 and then when reality doesn’t line up with the theory, they censor everyone who points it out.
You're exactly right. Many people say, "I believe in science" like it's a creed (and I suppose it is since "creed" comes from the Latin "credo", which means "I believe"), but science has no morality. It's like Ian Malcolm explained in "Jurassic Park": "... your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.".
I also don't like when people act like "scientists" are one group with one voice, or when "science" just means the things they agree with. They are not our grand high priest overlords.
The biggest revelation of this pandemic has not been the pathetic, servile compliance of the once proudly free men of the West, this we already knew, but rather the utter debasement of our scientific elite. I suppose the rot set in with the pseudoscientific claims of the so-called ‘climate science’ lobby, and the Stazi-like enforcement of establishment dogma; but I don’t think anyone quite realised just how thoroughly corrupted the top scientists and “peer-reviewed” journals had become.
From the top of the WHO to the lowliest university lecturer, the Chinese Communist Party has effectively wormed their way into every facet of the “trusted” scientific community of Western Civilisation. I personally feel this is the most terrifying fact to emerge from the past few years.
The thing that people have GOT to get into their understanding is that "science" has been fucked since around 1850. Seriously, really fucked all the way to sideways and inside out.
The protocommie frankfurter alliance got Darwin's people to alter geology with glacier theory (not to mention all their other tom foolery). This continued on through the commie media takeover through the 1880s to 1910s when it became complete. This was what allowed them to destroy physics and shunt off the authorities who were doing the real innovation of the day to go after red card carrying fools that are still at the top of the science food chain.
This is all super disgusting, but everyone needs to get their damn minds wrapped around the fact that you have NEVER been able to trust science in your lifetime, your parents' lifetimes, your grandparents' lifetimes or your great grandparents' lifetimes and perhaps before depending on your age!
Scientists shouldn't even trust themselves, they're always apologizing for their blunders. The Wright brothers didn't even finish high school and invented the airplane when the leading scientists of the day said that it was impossible. I can go on for days.
People do trust science, we just haven't scene a single scientific hypothesis or process this entire scamdemic. When actual science is presented, then we'll talk.
Trust is earned and voluntary. There is nothing that requires me to trust something/someone, it's a choice. Provide trustworthy supporting input, receive trust in return taking in to account risks, benefit, and reward.
Funny how the totalitarians now hold up "science" as the unquestionable arbiter of all reality, where religious faith once held that position.
Because, unlike religion, where you get to at least act like something larger than humans is in charge, MEN are in control of science from top to bottom. What they say goes.
Thin loose cloth blocks viruses? Sure!
People farting causes the planet to warm up? Sure!
Global warming causes global cooling? Sure! As long as "scientists" say so! Because THEY HAVE NO AGENDA BUT THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH. Right?
I have been saying this for years. Science has become the new religion to the masses. It started with manmade global warming. Before that only nerds like me talked about science. Then the global warming propaganda from MSM / big tech told everyone they should panic and seek advice from the nearest mainstream scientist.
That's what they did, and unsurprisingly the bought-and-paid-for scientists told them they should panic harder - and give their money to the government so it could 'fix the weather.'
These people view scientists the way a 14th-century peasant would see a priest. They blindly place 100% of their trust in that authority. They cannot understand the data themselves but they are willing to go to war over what they are told.
This is not something new. Science replaced religion as the ultimate source of truth in the Enlightenment.
In actual fact, science does a good job of helping us to understand objective physical reality. However, much of what is called "science" today is not really science.
In other words, people don't distrust science so much as they distrust pseudo science.
In claiming for itself the role of ultimate arbiter of truth, science has undermined its own authority because a large percentage of the scientists no longer have the moral integrity, a byproduct of religion, to correctly practice science.
While Galileo is often held up as an example of religion getting in the way of science, in reality it is an example of authoritarianism usurping truth - and the multitude of hypocrisies surrounding the C19 response bears this out.
Lab coats are the new priestly robes.
They literally are. They are standard garb of doctors for exactly that historical reason.
Source: am former doctor
Hey former Doc, what is your take on those blood slides Dr. Jane Ruby exposed on the Steve Peters show? If you haven't seen them, let me know and I'll post the link. It's comparisons between vaxxed and unvaxxed people's blood smears. Thanks.
That or a stethoscope around the neck... "I like the conjac root because...blah blah"
Its deeper than that. Read Propaganda by Edward Bernays. A key piece is authority which is why all those who are supposed to be smart have authoritative clothes and positions
Short dry read but incredibly frightening. Also he was Sigmund Freuds nephew
Many great scientists were priests.Hauy ,crystallography , ...Lemaitre ( physics.) Mendel father of modern genetics. Science does not disprove God or Faith. Intelligent design THEORY. Just like big bang theory. www.realclearscience.com look some of them up.
And they are on sale, 2/1 shiny white, never used except for stock footage
Just another classic appeal to authority fallacy. It's the left's favorite. "These RESPECTED and ELITE AUTHORITIES and EXPERTS said its true, so it MUST be true. Who are YOU to question the EXPERTS."
Exactly. Science is not and never was the measuring stick. Science evolves, science changes, simply because our piddly flawed knowledge increases. And we revise and realize how stupid we were before.
Even in cases where this is true, every scientist worthy of the title understands that no word or work ever produced by them is a statement of truth. It is at best a presentation of evidence that suggests a step closer to the truth than the body of human knowledge was before that work.
In other words, even if a scientist pursues only truth in earnest, the scientific process does not allow for it to ever reach truth, only iteratively move closer to it.
In addition, any such statement of findings must stand up to debate for all time to be determined as even reaching the status of useful in the decision making process.
So "scientific advise" without debate is nothing more than a decree of personal dogmatic interpretation, having completely divorced itself from the scientific process.
There is no such thing as "settled science" or "scientific consensus".
That isn't how science has ever worked.
Those are buzzwords created by marketers and govt. stooges to fool the uneducated masses.
Consensus...when you hear that word grab your wallet. It's a marketing term. It means someone is about to ask for money because A BUNCHA OTHER PEOPLE SMARTER THAN YOU AGREE WITH THIS, SO YOU NEED TO JUST TRUST THEM AND PAY UP.
At first I agreed with this, but then I thought about it. While I agree that the phrases are oxymoronic, those ideas do exist within the scientific community and have for a long time.
I have had the opportunity to be involved in several subsets of the broader scientific community, having done research and/or been involved in extensive debate within the communities of physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and computer science/information. In each case there is pervasive dogma that is divorced from the ideals of scientific discovery.
In each case there are certain axioms that are unquestionable, and thus unquestioned and more importantly, unfunded. There are also axioms that are questioned, but remain caged, where any questioner is not allowed to think too far outside of accepted interpretations (and also research into such topics remains strictly unfunded).
So while the ideals of science do not allow for consensus, and there are many areas of research that still abide by those ideals, and it is certainly taught that way (except where it is not), the actual practice of science in every branch of it, from top to bottom and for a very long time, does have "settled science" and "consensus".
I used to think this was "the ruling of the old guard". Now I think it may be by design. If we are not allowed to look at certain things (identical to "conspiracy theory" but for the scientific community), we restrict our capacity to make certain world changing advances. If this is true, the implications are interesting.
We're on the same page. When I say science I mean real, ideal science, not the fake politicized bullshit of consensus and "settled" science. The very concept is utterly absurd: all science is about testing and re-testing hypotheses, trying to poke holes in them, trying to disprove them, not the opposite.
The scientific method compels us to question “the science”
The irony of these Leftist imbeciles crowing about "trusting science" is that true science never asks to be "trusted". True science invites critique, query, constructive criticism and questions.
Science should ‘work’ regardless of faith right? Gravity tends to disregard disbelief for example.
Richard Rahl agrees. Lol.
My favourite quote is “The science is settled....” ! 😂😂😂😂
WWG1WGA
Right? They are literally discussing why Einstein might be wrong about the Theory of Relativity. I'm pretty sure global warming should be subject to debate. Remember that time they had us eating margarine trans fat for 45 years?
Ugh. I hate that phrase.
Remember the 'trust the science' push to use fetal stem cell lines for research back in early 2000. We had Michael J Fox and other celebrities telling us how preventing this research would prevent the cure for ALS and other degenerative diseases. Well the research went on - where are the cures 20 years later?
The prophets are run over by the profits made for "treatments"...
Real science is never settled, and competing theories should be dis-proven, not silenced.
Wholeheartedly agree.
so, the wright brothers were scientist? I thought the were bicycle builders? the guy is an ass-wipe. I plumbed my house, I contracted out a well driller (fracker)and I did the rest, I guess I am a scientist too.
I know but a scientist would have never flown. what engineering school did they go to? just too funny.
Translation. "Come on guys, the Scientists trust the science when we use can openers, faucets, and airplanes- so why not inject yourself with an experimental chemical cocktail... for science."
I find it amusing that he is saying science is responsible for:
Airplane : Invented by a pair of bicycle mechanics, the Wright brothers. Plumbing: Invented by ancient Romans (and others - including Sir John Harrington). Canning food: Invented by a brewer, confectioner and chef Nicolas Appert.
Engineers (not in most cases "scientists") have improved and updated all of these things, but to claim that "science" is responsible is ridiculous.
Science is a method - not a "thing" to be worshiped...
"Did you know that you trust science in a million different ways every time you use a can opener? Being unaware of it doesn't make it any less true. Get the jab!"
Dangerous retard alert!
Globohomo has highjacked language to use as a weapon of division. What they are pushing is not Science. It is Scientism.
In the absence of true understanding and actual adherence to the scientific method, they can use it as a tool of oppression through the powers of spurious association and the neo-mysticism of pseudo-scientific jargon.
Their Dogma must be strictly followed and parroted or you risk the swift retribution of ridicule and ostracism.
People trust “engineers”, not “scientists”.
Engineers have to been pragmatic and make things that actually work. Scientists sit around fingering each other’s buttholes and patting each other on the head with their stupid theories.
People point this out and the scientists quickly pull their finger out of their colleague’s butthole and point to a bridge and go, “But what about that! We built that!”
No, engineers built that.
Engineers don’t have the academic luxury of making up ridiculous theories about 96 genders or New York being under water by 2014 and then when reality doesn’t line up with the theory, they censor everyone who points it out.
When I was a kid, science was the scientific method, and repeatable results.
I'm can't pin down a date when that changed.
Science shouldn't concern itself with politics, religion, subjectivity, mood, and societal trends.
Science should concern itself with truth, and the "how" of things.
The "Why", the meaning, how it applies to belief and society: these are things better left to philosophers.
Just my take.
You're exactly right. Many people say, "I believe in science" like it's a creed (and I suppose it is since "creed" comes from the Latin "credo", which means "I believe"), but science has no morality. It's like Ian Malcolm explained in "Jurassic Park": "... your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.".
I also don't like when people act like "scientists" are one group with one voice, or when "science" just means the things they agree with. They are not our grand high priest overlords.
The biggest revelation of this pandemic has not been the pathetic, servile compliance of the once proudly free men of the West, this we already knew, but rather the utter debasement of our scientific elite. I suppose the rot set in with the pseudoscientific claims of the so-called ‘climate science’ lobby, and the Stazi-like enforcement of establishment dogma; but I don’t think anyone quite realised just how thoroughly corrupted the top scientists and “peer-reviewed” journals had become.
From the top of the WHO to the lowliest university lecturer, the Chinese Communist Party has effectively wormed their way into every facet of the “trusted” scientific community of Western Civilisation. I personally feel this is the most terrifying fact to emerge from the past few years.
The thing that people have GOT to get into their understanding is that "science" has been fucked since around 1850. Seriously, really fucked all the way to sideways and inside out.
The protocommie frankfurter alliance got Darwin's people to alter geology with glacier theory (not to mention all their other tom foolery). This continued on through the commie media takeover through the 1880s to 1910s when it became complete. This was what allowed them to destroy physics and shunt off the authorities who were doing the real innovation of the day to go after red card carrying fools that are still at the top of the science food chain.
This is all super disgusting, but everyone needs to get their damn minds wrapped around the fact that you have NEVER been able to trust science in your lifetime, your parents' lifetimes, your grandparents' lifetimes or your great grandparents' lifetimes and perhaps before depending on your age!
But what if I told you that the science... was settled?
Scientists shouldn't even trust themselves, they're always apologizing for their blunders. The Wright brothers didn't even finish high school and invented the airplane when the leading scientists of the day said that it was impossible. I can go on for days.
People do trust science, we just haven't scene a single scientific hypothesis or process this entire scamdemic. When actual science is presented, then we'll talk.
Insert "God" for "science" in Paul Graham's statement, and then yes.
“Science” has been a lie since they were crying about the ozone layer.
Trust is earned and voluntary. There is nothing that requires me to trust something/someone, it's a choice. Provide trustworthy supporting input, receive trust in return taking in to account risks, benefit, and reward.
"The Science" is just another angle of the narrative as "The Media"
Trust the science =/= Read and understand the science... clearly.
Science + Politics = Politics.
Paul Graham is not understand the difference between trust and Hope
Amen. I'm so ridiculously tired of midwits with megaphones.
Right. Yet they keep talking.
“Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions.” Proverbs 18:2 NLT
MIDWITS WITH MEGAPHONES is my new favorite term.
Thank you!