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.
I hope you are not comparing science to the Enlightenment, or that the Enlightenment was science.
The Enlightenment was a philosophy that basically boiled down to this: No more Divine Right, as men can reason on their own without the Church and the State getting involved.
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.
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.
I hope you are not comparing science to the Enlightenment, or that the Enlightenment was science.
The Enlightenment was a philosophy that basically boiled down to this: No more Divine Right, as men can reason on their own without the Church and the State getting involved.
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.