In a certain sense science is the only thing to be trusted.
We just have to carefully define science as the actual science, a/k/a factual empirical knowledge, not some sick fuck's twisted presentation of it that hides the truth and pushes a globohomo agenda.
My statement is over the term "science" itself as it has grown into a language device that is so abstracted the phrase itself, in common conversational consequence, is largely useless.
science
[ sahy-uhns ]SHOW IPA
See synonyms for science on Thesaurus.com
🍎 Elementary Level
noun
- a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
- the mathematical sciences.
- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through
- observation and experimentation.
any of the branches of natural orphysical science.
- systematized knowledge in general.
- knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
- a particular branch of knowledge.
It's being used in ways that are so contextual that I do not trust the phrase when it's being used for a number of reasons.
That said, philosophically, science is only as established as it's frame of reference and social understanding of much of it. Take Medicine itself. To many - unless the science is defined by an authoritative body - it's faulty / bad / incorrect / doesn't even exist. That "Science" is subjective to the specific paradigm - which to someone ( say a normie looking for vaccine info ) is going to not have any reference to and gets "Science" that is politically sculpted by a medical community.
Recent studies are showing that %15 - %20 of researchers say that their grantees force them to both change results and omit results. Think about that. That's an admission that a private grant may intentionally skew %20 of published science.
The same research has been showing that the number of intentional skew goes up substantially more when a government is the grant provider. The rates there were %23 - %31 on average.
I don't trust science. I can't. Trust is naive. Hell if I trusted Science I could have waited for the results of the NIST report on WTC7 ) which is laughably silly.
In a certain sense science is the only thing to be trusted.
We just have to carefully define science as the actual science, a/k/a factual empirical knowledge, not some sick fuck's twisted presentation of it that hides the truth and pushes a globohomo agenda.
My statement is over the term "science" itself as it has grown into a language device that is so abstracted the phrase itself, in common conversational consequence, is largely useless.
It's being used in ways that are so contextual that I do not trust the phrase when it's being used for a number of reasons.
That said, philosophically, science is only as established as it's frame of reference and social understanding of much of it. Take Medicine itself. To many - unless the science is defined by an authoritative body - it's faulty / bad / incorrect / doesn't even exist. That "Science" is subjective to the specific paradigm - which to someone ( say a normie looking for vaccine info ) is going to not have any reference to and gets "Science" that is politically sculpted by a medical community.
Recent studies are showing that %15 - %20 of researchers say that their grantees force them to both change results and omit results. Think about that. That's an admission that a private grant may intentionally skew %20 of published science.
The same research has been showing that the number of intentional skew goes up substantially more when a government is the grant provider. The rates there were %23 - %31 on average.
I don't trust science. I can't. Trust is naive. Hell if I trusted Science I could have waited for the results of the NIST report on WTC7 ) which is laughably silly.