EXACTLY!
(media.gab.com)
Comments (34)
sorted by:
It's as if the people spouting this phrase have never heard of the Scientific Method. And I'm including medical and virology specialists in this. Basically people who should KNOW BETTER.
I even explain this to people and they are still "deer in headlights".
Crazy.
It’s a process for understanding the world around us. How it works. It’s not about consensus. It's not a doctrine - though it's been morphed into a religion.
True religion is for understanding the WHY.
METH'OD, noun [Latin methodus; Gr. with, and way.]...the method for form (life) is flow (inception towards death) cause form is with the way of flow.
Now add science (scio; to know aka to perceive) and perceived movement communicates inspiration (aka within spirit); as opposed to suggested information (aka within form).
That implies growth of perception; which ignores that each ONE perceives ALL; yet lacks comprehension of what it means. Adapting by choice to perceived inspiration is what would grow (make better) ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived; unless ignored for suggested information by others who brand it "knowledge" to corrupt understanding.
I don't just blindly "trust" anything.....particularly Science....
I remember watching Neal Degrass Tyson's version of Cosmos, and I couldn't help but be amazed at the irony. The man spends the firstsixty to seventy percent of the time talking about how many times we thought we had it all figured out only to realize we weren't even close, then talks about how "we have almost everything about global warming figured out."
I forced myself to finish watching, but man was I pissed...
lol. The problem is people get stuck in a certain way of thinking, what I call, for lack of the correct term, "foundational beliefs". Ironically, my first redpill was about global warming, and it took a Michael Critchton book to serve it...
Trust represents choice consenting to suggestion by choice of others; which ignores what choice represents...the response to balance. Others use suggestions to deceive one to ignore balance; and thereby submit free will of choice to the free will of others. This is called RELIGION, noun. [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind) aka an inversion of the original bond under natural law (offer/consent) aka balance/choice.
ALL value is offered within balance; each ONE within represents the responding choice of evaluation thereof (choice of need)...unless ignored for the suggestions of others (choice of want).
While some of us still practice science, the corrupted now bow down to $cience.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!
Louder for those in the back please!
"Trust the Science" is a cult mantra, not science.
Science is about what you can prove.
And the way you do that is via the Scientific Method, not by taking a vote.
Both imply consent by free will of choice to suggestion by free will of choice from another aka will submitting to will; while ignoring what defines having a choice (being within response to balance).
What if ALL already exists and the ONEs within don't need to prove reality to others; but learn/teach ONEself to comprehend ALL perceived? What if others represents both inspiration to grow comprehension and temptation to ignore it for whatever "proof" they suggest?
A sleight of hand for those with eyes to see..."the proof is in the pudding"; from PUD'DING, noun - "an intestine" (internal test); from TEST; noun (Latin testum - "earthen pot" aka formed vessel). Therefore...the proof (information) is within form; when form is out of flow (aka in spirit aka inspiration).
Yep. That makes it a religion.
Every suggested information implies choice consenting to choice (to bind anew aka religio); which ignores adaptation to perceived inspiration (choice responding to balance).
Every suggested information represents the choice of wanting vs not wanting it (conflict of reason). Before one can choose between wanting or not wanting any suggestion; one makes a choice in response to balance under natural law aka need or want; with want representing the ignorance of need.
This ignorance is what the parasitic few are ruthlessly exploiting by means of suggesting want vs not want (conflict of reason). As in the age of reason on the Georgia Guidestones https://pic8.co/sh/ZFutkP.jpg
"Trust the science" means trust the 'scientists' we've bribed to say what we want them to say.
I've had this thought many times. The entire point of the scientific method is that nothing is ever settled, only theories backed by strong evidence-based experiments.
Unfortunately I think the institutions have realized that they can use "the science" as a justification for anything and atheist-soys will back it no matter what.
Many, not all, scientists lost their integrity when they folded to economic and political oligarchs to get money.
Imagine if Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, had all bowed to convention? Scientists should be the most open minded of all people instead of having padlocks on their brains.
Doctors have sold out as well.
"doctors" literally chop off penises and tits of mentally disturbed individuals.
"doctors" have sold their soul to the devil a long while
"Trust the science, not a scientific method. What?
I like to think of it this way:
Religion is the power of faith.
Science is the power of doubt.
Things work fine as long as the two are used within their proper spheres, and things get all screwy when they aren't. We see this screwiness quite often these days. Too many churches have abandoned their higher spiritual duties in pursuit of lower secular material gain and meddling in trivialities. In turn, the people try to fill the resulting spiritual void in their lives with blind fanaticism in empty "scientific" imagery, social movements and commercial trends. Dead dogmatism becomes widespread, and organizations start crumbling as less and less people know how to actually productively do anything anymore, much less have the internal spiritual development to give a damn about anything beyond their own base urges and immediate feelings.
Whether such a situation is by intentional nefarious design, simple short-sighted greed, or some combination of both, the result is nevertheless the same: everything's all screwed up.
Science has always been a process and never a conclusion.
What we think we know in science is 'conclusive' never turns out that way.
SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Perception implies being processed as form (life) by flow (inception towards death).
Nature communicates itself to all within by moving them; which we perceive as inspiration for our choice to respond to (adaptation). We each represent an insane (in sanus aka within sound) person (per sonos aka by sound) aka a response to perceived sound (resonance).
Why do we ignore this? Because the few misuse choice to shape words (idolized meaning) out of perceived sound; which they then suggest to the many who by consenting ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information. They call this spell-craft aka suggest fictitious meaning (words) to craft the spelling for reality among those who consent to it.
Every suggested word represents an affixed idol that deceives us to ignore being the temporary resistance (form) within the ongoing velocity (flow) of an energy based system.
It's all about testing our ideas of the World, and if we find something that works, we have a 'model' for it and can use that to do useful things.
That's all it is.
We know how to make steel in certain ways to do certain things in better. This doesn't mean that we won't find new ways to make steel in better ways, or even new alloys that do better in areas steel do best for the cost.
If we can't use the knowledge to do useful things, or if the knowledge doesn't lead to more avenues to find out how to do useful things, it is useless.
IDE'A, noun [Latin idea; Gr. to see, Latin video.] What if what you see aka sense aka perceive represents both inspiration for your growth and temptation for your loss of both mental/physical potential? What if reality represents a self sustaining system (internal loss/growth balance) that causes you as the free will of choice in response to that balance? What if your choice within balance (need/want) represents the consequence of growth/loss?
a) what are you making better for aka towards which goal? Also consider being form (life) within flow (inception towards death)...is life outcome oriented if death is predefined at inception or is life balance oriented; hence representing a responding free will of choice?
b) what if everything needed to make steel and everything needed to make steel better already exists; which implies that one cannot create "new"; only transmute out of ALL existence; based on ONEs understanding thereof.
Doesn't that imply choice of want vs not want evaluating it as such; while reasoning (versus conflict) with others who evaluate it as the opposite? What of ONE within ALL aka choice within balance cannot define value; only evaluate (ONEs choice) value (ALL balance)?
To a Lib trust science=trust Fauci.
Right up there with "There's consensus in the scientific community about" [insert name of issue here] as one of the dumbest statements people actually fall for.
But then again, I guess most people failed elementary and middle school science class. That or they forgot how the scientific method works...
‘Trust the science’ is an exercise in FAITH. “Science” these days is pretty much a religion. Real science is all about challenging and questioning everything.
SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"
Every ONE perceives ALL; every ONE knows ALL...comprehension of the other hand is what suggested scientism corrupts when consented to.
Sounds like a Vatican council