In under 2 minutes, Allan Savory explains what is wrong with the so-called "scientific community" today.
Same problem as the medical industry and the legal industry. They all go to school to learn misinformation, are indoctrinated to believe the misinformation as truth, and then come out adamant that they are the "experts" because they have been to an indoctrination camp and you have not.
This is an excellent short video. It really hits the nail on the head.
This is not what the person in the video said, and it is not true.
Academic science doesn't teach "misinformation" in the way you are suggesting (at least not the "hard sciences"). While there are teachings of dogma (teaching specific interpretations or axioms as truth), in general what is taught in school as science is actually very good science (i.e. not mis/disinformation). The problem with science teaching, in addition to the dogma (which is a huge problem), is what this video addresses, which is trust.
Trust is the opposite of Critical Thinking. That isn't "misinformation", that is a primary brainwashing mechanism of The Matrix that is exploited in everything. It is the exploit of Science, History, Law, Medicine, Religion, Politics, and the worst offender, the Media.
Science students are taught to trust. They are also taught to think critically (unlike in most studies) BUT, they are only taught to think critically within the boundaries of trust and dogma. In other words, trust and dogma are taught to supersede critical thinking. That is the flaw in the teaching, not "mis/disinformation" in some general sense. Science teaching is actually very good. It is what is left out, or what is not allowed to be discussed because it falls "out of bounds" that are the flaws (and the exploits).
Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?
Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else" is the opposite of critical thinking. I call that mistaken understanding of what science is to be "misinformation" (or more accurately, "disinformation," since I believe it is purposely done by people who engineer false ideas for purposes of indoctrination).
It certainly is not truth.
Semantics, amigo.
This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.
Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.
A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.
Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. Why would we trust anyone (believe they are telling us TRUTH) EVER?!?
The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.
Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. Dogma comes from consensus. If you have dogma, you can have trust, because we trust "those many (consensus) smarter people who came before us and gave us our dogma." Dogma and trust are (in science) flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.
That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.
Allan Savory says it is, in his experience.
With regard to Savory's comment, I do not think there is a distinction.
I am not saying that ALL science is misinformation. I am saying that key ideas are indoctrinated so that the students will turn out to push an agenda that is not about truth.
This is true for science, journalism, law, medicine, and probably underwater basket weaving, too.
I agree. And the way that is done is via misinformation (done by accident) and disinformation (done on purpose).
Mr. A comes up with a scheme to push a false narrative. Maybe he is the writer of a textbook or the higher-level administrator of a think tank or someone in Tony Fauci's position. He is engaging in disinformation (purposeful lies taught as truth).
Mr. B believes Mr. A's disinformation, not having verfied it for himself (due to not having enough intellectual curiosity and ethics), and passes it on to others, such as students. Mr. B thinks it is true, but he is wrong. He is passing on misinformation (false ideas, but believing they are true). Nobody in the system is more dangerous than Mr. B. The left is full of Mr. B's.
Mr. C receives this information from Mr. B, also believing it, because why would the "expert" Mr. B lie? Mr. C then gets a certification from some institution that is run by Mr. A's and Mr. B's. Mr. C goes out into the world waiving his credentials for all to act in awe of what an expert he is. But Mr. C does not realize he has been deceived and is continuing the deception on others. Mr. C is also pushing misinformation.
The general public becomes convinced that the lie is truth because Mr. C is all over the TV box, the newspaper and magazine articles, the "credible" internet websites, the government talking heads, etc.
The real problem is Mr. A. We need to root out that motherfucker.
Allan Savory says that new Master's and PhD students are churned out ... and they come to work for him ... and they ALL think that "science" MEANS "peer reviewed ideas -- and NOTHING ELSE." That's what he said.
I call that misinformation/disinformation.
You can pick at semantics all you want, but that is my position.
Regardless, it is a problem, and we need to get back to truth.
We need a new Age of Enlightenment, when Western Europe was coming out of the Dark/Middle Ages and rediscovering the Greek ideas of logic and reason.
This is why Mr. A has been able to hide in the shadows and do his dirty work.
The Great Awakening, if it happens en masse, will be the Age of Enlightenment, Part 2. And it can only come via logic and reason, since that is the only thing that can defeat emotional garbage.
I said its a part, and I gave very clear qualifications for that statement. That is in no way at odds with Mr. Savory's statements. Even if he uses the word "all", that doesn't mean he wouldn't agree with my statements. People use words of exaggeration all the time to elaborate their pain or frustration. To think he means literally all as in there is nothing else is I believe creating context to support your argument, having nothing to do with the intent of his statements.
I explained that it was laid over on top of good science. That is a very clear, and I think extremely important distinction. Putting Savory in the middle is... I don't know what that is, but I don't see why it has anything to do with what I'm saying in this conversation. The reason it is such an important distinction is because making it a blanket statement, in addition to, from my perspective, being completely untrue, pushes beliefs in that direction. This causes confusion and anger and a multiplication of "blanketness" in other's beliefs. It is such blanketness in our beliefs (in general, in society) that drives division, which is the primary tool that keeps us in The Matrix.
Eh? I don't think so, at least not as stated. It's really more of taking good ideas (dogma are based on good ideas) and turning them into truth (the concepts and axioms that become dogma ARE good ideas, but they aren't truth). This truth restricts thinking. It is the restrictions on thought that cause bad science.
Your examples are about something completely different than what I am talking about. I am talking about what is taught in the classroom and the lab in science schools. You are talking about how disinformation is used on society (even of that society is the scientific establishment). In school we are taught things, and then we verify it's validity for ourselves in the lab. Now, I'm not saying there is no fuckery there, there is, in ways I have already described, but that is a sound process in and of itself. After the GA, science will still be taught the same way, just without boundaries.