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.
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.
Wrong.
Allan Savory was not talking about society, in general. He was specifically talking about Masters and PhD students -- graduated from "science schools" -- coming to him to work for him, and having been taught that "science" means "peer reviewed agreement, and nothing else*.
These newly-graduated "experts" are clueless because they were indoctrinated to be clueless.
Why do you keep putting Savory in the middle? I don't understand.
I said your examples were about something completely different. To be fair, I just went back and re-read it and I was wrong about that statement However, I think it is incorrect for a different reason.
I have been through the science degree process far more times than the average "scientist." In my case I have the added benefit of having done it over the course of a few decades, so I have direct experience in how teaching has progressed from the 90s to now. I myself have teaching experience, and I know how things are taught, both in a lab and in a classroom. I also have industry experience and I know how it is practiced.
While I can't say that your scenario is impossible or has never happened, I can say that in general it is not true, at least not at the good schools. It is very common that the people who teach the courses are the same people who write the books. That takes out several layers of your example. While not ubiquitous, for me it was fairly common. From there, it is very, very common that a great deal of the teaching is followed up with lab experiments. It is really hard to create fraud in a lab experiment, especially because these same experiments are done over, and over, and over again, by millions of people.
In my experience the fraud is what is left out, in the teaching of trust, and in the taking axioms and teaching them as truths.
Please stop bringing Mr. Savory back into this. I agree with what he said completely, just not his "100%" statements of it. That, I assert, and am trying to explain, is not the truth. I honestly don't understand why you would think he is saying the Truth about such a blanket statement. Your trust in his words as Truth, and continually pushing it as such, even though they are almost certainly exaggeration for the purposes previously stated, are exactly the type of pushing of fraud you and I are both talking about as being bad...