Science is not done by consensus, as the Left thinks it is. Science is done by investigation and studying what is occurring during, before, and coming in our lifetimes.
Yes, scientific breakthroughs are really just breaking through the erroneous consensus. Historical examples of widely agreed upon ideas that were gainsaid by real science are the earth-centric model, medical leeching, the impossibility of aviation, luminiferous aether etc, etc
My favourite is Continental Drift. Alfred Wegener thought that the continental sheets moved but the scientific establishment did not. After some decades, Wegener died before his ideas were finally accepted.
I think it was max Planck who said that science advanced by one dead scientist at a time meaning you need to wait for "the consensus" to die before your new idea can be adopted.
Accepted science could be boiled down to consensus, but the fact of the matter is that it's a very incestuous community that doesn't accept criticism or alternative/conflicting findings and don't even spend the time to reproduce the results enough times to prove the methodology and conclusions as sound.
Science requires active investigation and challenging your own beliefs of the world as well as others'. If you believe you're always right, you haven't truly learned or understood the scientific method.
I would say these people haven't truly learned nor understand the scientific method, because they simply can't handle criticism, and they refuse to take an academic look at themselves and criticize themselves properly.
The "talking head" clearly was phrasing his questions that way to pull out answers from the other guy.
He didn't make any claims. Just repeated what was being reported and phrased it into questions. Like a "this is what people say about climate change, what do you say?" style of questioning.
Mr. Talking Head clearly agrees that it's bullshit. Notice the complete lack of interrupting once the other guy started talking. Also, the fact he didn't seem flustered at all, but instead gleeful every time he asked his next question. He knew exactly who he was bringing on and what he was going to say.
Funny, all I heard was the exuberance in his voice that got greater with each question he asked, and all I saw was the smirk on his face after each question he posed. Almost like he loved the answers he was getting.
you are correct..... the media guy WAS serving up specific questions and the scientist was hitting crushing the global warming narrative... it's funny to see it on second view how happy he was that the narrative was getting dismantled!
Hmm, I'm always ridiculed when I say that man has little influence on the climate. When they keep banging on me on this issue, I just ask them "so we are also controlling the weather?".
Although what Piers says here is correct, I believe he is a state/intelligence asset who's job is to make the "truth" movement look bad by association. During Covid for example he called for people to burn down the offices of MPs.
His brother Jeremy Corbyn also used to be leader of the "opposition" party, who did a fantastic job of making them unelectable.
RT is not leftist media. They knew exactly who they were putting on and what his organization believes!
Oh, great! Thanks for that clarification!
Yeah, RT is based Russian news media. I follow them on Gab and Odysee.
Science is not done by consensus, as the Left thinks it is. Science is done by investigation and studying what is occurring during, before, and coming in our lifetimes.
Yes, scientific breakthroughs are really just breaking through the erroneous consensus. Historical examples of widely agreed upon ideas that were gainsaid by real science are the earth-centric model, medical leeching, the impossibility of aviation, luminiferous aether etc, etc
My favourite is Continental Drift. Alfred Wegener thought that the continental sheets moved but the scientific establishment did not. After some decades, Wegener died before his ideas were finally accepted.
I think it was max Planck who said that science advanced by one dead scientist at a time meaning you need to wait for "the consensus" to die before your new idea can be adopted.
One dead lab assistant, much as aviation advances over the bodies of dead aircrew and passengers.
Thanks!
Accepted science could be boiled down to consensus, but the fact of the matter is that it's a very incestuous community that doesn't accept criticism or alternative/conflicting findings and don't even spend the time to reproduce the results enough times to prove the methodology and conclusions as sound.
Science requires active investigation and challenging your own beliefs of the world as well as others'. If you believe you're always right, you haven't truly learned or understood the scientific method.
I would say these people haven't truly learned nor understand the scientific method, because they simply can't handle criticism, and they refuse to take an academic look at themselves and criticize themselves properly.
This certainly sounds like what I wanted to say, thanks.
love it - scientists are on the gravy train- we need more of this!
Love it! I wish they had recorded a bit more of the interview because it sounded like he was just about to ridicule the anchor.
Agree! “Ha ha…well they’re on the gravy train…” Wish I heard the rest of that comment! And the talking head was about to lose his mind!
The "talking head" clearly was phrasing his questions that way to pull out answers from the other guy.
He didn't make any claims. Just repeated what was being reported and phrased it into questions. Like a "this is what people say about climate change, what do you say?" style of questioning.
Mr. Talking Head clearly agrees that it's bullshit. Notice the complete lack of interrupting once the other guy started talking. Also, the fact he didn't seem flustered at all, but instead gleeful every time he asked his next question. He knew exactly who he was bringing on and what he was going to say.
Hehe - more of this please... I look forward to the vindication of a long period of people in real life not listening...
That interview went 100% to plan.
The interviewer was just "disagreeing" as a tactic to bring out further information.
Pseudo science- created to make up the numbers to suit the fake narrative.
This is beautiful. I hope media propagandists are all fired for their continuous lies.
if you listen closely, you can hear the media mouthpiece's asshole slam shut!
Funny, all I heard was the exuberance in his voice that got greater with each question he asked, and all I saw was the smirk on his face after each question he posed. Almost like he loved the answers he was getting.
you are correct..... the media guy WAS serving up specific questions and the scientist was hitting crushing the global warming narrative... it's funny to see it on second view how happy he was that the narrative was getting dismantled!
Lovely bit.
Hmm, I'm always ridiculed when I say that man has little influence on the climate. When they keep banging on me on this issue, I just ask them "so we are also controlling the weather?".
Silence...
Although what Piers says here is correct, I believe he is a state/intelligence asset who's job is to make the "truth" movement look bad by association. During Covid for example he called for people to burn down the offices of MPs.
His brother Jeremy Corbyn also used to be leader of the "opposition" party, who did a fantastic job of making them unelectable.