Allan Savory says it is, in his experience.

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.

With regard to Savory's comment, I do not think there is a distinction.

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.

And the way that is done is via misinformation (done by accident) and disinformation (done on purpose).

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.

Allan Savory says it is, in his experience.

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.

With regard to Savory's comment, I do not think there is a distinction.

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.

And the way that is done is via misinformation (done by accident) and disinformation (done on purpose).

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 with less boundaries.

Allan Savory says it is, in his experience.

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.

With regard to Savory's comment, I do not think there is a distinction.

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.

And the way that is done is via misinformation (done by accident) and disinformation (done on purpose).

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 with less boundaries.