Saiditors, I've debated what "science" means with one who's allegedly superior with "psience", and others on defining "socialism". I present this matter forward for your feedback on these two processes. If I'm wrong I'll apologize and learn, or they will learn and maybe finally shut up.

submitted by JasonCarswell from (self.AskSaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Waking up to the Climate Change scam was the most difficult truth for me to come around on, by far. (Next hardest was the Holocaust and actually looking into the "Nazi" counter-narrative, which now seems so obvious, but I was afraid to look.)

I agree with everything you said on a basic skeptic level, though I find it more than a little one sided and extreme. To me science can be used for good and bad, so some medicine is good, and some not. Particle physics the same. Space is fascinating, but NASA has a dark side too.

I didn't phrase my request specifically enough, but I was looking for more of a comparison between faith in corporate scientism and transparent skepticism with open-science, and/or, something about the scientific method and the necessity to be able to refute it all, and that every experiment must be repeatable and the accumulation of failures ultimately lead to the truth that remains. At least, that's what I think the discussion was about. To be honest, now I just don't care. He's free to wallow in ignorance clear of me.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

sciencism has been part of the oligarchs plan for some time now.

It boils down to experts/scientists (modern priest class) telling the public what to think.

The priest class was controlled by whomever ruled at the time, in the same way. The obedient priests were promoted to positions of power. Honest and decent priests were marginalized.

The same basics apply to modern academia.
Publish climate change fraud, or create deleterious vaccines and you'll be given awards, and asked to speak at academic conferences, publish articles, etc.
Publish scientifically legitimate climate science, or vaccine safety concerns and you're defunded, and made into a pariah.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.

Some guy in his garage can prove them wrong and be utterly ignored, suppressed, patents stolen by military or gov, or simply rubbed out. Science has sold out for the most part. All the Universities, think tanks, etc are bought and sold. Open-science is a rarity - yet it exists as a movement and I really hope it grows.

It's pretty much as illustrated by the "In Shadow" animated short.