Science Says

a reply to: Nothin



It's Lancaster Uni pre-school. It's one of the best in the UK and won plenty of awards so not the typical nursery. It's general principles like why it rains, the solar system, what happens to sun at night etc...Good lecturers are able to translate such topics to young kids without distorting the science. The gravity one was done by explaing why they fall over and playing with marble runs....my Dad taught me physics equations and principles from a simlar age using a toy train.

An awful lot of science is play and experimentation. Faraday started the tradition of children's lectures in the UK. They've been running nearly 200 years and the christmas lecture series is on national TV and are aimed at 7 - 12 year olds but still highly informative to adults.

-There's a few hundred free Royal Institute children's lectures here: www.rigb.org...

Most Unis legally have to provide free lectures to the general public and run their own science Christmas lecture series for local school kids. The astrophysics ones the Uni I worked at were done by Don Kurtz who is a pioneer is Asteroseismology, discovering the existence of rapid oscillation Ap stars, runs the NASA SDO telescope and was President of the International Astronomical Union Commission on Variable Stars for decades so not sure why you think they would teach scietism instead of science.

originally posted by: dug88
Well, in honor of the Corbett report finally being given the axe on YouTube, I thought I'd make a thread on his video that got his channel taken down as it happens to be on a subject that's been really getting on my nerves.

In this video, Corbett breaks down the ways science is being used as propaganda and being elevated to a near cult status to guide modern life.

www.corbettreport.com...

I like science. Science is great. I spent many years of my life and not an insignificant amount of money to be able to say I am a scientist. I'd be the first person to say science is pretty great and has probably given us a better understanding of the world than just about any other way.of looking at things.

It's based on some pretty solid principles of observation and falsification. Which is tested using well defined sampling and observation methods and subject to review and falsification by peers.

Which is exactly not what the 'Cult of Science' that drives covid and many other modern day issues in which 'science' should be trusted with blind faith is not.

If someone is telling you to 'trust the science' they don't understand the first thing about science. Any scientist worthy of the name will never tell you science is infalliable, will never tell you a study is fact, will never tell you their science proves anything and would welcome any challenges to their data and findings in hope of coming as close as truth to possible.

That is science. Not arbitrary orders based on a study, not ultimate truths.

Science is and always has been nothing more than a logical way of observing the world and coming to conclusions based on said observations. It's a tool, not a religion. There is no 'trust the science' there's look at the data available and come to logical conclusions based on said data, if data changes, update conclusions.

Science, used as a tool to decree reality from fantasy by your royal majesty’s court of most elite and academic scholarly scientists. The common man could not challenge the ideas posed by the royal court as the distance between them and truth is too great, luckily we have those close to god ahem, the most academicly skilled scientists to be the mouth piece for those paying them.

Selectively choosing the experiments that fit their narrative, while ignoring the contrary evidence. This is why the peer-reviewers are so powerful. They can essentially ban anything they want from being published. You will never find an article published that shows the evidence against global warming, evolution, Vaccines, etc, because that is the paradigm they are protecting.

Thank you very much for this post.
I tottaly agree.

a reply to: bastion

Have you ever actually watched any of his videos? Everything i've seen him report on is referenced and cited. Every video on his site has links to all the sources of information he used in the video.

The guy is a loon who makes money spreading pseudo-science about 5G mind control and chemctrails making frogs trans.

I think you might be confusing Corbett with Alex Jones. I mean, Corbett does have a video where he mocks the 5g mind control conspiracies as misdirection, but I never seen the one where he pushes that theory.

Corbett is a self-appointed expert with no training or experience in the field. He cherry picks or simply makes things up to pretend there is a scientific basis for his political beliefs and wild conspiracies.

Again, I'm mot sure if I've ever heard him refer to himself as an expert in things. A journalist maybe, but not an expert. I've also seen more than once where he's gone back, admitted he made a mistake and corrected himself.

I dunno, I really feel like we're not talking about the same channel here.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

We have three ducks here that a friend decided he couldn't keep. My statement about how dumb ducks are is a perfect example of how science works/doesn't work:

One day shortly after we got some ducks, I was outside sitting down smoking a cigarette. When I finished, I tossed it onto a wet area. I then observed a chicken attempt to eat the burning stub. It picked it up and quickly released it, shaking it's head. It twisted its head back and forth as chickens do, then made another attempt to eat fire with the same result. That chicken then began to ignore the burning cigarette butt. Another chicken, however, decided to try and eat it, with the same results as the first, but then promptly ignored it as well. The other chickens also chose to ignore the cigarette butt and the flock proceeded on.

I thought it was funny watching the dumb chickens.

On my next break, a similar situation happened. I tossed a lit cigarette butt in a safe location, but this time it was a duck which decided to try and eat it. The duck had a similar experience as the chicken earlier in the day. The duck then attempted to eat the cigarette a second time, again with unpleasant outcome. Then, unlike the chicken, the duck continued to try and eat a burning cigarette butt for a third, fourth, and fifth time before I realized the dumb critter was going to burn its bill off before it learned that fire is not edible! At this point, I of course shooed the ducks away and stomped out the cigarette butt to prevent the duck from harming itself.

My conclusion from this experiment was that ducks are dumber than chickens. Chickens have shown precious little evidence of intelligence themselves outside of this experiment; ergo, ducks must be extremely dumb.

------------------------------

Yes, that was a scientific experiment, albeit an unscheduled one. I investigated the reaction of ducks and chickens to a burning cigarette butt. I duplicated the conditions as much as practical and observed how both species interacted with the cigarette butt.

I made my conclusions based on certain assumptions: the intelligence of the birds was evidenced by their reaction to inedible and potentially dangerous materials in their food environment. I assumed both species had similar hunger levels. I assumed both species saw their environment in similar ways.

Now, it would be very possible for me to twist that experiment. I could come out with a conclusion about environmental pollution from cigarette butts and its effect on chickens and ducks. I could have come up with conclusions about chickens and ducks having specific temperature requirements for an object to be edible. I could have made any number of conclusions, but the only logical and scientific conclusion was the relative intelligence level between chickens and ducks.

That's where we have issues with science. There are considerations in the scientific method that prevent inappropriate conclusions and sloppy processes. The primary one is peer review, which most people do not seem to understand. Peer review is exactly what is sounds like: peers (people with similar comprehension of the principles used) review (examine results and methodology, including repeating experiments) the experiments and see if they come up with similar results. If so, that lends credibility to the work; if not, that requires more evidence to make the conclusions.

Peer review is not getting an editor to publish a paper. That's publishing, and it comes with its own set of requirements... unfortunately those requirements can become somewhat political depending on the scientific integrity of the editors. Peer review is another process entirely, and a paper can be published for decades and never be peer reviewed. Even if a paper is peer reviewed, those reviews must be examined for internal bias as well as the paper.

Politics says that people will accept anything repeated to them long enough by authority figures. We call that "propaganda." The evidence that science has been co-opted by politics was evident since Global Warming was presented. Anyone who has ever typed or utter the phrase "the science is settled" has admitted, albeit likely unknowingly, that they are speaking politically and not scientifically. Science is never "settled." It cannot be "settled" and still remain science. That one phrase says "I am ignoring science and the scientific method for politics."

A prime example of this are Newton's Laws of Motion. Sir Isaac Newton developed the mathematics to describe motion by forces, and it worked well for many years. It eventually became "settled" that Newton was correct. However, Albert Einstein then found a condition where those Laws of Motion did not make sense, and through his work showed that the Laws of Motion are incomplete; they do not work at velocities near the speed of light. Had the present type of scientific drivel about something being "settled" been applied, we would not have GPS and space flight would not have advanced. I tend to think that even Einstein's Relativity will someday be seen as incomplete... it works, it works well, but it is not "settled."

Science does not work by a majority vote. Period. Until people understand that, they will never be able to use science.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I choose this nickname because one day, I suppose a duck farm lost a few, I started to see a lot of ducks. On the road, near the road, the next town one was one a bridge. Two times I slammed the brakes because one was waddling on the street and gave me the stare.

Finally one duck turned up at my terrace daily and quack around, first few times I thought there has to be a reason, like a dog wanting to draw attention for it's owner is in trouble. It would quack at the glass door and when I approached the door, it would waddle away a bit, look back and quack again. But would flee one I approached it slowly and calm. It was like it was making fun of me. (www.abovetopsecret.com...)

ThatDamnDuckAgain!

Back to topic. Your example was a great one for making your point because:
Using your example, your observation and conclusion, if you had peer reviewed it, wouldn't stand up to the scientific method. Because your test sample count is 1 for the duck. Other parameters weren't put into consideration like the distance between the beak opening and the nose, the ability to smell smoke and the ability to feel pain inside the beak. Size relation between beak length and the cigarette, where as a chicken would have closer contact with pain sensors in the throat, the duck is different in physiology (...etc).

To strenghten your other comment on peer reviews and that we never stop learning about any topic. It's like observing that water is soft and you even get it peer reviewed and every one even tests it and the conclusion is: water is soft.

And then someone decides to jump from a 200m cliff because water is soft, the claim falls into pieces because after discovering that water is hard like concrete on impact until the surface tension breaks down.

So it's now established, water is soft but the height matters! And then someone builds a contraption that catapults humans onto water, because fun and it's just 10m high. The contraption is peer reviewed and because it's the first of it's kind, the peer review with the current science gives green light. Because it's under 200m high.

First poor soul trying it, we now know it's not only the height but speed too. Then some real obese person jumps from 100m because it's safe and the result is the same, broken bones and death.

And then someone discovers a technique that allows obese persons to jump from 100m cliffs without dyin it they make pointy feet and toes so the surface tension is broken faster. Sporty guy half the weight from 200m tries it and dies anyways, we now discovered that something isn't linear.

That maybe above 100m, for every meter we go higher we need to add 1% of the total height on top if it. I am just making the numbers up.

In the meantime, some other person might conclude that you need a dense and hard body to jump into a soft liquid. The return conclusion is that a soft body can dive into hard liquids. Because obese people are soft. So the conclusion would be that a soft/obese person could jump into wet concrete from 200m and be okay.


Point being, the same you made, even peer review is subjected to the current Zeitgeist-bias and the knowledge.

If a genius inventor would build a time machine and get it peer reviewed after 20 years of solo work and discovering new physical laws, the peer reviewers would rip the conclusion mid air because their level of science doesn't support the viewpoint.

Because we don't know what we don't know.

Science and Religion(or Mythology) aren't that much different, for what is a religion when it uses science an knowledge an what is science when it believes in myth an creativity.

And yet both say dont tempt the odds, or you will be shot down by the gods.

I can believe in a higher being and I can also believe in science at the same time, that would not contradict itself.

I can believe in creationism and evolution, both do not exclude each other.

The word "religion" is coming from the latin word "religio". Today describes to be mindful, observant, diligent but earlier the meaning was quite a bit different. It ment to consider omen and instructions. Like literally looking for God in everything.

That naturally leads to bias and self-deceit, just like a scientist not considering thinking out of the box.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Science is the ongoing search for knowledge.

Religion is the ongoing search for wisdom.

They are not incompatible.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: mc_squared

Can you explain exactly which parts of my post do the things you describe and how exactly it is I'm doing this?

Basically what Bastion said, but I'll add some personal flavor:

This thread struck a nerve thanks to a conversation I had with a (now former) friend. It was more of an intervention really, because this friend was losing mutual friends left and right thanks to his…let's call them very "eccentric" beliefs.

These beliefs were formulated by people like Corbett who exploit other's limited understanding of otherwise scary-sounding science. Like for example someone who freaks out about 5G because it's EMF radiation, without understanding that a lightbulb also gives off plenty of EMF radiation.

This friend I've known since high school not only believes everything he hears from these so-called independent and alternative news sources, but of course posts about them religiously on facebook, demanding everyone else "wake up". It's caused a lot of our mutual friends to either drop him, make fun of him behind his back, or call me asking what was up. So, partly because of my sympathies to the conspiracy culture (being a long time ATS member), I decided to step in and try to stop the bleeding.

By stop the bleeding, I mean simply redirect his passion for these subjects to a more critical thinking approach. I literally asked him to consider using the scientific method to frame his thinking. I know that doesn't translate literally - you're not going to run lab experiments to test conspiracy theories - but you can still adhere to a lot of the same principles: for example making all effort to eliminate cognitive biases or simply testing some of your propositions with logic – if the "elites" created Covid to destroy the economy, why exactly do they want to destroy the economy – isn't a strong economy exactly how they obtain all their supposed power & wealth (because they siphon from it daily), etc.

All I got in response was blank stares and conspiracy cliches that indicated just how far gone he was, and how incapable he was of thinking for himself anymore:

"it’s all about control!"

He kept referring to science as a "they". I implored him to understand that science is not some institution or authority, it's just a construct for processing information in a way that focuses on logical outcomes above inherent biases and beliefs. I sounded exactly like you in the OP trying to simplify it down, or TheRedneck in one of the responses here - explaining to him that anyone who follows the scientific method can effectively be a scientist themselves. (Even as I type this now, it's making me laugh that we can be so on the same page on one thing, yet reading entirely different books otherwise).

Anyway, all I got back was more cliches about how science is a dogmatic cult, anyone who follows it is just brainwashed, blah blah blah. So essentially the same thing this thread immediately devolved into.

Why am I telling this story?

Because I see him in almost every single ATS member these days, especially in this thread. All these people who think they're entirely woke because they don't trust authority, don't follow MSM or the proclaimed experts, etc.

But none of them seem to actually invoke any principles of scientific thinking when they say stuff like "do your own research". They just trust charlatans on youtube instead, flock to anything that supports their political views, and revel in propaganda that reminds them how suave they are for sneering at the official story. They don't apply any self-discipline or skepticism to anything that seduces their "gut instinct", or makes them feel smarter than the average bear.

So thanks for the very accurate definition of science here, but leveraging that immediately into speculative and paranoid machinations about cults of authority is like providing a definition, and then following with an example of the precise opposite of that definition (hence the irony).

I've come to some personal conclusions about 21st century conspiracy theorists. It's not about truth, it's not about "real science". It's not about denying ignorance or even uncovering what's hidden behind the curtain. It's simply that some people can't stand being told what to do.

I don't know if this is a repressed childhood thing or what. But it explains why conspiracy theorists pretty much automatically reject anything if it comes from an authority figure, so basically everything is a conspiracy now. It's also why ATS has become little more than a conservative b!tch-fest complaining about liberals shoving everything down their throat. It's why asking someone to wear a piece of cloth over their face is apparently a massive affront to their freedom.

The mask thing especially makes me chuckle – you would think conspiracy theorists would have loved this idea once. You mean I can conceal my identity from government surveillance that actually intrudes on my personal liberties? How many of those Capitol rioters would not be in jail right now if they simply followed the public health order lol.


Anyway, I'll just say one more thing about my story above – out of desperation I eventually told that friend how many life-long friends he was losing over this, and he didn't care. That's because he exclaimed he was gaining dozens of new friends on facebook who agreed with him. He was pretty much drunk off all the "like-minded" comments he was getting.

And that's what I see so much in ATS now – all these people, like those on this thread congratulating each other for not following the science "cult" - all the while perpetually reinforcing their confirmation biases amongst each other, and viciously circling the wagons against anyone who might dare intrude on them.

You know what that looks like to an outsider?

It looks like a friggin' cult.

a reply to: TheRedneck
I agree!

Carl Sagan had to say this about science and religion




His last few sentences are very interesting. I am sure he was aware about it when he asked, not literally quoted:

Who is more humble, someone that is open to all possibilities
or someone who says everything in this book must be considered the litteral truth and never mind the failability of the people involved in writing this book.

Because that's exactly the situation we see today in science. Of course it has been verified and tested so that makes the difference. Since a science book should only contain the truth that we can accept as truth, based on repeatedly challenging of those truths through experimental science.

But you can state the truth by leaving some parts out. If I tell you someone ate your breakfast, I am not lying if I ate it. I just left out that part

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I am one of those who believes the entire book is infallible truth... as interpreted by those writing it and in the context of the times. That last part is key... there are many cases where visions in the Bible are of necessity interpreted through the knowledge of those writing it. John of Patmos, for example, knew nothing about atomic bombs, and likely could not even comprehend an atomic bomb. But he still wrote what he saw as closely as his experiences allowed. Someone from the year 1800, if they could see a television today, would wonder about the people and places captured inside that magic portal. We understand that it is nothing more than lights arranged in a large grid and able to show different colors, in communication with computers that deliver the information. There's not really people inside that portal.

The Bible also does not sanctify all actions. Much of it is historical, recording events that may or may not have been to God's liking and for any one of a myriad of different reasons. Just accepting that someone did this and claiming that we should all do this as well is a short-sighted and simplistic view of a complex tale. Only Jesus was perfect, and there are a few times that even He was sorely tempted.

In short, the purpose of the books is to give guidance on how to deal with the challenges of life and society. Science does not do that. Science gives guidance on why and how things happen. Religion does not do that. I have read theories that Moses' parting of the Red Sea was due to an extraordinarily strong wind that revealed a shallow section. OK, I have no problem with that. The scientific reasoning behind how the water managed to part does not change the fact that it did indeed part as recorded, nor does it change the fact that the parting, by whatever mechanism that was used, was the result of God decreeing it would happen.

Science can co-exist with religion, as long as science does not become the religion. That's the real issue we have today.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I am one of those who believes the entire book is infallible truth... as interpreted by those writing it and in the context of the times. That last part is key... there are many cases where visions in the Bible are of necessity interpreted through the knowledge of those writing it. John of Patmos, for example, knew nothing about atomic bombs, and likely could not even comprehend an atomic bomb. But he still wrote what he saw as closely as his experiences allowed. Someone from the year 1800, if they could see a television today, would wonder about the people and places captured inside that magic portal. We understand that it is nothing more than lights arranged in a large grid and able to show different colors, in communication with computers that deliver the information. There's not really people inside that portal.

The Bible also does not sanctify all actions. Much of it is historical, recording events that may or may not have been to God's liking and for any one of a myriad of different reasons. Just accepting that someone did this and claiming that we should all do this as well is a short-sighted and simplistic view of a complex tale. Only Jesus was perfect, and there are a few times that even He was sorely tempted.

In short, the purpose of the books is to give guidance on how to deal with the challenges of life and society. Science does not do that. Science gives guidance on why and how things happen. Religion does not do that. I have read theories that Moses' parting of the Red Sea was due to an extraordinarily strong wind that revealed a shallow section. OK, I have no problem with that. The scientific reasoning behind how the water managed to part does not change the fact that it did indeed part as recorded, nor does it change the fact that the parting, by whatever mechanism that was used, was the result of God decreeing it would happen.

Science can co-exist with religion, as long as science does not become the religion. That's the real issue we have today.

TheRedneck

I do believe you are taking a literal History book which is full of science and social conscience and turning it into a diety based manipulation dynamic.

The cool thing about reading books is everyone gets to interpret it differently.

When the history book some call the bible tells you not to eat unclean animals its telling you to how to surely avoid the pleomorphic bacteria we call covid-cold....wakey wakey.

a reply to: one4all

When the history book some call the bible tells you not to eat unclean animals...

Thank you for the example. The Bible never said I was not to eat unclean animals. It said the Jewish people were not to eat unclean animals in the covenant with God. I'm not Jewish, and Jesus established a new covenant anyway.

Science may some day discover why that covenant was established, but whatever is discovered it does not change the covenant with God.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: dug88

When i was growing up, my grandfather had an excellent collection of astronomy textbooks. I studied the solar system and the constellations.

I knew there were 9 planets.

Now Pluto isnt. And i know there are 8 planets.

Thats how i understand science.

Very good analogy, but whether there are 8 or 9 planets is simply esoteric compared to the "science" of bumbling bureaucrats that affect your daily life. We have scientists paid by corporations to come up with a problem that doesn't exist and then the solution in order to make money. The solution is known before the problem. That is how you control people.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: one4all

When the history book some call the bible tells you not to eat unclean animals...

Thank you for the example. The Bible never said I was not to eat unclean animals. It said the Jewish people were not to eat unclean animals in the covenant with God. I'm not Jewish, and Jesus established a new covenant anyway.

Science may some day discover why that covenant was established, but whatever is discovered it does not change the covenant with God.

TheRedneck

I just told you why.....and its a sin to wait for science.

That covenant was established because dirty animals carry the pleomorphic bacteria we are dealing with.

There is no alternative and never was.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Yes, I have seen those posters back where I used to live, along with anti-trump signs and Go Biden, bull crap, too. I agree that they are just spewing what they are being told, in fact most of them have taken the Covid vaccine in the name of science, so yeah I would consider them "science" followers. The stuff they spew is when they take the vaccine and wear their little masks it's for the greater good! Another creepy saying. I will be honest the whole mask thing never made me feel safe, it made me feel very odd, and out of place. Those same people almost two years ago were against masks, and overnight because of their Fauci, all of a sudden you were the problem if you didn't wear a mask. I can go on with the mask stuff because some of the stuff they are posting on the alt-left sites about masks are so odd and extremely disturbing.