The downfall of science and the rise of intellectual tyranny

This is a great article pinpointing how simply the word "science" is used as a means of control. I thought it appropriate to post here as I've seen quite frequently "debunkers" or supposed "experts" in many arenas use "science" as their argument rather than any actual unflawed verifiable third party studies to back up their stance. It's a manipulative word, yet now a very empty word that people obviously fall prey to all the time.

Do read the entire article:
www.naturalnews.com...

(NaturalNews) The very reputation of so-called "science" has been irreparably damaged by the invocation of the term "science" by GMO lackeys, pesticide pushers, mercury advocates and fluoride poisoners who all claim to have science on their side. It seems that every toxin, contamination and chemical disaster that now infects our planet has been evangelized in the name of "science."

Where "science" used to be highly regarded in the 1950's, today the term is largely exploited by pharmaceutical companies, biotech giants and chemical companies to push their own for-profit agendas. Actual science has little to do with the schemes now being pushed under the veil of science.

To make matters even worse for the sciences, many so-called "science bloggers" have been revealed to have financial ties to the very same companies whose profits are shored up by their activities (www.ageofautism.com...)

Science is a much about myth and dogma as any religion. Unified Field Theory, Cosmology, Special Relativity are not really backed up by much. Darwinism is a vast oversimplification of a very complicated and mysterious process. Technocrats and humanists are just as deluded as religious zealots. The only thing modern man has over his 'caveman' anscestors is indoor plumbing.

some people think if you use authoritative tone and scientific sounding words maybe people will believe you more. if that fails there's always personal insults and racial injections.

Originally posted by filosophia
some people think if you use authoritative tone and scientific sounding words maybe people will believe you more. if that fails there's always personal insults and racial injections.

Hence the negative connotations associated with the word anti-authoritarian.

I think that there are two proponents that are slugging it out.

One the one hand scientists have failed to present complex ideas that have political or social effects to the person in the street. This failure has led to demagogues and politicos getting into the mix and misrepresenting everything provided it serves their agenda. Remember boffins (scientists) are seen as the back room as are all experts and specialists.

On the other hand we have those who know very little of science or who have little faith in science who will wish to comment on the major issues in the world and will argue against science. Again seeing all of the information available on the web supporting certain established scientific theories is growing on a daily basis yet some of the rudimentary questions asked are indicative that they have not reviewed a fraction of the freely available data.

The debunkers and sceptics have their place and we cannot test our ideas without them. Yet in certain issues there are extreme sceptics which are called denialists who cherry pick data only to support their particular stance. Strangely enough these people show evangelical tendencies.

I have deliberately left out the examples in a (possibly futile) attempt to stop the thread being derailed.

There are also issues of a lack of critical thought.


Don't forget the scientists were often the cleverest kids in school.

reply to post by tiger5


What irritates me is those scientists and credentialed individuals that have given more than enough proof to show the dangers in things like gmo's, vaccines etc. are made to be invisible and discredited, many times successfully, SIMPLY by the fact that they aren't some perceived authority like the FDA, CDC and so on. And People are preyed upon because of the tendency to trust in authority rather than their own critical thought because they've been led to believe that "authority" must know what's best.

I can see it as evangelical in the sense just like the Bible can't be questioned, neither can "authority".

The manipulation is also easy when a society is dumbed down and thinks, "who am I to question science" and then never go further to investigate what that supposed "science" is, because they think it's beyond their comprehension.

There is a place for skeptics and debunkers, but not for liars and deceivers.

There are scientific principles that seem immutable but have other theories that make these principles unworkable on a different plane. Then there is the academia of sciences that purports to be final resolution to archeological studies, for example, that are entirely questionable by common sense - Egyptology as an example. These are areas academically governed by dogma that is as factual as religious philosophy. I only wish I knew where to buy the throat lozenges that make it easier to swallow. I can't do it.

When someone comes along with a new theory that makes the pieces fit into place I have to work with that postulation for a long time, try it, try to debunk it, see how it works, how it plays, etc. Scientific will not see of that though, they will bully their dogmas into it and refuse to listen to any discussion that brushes against the grain of their discipline. They will be tyrannical about it. Might as well be discussing philosophy of life with a religious zealot. There really is little difference.

Oftentimes I am just not impressed by academic degrees. In some disciplines I believe there are those who "sell their souls" to earn those degrees.

Science often has more bullies than workable answers.

Originally posted by kalamatas

There is a place for skeptics and debunkers, but not for liars and deceivers.

Pity when the skeptics and debunkers are the ones that have been lied to and deceived. They will persist in a tyrannical rage and try to prevent formation of a new theory. There is a time to bring the skeptics and debunkers into action, but to be useful they also have to be open-minded and be honest about when there is even a slim possibility the theory could be workable.

Once formulated, with the aid of debunkers, then there comes the time for the hardcore test of the theory. It is counter-productive if that stage is enacted too early.

I see a big problem with this is not in the search for understanding, but with politics and money. If everybody got to see the world as it truly is then there would be a lot of outrage, disgust and shame on the path to enlightenment. There are clear conflicts of interest and competing arguments in many of the large social organisations. The excuse that the shareholders are more important than society and the environment is used time and time again. The lobbying and special interests in government show that it is no longer representative of the people, but representative of corporations. While science does have a lot of strength in understanding reality and the relationships that go on, it is still limited in confronting that reality for a more transparent and accountable system.

Not all "sciences" are created equal. Much of the social sciences is twiddle twaddle, for example. And even scientific induction is not as sure as mathematical induction..

I don't respect Scientists much these days.
It seems the latest batch from the last 20 years spend too much time trying to prove the bleeding obvious.
A lot of it just stuff that's pretty self explanatory or is common sense.
I guess even our Scientists have been dumbed down too.