Corruption....
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
Mar 08 00:21 Science is Modern Myth (Or, How “Arguable” Trumps “True”)
“Science does not have to be true to be accepted. It only has to be ‘arguable.’ In fact, it can be observed that the more arguable (the less plausible or logical) a scientific idea, the more funding it will require.”
What is science? It is modern myth, wrapped in technological diversion…
“But science is proven by experiment!” I hear you cry. This is, at least, what we are told to believe. If something that can be ‘experimented’ with – by playing with volumes of liquid, metal or gas – it therefore must be “true.” We even define the term with itself – it becomes “scientific,” which we use as a synonym for “accurate” or “true.”
But what if the central theory in which the experiments are based is false? Then the experiment does not reveal a deep truth, only a deepening confusion.
Let’s take an example from today’s scientific priesthood. “The Big Bang.” The start of everything. Is this a ‘scientific’ idea, or a myth?
Astronomers today believe, like the priests of old, that the universe formed from nothing – a null point – which somehow burst into being — everything! They call this hypothesis “The Big Bang.” To quote author and satirist Terry Pratchett, “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded!”
Is this a new idea? It is as old as human society. It is the exact mirror of the Biblical Genesis – ‘First there was nothing, and then God turned on the lights!’ So how did Big Bang Theory come to be regarded as science?
What is science? It is modern myth, wrapped in technological diversion…
“But science is proven by experiment!” I hear you cry. This is, at least, what we are told to believe. If something that can be ‘experimented’ with – by playing with volumes of liquid, metal or gas – it therefore must be “true.” We even define the term with itself – it becomes “scientific,” which we use as a synonym for “accurate” or “true.”
But what if the central theory in which the experiments are based is false? Then the experiment does not reveal a deep truth, only a deepening confusion.
Let’s take an example from today’s scientific priesthood. “The Big Bang.” The start of everything. Is this a ‘scientific’ idea, or a myth?
Astronomers today believe, like the priests of old, that the universe formed from nothing – a null point – which somehow burst into being — everything! They call this hypothesis “The Big Bang.” To quote author and satirist Terry Pratchett, “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded!”
Is this a new idea? It is as old as human society. It is the exact mirror of the Biblical Genesis – ‘First there was nothing, and then God turned on the lights!’ So how did Big Bang Theory come to be regarded as science?
Oh I'm well aware of that. I was just clearing up your bogus figure.
At least you try, unlike the straw-nut above.
Let's try to communicate. What are your objections to me attacking the paradigm? Certainly you must want it to get better.
Publish or perish buddy I can't stick around all evening waiting for you to gather some wits. I got drug esperiments to do.
I just noticed your sig. YJ is spot on about Time Mag being a worthless rag.
Science has the most corruption, actually, even more so than politics. At least in politics they have to pretend to be opposed to each other and try to get "elected" in their meet the new boss, same as the old boss kind of way. Scientists just do whatever the heck they want. Look at the infinite amount of corruption within drug testing in the pharmaceutical industry, as an example, an industry which happens to have the most money and so the "best" scientists too. Don't cure anything boys and girls, it might put you out of work, just find ways for us to live with things and buy your product. ahh, science, such a wondrous little thing.
Look Skatchie it's taken me years of patient work talking to these Big Bang cultists to try and get them to open up about thier diseases, and the mental abuse they must have undergone in the onioinvercities. I have given up all hope, they are simply too far gone for science to sucessfully intervene. We can only hope that exorcisms can prevail where observable evidence has failed. You'll just get them riled up, best to dim the light again and let them sleep some more. I think that's what they're doing in there.
Look Skatchie it's taken me years of patient work talking to these Big Bang cultists to try and get them to open up about thier diseases, and the mental abuse they must have undergone in the onioinvercities. I have given up all hope, they are simply too far gone for science to sucessfully intervene. We can only hope that exorcisms can prevail where observable evidence has failed. You'll just get them riled up, best to dim the light again and let them sleep some more. I think that's what they're doing in there.More scientists recommend floride for healthy teeth.
They'll just use holocaoust terms and call you a "denier" if you go against their dictatorship anyways.
Look Skatchie it's taken me years of patient work talking to these Big Bang cultists to try and get them to open up about thier diseases, and the mental abuse they must have undergone in the onioinvercities. I have given up all hope, they are simply too far gone for science to sucessfully intervene. We can only hope that exorcisms can prevail where observable evidence has failed. You'll just get them riled up, best to dim the light again and let them sleep some more. I think that's what they're doing in there.More scientists recommend floride for healthy teeth.
Textbook crackpot.
Last edited:
this is disappointing, i was expecting some sort of tinfoil hat comment or a flat earth society reference. You're getting lazy
this is pretty much it. I have been shaking my head for years about this but it just keeps going on. I hav ebeen called a denier about a dozen times on this forum. \every time I point out the link between that and holocaust denial and yet is persists and I'm the bad guy, funded by oil. lol
crackpot.......eccentric or unpractical person..................And what has that to do with corruption in science. I think you're trying to avoid the subject at hand. You're skating.
careful, this denier speak, they teach that at the university where Dr. Evil got his evil medical degree
Don't confuse the pharmaceutical industry with other branches of science. Those creating drugs for profit have a strong motive to fudge data. That is very far from real science. Real science is much more open when it comes to debating new ideas. Most new scientific discoveries or theories are subject to rigorous peer review. Claiming that "scientists just do whatever the heck they want" shows a profound misunderstanding of science and the scientific method as it is practiced worldwide.
One of if not the most contentious issues connected to science corruption is peer review. It is not at all trustworthy and there are many many stories of negligent sloppy peer review. We have access to thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting modifications to the Big Bang which cannot be reconciled with observation or application. Once a wild assumption like the Big Bang has passed the filters then every paper piggy backed on the original assumption in error are also contaminated by that original review. I am sure that in the coming years we will hear very much about the grossly bad science passed through to the text books by this horribly broken system. The motive for corruption in science is certainly not restricted to the pharmaseutical industries alone as the research granting mechanisms work across the whole science spectrum. It is not a question of scientist doing what ever the heck they want it is a far more a question of scientists doing and saying what the bearer of grant monies want.
Bar Sinister wrote "Don't confuse the pharmaceutical industry with other branches of science. Those creating drugs for profit have a strong motive to fudge data. That is very far from real science. Real science is much more open when it comes to debating new ideas. Most new scientific discoveries or theories are subject to rigorous peer review. Claiming that "scientists just do whatever the heck they want" shows a profound misunderstanding of science and the scientific method as it is practiced worldwide."
This is a very important observation; it calls for a clarification of the concept "scientist." Most often this term is used to describe a person preoccupied with an investigation of the physical world. That seems to be too broad. I suggest the following definition: "a scientist is a person who is not only preoccupied with physical matters but is also trustworthy." By "trustworthy" I mean "does not hide anything from other scientists."
Here is one example. A claim was made, about a year ago, that a desirable energy-producing device was invented in Italy. About a mounth ago a prototype was actually demonstrated at Bolognia University. The inventor, Professor Rossi, did not answer the question about the catalyst mixed with the nickel powder inside. One of my colleagues was present at the demonstration, standing next to it. He brought a portable instrument able to analyze nuclear radiation escaping from the device. But the demonstrator did not allow him to turn the instrument on. Because of this, I no longer think that professor Rossi is a scientist.
How would secrecy be justified by Rossi? He would probably refer to undesirable competition, or to possible future difficulties with patenting the device. I understand this. Secrecy is OK, but only up to the time at which the invention is publicly announced. A true scientist would not prevent my colleague from turning the instrument on; a true scientist would provide information about the chemical composition of the powder. He might be a good engineer but he is no longer a scientist, by my definition.
Ludwik
P.S. I have a master degree in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics.
P.S. Here is a link:
Hope Grows as Journals Weigh in on Italian Cold Fusion Breakthrough
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
I forgot to add the link with details. here it is:
Hope Grows as Journals Weigh in on Italian Cold Fusion Breakthrough
This is a very important observation; it calls for a clarification of the concept "scientist." Most often this term is used to describe a person preoccupied with an investigation of the physical world. That seems to be too broad. I suggest the following definition: "a scientist is a person who is not only preoccupied with physical matters but is also trustworthy." By "trustworthy" I mean "does not hide anything from other scientists."
Here is one example. A claim was made, about a year ago, that a desirable energy-producing device was invented in Italy. About a mounth ago a prototype was actually demonstrated at Bolognia University. The inventor, Professor Rossi, did not answer the question about the catalyst mixed with the nickel powder inside. One of my colleagues was present at the demonstration, standing next to it. He brought a portable instrument able to analyze nuclear radiation escaping from the device. But the demonstrator did not allow him to turn the instrument on. Because of this, I no longer think that professor Rossi is a scientist.
How would secrecy be justified by Rossi? He would probably refer to undesirable competition, or to possible future difficulties with patenting the device. I understand this. Secrecy is OK, but only up to the time at which the invention is publicly announced. A true scientist would not prevent my colleague from turning the instrument on; a true scientist would provide information about the chemical composition of the powder. He might be a good engineer but he is no longer a scientist, by my definition.
Ludwik
P.S. I have a master degree in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics.
P.S. Here is a link:
Hope Grows as Journals Weigh in on Italian Cold Fusion Breakthrough
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
I forgot to add the link with details. here it is:
Hope Grows as Journals Weigh in on Italian Cold Fusion Breakthrough
Last edited:
Could we want a more solid indication of the distrust of the scientific establishment (not science itself) when an accredited scientist indicates a perceived need to qualify the term scientist with the word trustworthy.
You're attributing to me material I did not write nor post. Please remove it or I'll discuss it with the moderators.
Fixed.
You're doing a bang up job, beave.
You're attributing to me material I did not write nor post. Please remove it or I'll discuss it with the moderators.