For example, Quasars are key to debunk red shifts for distance. New telescope pictures shows visual evidence that Quasars data contradict red shifts for accurate distance. These pictures were ignored to keep the big band theory alive.
That’s objectively not true. Just look at climate change. Science has been corrupted and in fact is worse than churches these days.
You are discouraged from deviating with the orthodoxy in a way that is not present in Christianity, because it is accepted and normal to have disagreements.
We have entire denominations showing it is acceptable to disagree. Science is still monolithic so far and has not even recognized its own errors yet.
Of course, but people are aware of that and form their own, go to another one, or just stop going to churches and pray to God themselves. I mean look around at all the negative comments about the Catholic Church and tell me people don’t acknowledge there is corruption in religion.
Look at science though. What is the alternative? You either agree with the mainstream or you are ostracized. Where are the groups of scientists who are totally committed to the scientific method? To reproducibility?
At best you might start your own blog, but you are easily dismissed by academics, and why would the average person trust you over all the other scientists who have “consensus”?
I read an article not long ago about a scientist who submitted a paper to correct someone else. They were attacked and belittled, and they said that they could not fathom someone outright fabricating the data. There is not a great awareness of the corruption in science yet. People simply take it on faith that everyone is seeking to discover the truth and being as objective as possible.
The logical fallacy in some of the argument here is: "Some sciences have flaws, therefore all science must be condemned."
Just because some liberals have invaded climate science does not mean all climate science is bad, nor that all science is bad.
Calling science monolithic and implying it is universally in error is an invalid argument. Also, all science is not a monolithic cult.
Added: I see this thread's been invaded by liberals using the kind of critical race theory logic that says math is racist because it was created by old white males.
Where did I say “all science must be condemned”? I’m saying that science has been corrupted to the point that you can’t simply trust that the community is putting out honest material and self-correcting.
When I say monolithic, I mean there is no such thing as branches or subgroups in the scientific community because they are all expected to be adhering to the scientific method.
The problem is that there are many examples of falsifying data to get conclusions because of grants, status, political views, etc.
So when you say you are a scientist, you are not able to differentiate yourself from the scammers, since they also call themselves scientists and say they are adhering to the scientific method. How is the average person supposed to tell the difference?
That's hilarious. Science IS a process. That's exactly why skepticism exists. You don't TRUST the science; you use it to find information and solve problems. They just found evidence that shows vaxxers are retarded.
Yes and science should always be amenable to new evidence that rules out existing theories. Science does not establish truth as many misinformed people believe, it only shows our best understanding of the subject so far.
"Science is a process? Pfft, what a bunch of smoothbrains! Thinking there's some process to science...they'll probably call it the 'scientific method' or something stupid..."
SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] aka comprehension; which implies a process from perception over choice to comprehension.
believe that science is a process, and not an institution.
This represents a cleverly suggested inversion...the act of believing (affixed truth/false) ignores process (motion), which makes it into an institution (establishes, proclaimed). A process is only ever in processing...within motion.
English (Pig-Latin) represents a layer of inversion suggested upon Latin; which robbed it of all natural connotations; but Latin itself represents another layer between the fiction of words (suggestion by others) and the reality that doesn't use words to communicate itself to us (motion).
What we perceive represents inspiration; while words make affixed information out of it; which tempts us to ignore inspiration. Words brand that which moves; while ignoring the movement (change); and those who offer the words (idols) gain control over those who believe these fictitious definitions of reality.
Fiction is simply the ignorance of motion (reality); which is why all suggested beliefs (-isms) require consent by free will of choice. Only nature offers ALL; the ONEs within can only use ALL; not proCLAIM any without ignoring ALL.
A pity most people don't learn Latin.
Learning represent the inversion of learn/teach representing the same action when applied to the sustenance of self...to learn for self represents to teach self and vice versa. That's why education use false authority (teacher) as a gatekeeper for inspiration; while suggesting information to their followers (students).
All institutions operate on a chain of command; based on consent to false authority; while ignoring ONEs sole authority over self within ALL (free will of choice).
Not to mention germ theory.
For example, Quasars are key to debunk red shifts for distance. New telescope pictures shows visual evidence that Quasars data contradict red shifts for accurate distance. These pictures were ignored to keep the big band theory alive.
Do you have an article with more information? I'm intrigued.
The maths are made up to fit the theories.
That’s objectively not true. Just look at climate change. Science has been corrupted and in fact is worse than churches these days.
You are discouraged from deviating with the orthodoxy in a way that is not present in Christianity, because it is accepted and normal to have disagreements.
We have entire denominations showing it is acceptable to disagree. Science is still monolithic so far and has not even recognized its own errors yet.
Though I am a Christian, Churches are corrupt to the bone. That’s why there’s so many Christian Zionists.
Of course, but people are aware of that and form their own, go to another one, or just stop going to churches and pray to God themselves. I mean look around at all the negative comments about the Catholic Church and tell me people don’t acknowledge there is corruption in religion.
Look at science though. What is the alternative? You either agree with the mainstream or you are ostracized. Where are the groups of scientists who are totally committed to the scientific method? To reproducibility?
At best you might start your own blog, but you are easily dismissed by academics, and why would the average person trust you over all the other scientists who have “consensus”?
I read an article not long ago about a scientist who submitted a paper to correct someone else. They were attacked and belittled, and they said that they could not fathom someone outright fabricating the data. There is not a great awareness of the corruption in science yet. People simply take it on faith that everyone is seeking to discover the truth and being as objective as possible.
The logical fallacy in some of the argument here is: "Some sciences have flaws, therefore all science must be condemned." Just because some liberals have invaded climate science does not mean all climate science is bad, nor that all science is bad. Calling science monolithic and implying it is universally in error is an invalid argument. Also, all science is not a monolithic cult.
Added: I see this thread's been invaded by liberals using the kind of critical race theory logic that says math is racist because it was created by old white males.
Where did I say “all science must be condemned”? I’m saying that science has been corrupted to the point that you can’t simply trust that the community is putting out honest material and self-correcting.
When I say monolithic, I mean there is no such thing as branches or subgroups in the scientific community because they are all expected to be adhering to the scientific method.
The problem is that there are many examples of falsifying data to get conclusions because of grants, status, political views, etc.
So when you say you are a scientist, you are not able to differentiate yourself from the scammers, since they also call themselves scientists and say they are adhering to the scientific method. How is the average person supposed to tell the difference?
Translation - The MIT "researchers" agree with the skeptics but want to keep their degrees and jobs.
The real question is, why would MIT have researchers "infiltrating" anything?
https://i.imgur.com/Ykg4dxF.gif
Actual footage of Colonial Pipeline Darkside hack... OR - MIT infiltration? We'll never know!
They want that government grant money
So covid skeptics understand science better than the general polulation.
That's hilarious. Science IS a process. That's exactly why skepticism exists. You don't TRUST the science; you use it to find information and solve problems. They just found evidence that shows vaxxers are retarded.
Yes and science should always be amenable to new evidence that rules out existing theories. Science does not establish truth as many misinformed people believe, it only shows our best understanding of the subject so far.
"Orthodox data practices to promote unorthodox science." In other words... "you're wrong for.... reasons."
I love how they have the audacity to claim they "infiltrated" some sort of esoteric secret society. Infiltrate - aka - browsed reddit. slow clap
So MIT and the USPS have boasted on monitoring / spying / infiltrating.
The left is trying to flex to make the right feel powerless and thus decrease resistance / force complacence.
"Science is a process? Pfft, what a bunch of smoothbrains! Thinking there's some process to science...they'll probably call it the 'scientific method' or something stupid..."
Securing the continued survival of your genes was always part of the evolutionary process.
SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] aka comprehension; which implies a process from perception over choice to comprehension.
This represents a cleverly suggested inversion...the act of believing (affixed truth/false) ignores process (motion), which makes it into an institution (establishes, proclaimed). A process is only ever in processing...within motion.
English (Pig-Latin) represents a layer of inversion suggested upon Latin; which robbed it of all natural connotations; but Latin itself represents another layer between the fiction of words (suggestion by others) and the reality that doesn't use words to communicate itself to us (motion).
What we perceive represents inspiration; while words make affixed information out of it; which tempts us to ignore inspiration. Words brand that which moves; while ignoring the movement (change); and those who offer the words (idols) gain control over those who believe these fictitious definitions of reality.
Fiction is simply the ignorance of motion (reality); which is why all suggested beliefs (-isms) require consent by free will of choice. Only nature offers ALL; the ONEs within can only use ALL; not proCLAIM any without ignoring ALL.
Learning represent the inversion of learn/teach representing the same action when applied to the sustenance of self...to learn for self represents to teach self and vice versa. That's why education use false authority (teacher) as a gatekeeper for inspiration; while suggesting information to their followers (students).
All institutions operate on a chain of command; based on consent to false authority; while ignoring ONEs sole authority over self within ALL (free will of choice).