There are fields, where money/corruption does not YET run 100% and supreme. Where hard-core proof is what (eventually wins). Maths being the most closest to this, but even that is not perfect.
In the sense that the falsifiable knowledge is wrong, outside of maybe psychiatry, negligible. We're finally beginning to get beyond the Theory of Relativity, these days, FI, and some of the experiments could have been done in a garage, just as well as a fancy lab (and important aspect if this to understand is that each well-proven theory is closer to actual reality than the last one, not the ultimate answer). If largely wrong physical systems were proposed, they'd be shredded to pieces. There's a great degree to which it is nearly impossible to make believable lies about the physical sciences.
It's also important to understand that in many fields, common knowledge isn't the standard. FI, the Big Bang was gone with as it fit the bill well enough for a long time, and helped to figure other things out. But, it's never been 100%, or even 90%, accepted, by any amateur or professional in any field that has to think about the universe' past. It was accepted that it wasn't accepted, though, with few zealots or anything about it. That happens in other sciences, too. There are many open questions, and a lot of the time, they go with the accepted thing, if it helps further their work, without necessarily 100% endorsing the accepted thing.
In the sense that they omit much that they don't understand, or which the materialist worldview denies, OTOH, 100% they are making excuses, and molding people with open minds to close them. That's one if the reasons there is a bathtub curve in belief in a creator, in STEM. Those with the talent to go far get beyond the BS, while those unable to get mired in it.
Personally, having looked at, recently, germ and terrain theory, I'm not prepared to discount viruses. There is still too much that terrain theory doesn't cover, that modern germ theory does, too much evidence for viruses, too little evidence against. That said, if we modeled public policy around terrain theory, and gave it it's due, we would all be much healthier, and probably be able to make serious progress in real health care, rather than making people sickly for pharma profits. The truth isn't in the middle, so much as both could be useful stepping stones towards getting closer to a single theory that handles the cases both clearly get right.
Thats the thing about theories they are only good until they find something to replace. Einsteins theory of relativity only works if there is one black hole. Scientists believe there are more than one black hole and causes the theory to break but no one wants to talk about it. Another example of science being based on bad science.
It's easy - take a science and look if you could replicate experiments that prove or disprove basic theories of given science by yourself. Not necessary you have to do all that things in reality, but just evaluate a possibility of doing it by yourself, say on kitchen or in the garage.
With physics, chemistry and around it is pretty easy. Even if a science don't have absolute correct theory, final truth about our world, but existing theories give good predictions and proved by replicateable experiments, then you could be perfectly safe to accept that knowledge, even if it is incomplete, it is already useful and practical. It works.
Things get complicated when not only you can't replicate science experiment (for whatever reason, it does not matter), but other independent scientists didn't or ccouldn't replicate it, then there you should be careful. Regardless of the reason you or other scientists can't replicate experiment - "too expensive", "it depends on the researcher", "incomplete description", "you don't have to, that experts know better" and so on, it is a place for shenanigans and manipulation.
And the last and worst grade - if it is impossible to set a controlled experiment and get reproduceable results, like in "climate science", "sociology", "economy", "history" or whatever than it is 100%, absolute, total bullshit, and not a science at all.
I've been wondering this a lot lately. How do we know what to believe anymore? And how long have they been lying? How much "science" is made up?
Idk, maybe the moon landing was a fake after all. Maybe the US did play a part in the downing of WTC after all.
We know they lied about the origin of Covid. We know they lied about the election fraud. We know they are lying about J6. We know they lied about the safety and efficacy of the shots. We even now know the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK.
I could go on but my point is, do we know the truth about anything? Were there really space aliens at Roswell? Are they hiding a UFO at area51?
At this point, I don't believe anything "experts" that are on TV or in DC say. Nothing.
The whole point of "science" is that you can't just make it up.
If you do the experiment, and it gives the results you expect, then you know that a phenomenon exists and can be replicated. It doesn't matter who tells you what, what matters is what you know.
Eric Weinstein has been beating this drum for a while... That we are in a great stagnation for the past 50 years in physics. He goes into all the problems with academia and why our smartest people are wasting their efforts on string theory instead of doing real physics.
But -- is there any real physics left to do? String theory is obviously an abomination, but physics emerges from experiments, and I'm not sure there are any interesting experimental results out there --even the new 'superconductor' thing is a bit, like, whatever.
Since general relativity has run dry, it is perhaps time to start looking for a paradigm shift outside of the universe as we currently understand it. We should be employing every theoretical physicist to discover a unified theory.
You take away the computers and everything around you could have been made in the 1970s.
Not everything is false. Newton's Laws, Thermodynamics, Maxwells equations, mathematic proofs, etc. are true.
What is needed is a fresh look, maybe Randall Mills Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics is correct?
The same goes for nutrition and disease, it is increasingly apparent that our modern diet of processed food is causing all kinds of diseases and slowly killing us. We know the proper human diet.
Maybe the Truth is staring us right in the face, but our training has made us blind to it.
Others suggest that to distract one from being DEGREE aka portion (life) within progression (inception towards death). Consenting to stand under (understand) others tempts one to ignore degree of elevation.
a passing grade
GRADE (Hebrew; descend)...being implies ascend (life) within descend (inception towards death). Others tempt one to seek passing grades, while ignoring to grow self.
organs of learning
a) OR'GAN (natural instrument of action by which some process is carried on)...reaction represents the instrument within the process of enacting sound.
If partial perception adapts to perceivable whole; then that implies to learn/teach self and vice versa...anything suggested by others tempts one to ignore self discernment.
b) perceivable represents organ (momentum aka balance); ones perception within represents instrument (choice).
who controls
a) control represents restriction, being implies as "free" will of choice within "dom"inance of balance aka free-dom.
b) "who" refers to person; while person implies per (by) sonos (sound)...sound controls who-ever freely chooses resonance or dissonance within.
They can't prove things on paper because the math is wrong. The math is named after a man, but it's not done the same way he did it. Making it impossible to move forward to the next step.
Just because you're gate keeping it, doesn't make it untrue.
Stop with the internet bullshit. I said that I don't believe you, but that I will look into it. There are a lot of things that I didn't believe until I looked into it.
Partial odds (life) within even whole (inception towards death).
taught about science
SCIENCE (Latin scio; to know; to perceive) implies learning/teaching self by adapting to perceivable...consenting to suggested scientism tempts one to ignore self for others.
Understanding (suggested) represents the inversion of knowledge (perceivable) and ones submission to "stand under" another.
is wrong
a) one cannot suggest others what "is" without ignoring that everything perceivable "was" before any suggestion could be shaped within.
b) right (want) vs wrong (not want) tempts one to ignore change (need). Nature isn't right or wrong...it was change before those within can reason against each other what's right or wrong.
disinformation
a) each suggested information tempts one to ignore all perceivable inspiration, hence ones consent to suggested information representing self imposed disinformation.
b) being implies form (life) within flow (inception towards death)...others suggest IN-FORM-ATION (within form through action) as the inversion thereof.
c) IN-SPIRIT-ATION implies being within SPIRIT (Latin spiro; to breathe aka adaptation of form to flow) of action. Adaptation implies reaction (choice) within action (balance aka momentum of motion).
belief is false
To believe implies to consent to suggested information as "truth"; which allows others to contradict it as "false". Why? Because consenting to suggested implies holding onto it, which tempts one to ignore being within motion...motion represents the need to let go and the temptation to want to hold onto.
In short...nature doesn't communicate truth or false; it communicates momentum of motion aka change.
There are fields, where money/corruption does not YET run 100% and supreme. Where hard-core proof is what (eventually wins). Maths being the most closest to this, but even that is not perfect.
The worst are:
In the sense that the falsifiable knowledge is wrong, outside of maybe psychiatry, negligible. We're finally beginning to get beyond the Theory of Relativity, these days, FI, and some of the experiments could have been done in a garage, just as well as a fancy lab (and important aspect if this to understand is that each well-proven theory is closer to actual reality than the last one, not the ultimate answer). If largely wrong physical systems were proposed, they'd be shredded to pieces. There's a great degree to which it is nearly impossible to make believable lies about the physical sciences.
It's also important to understand that in many fields, common knowledge isn't the standard. FI, the Big Bang was gone with as it fit the bill well enough for a long time, and helped to figure other things out. But, it's never been 100%, or even 90%, accepted, by any amateur or professional in any field that has to think about the universe' past. It was accepted that it wasn't accepted, though, with few zealots or anything about it. That happens in other sciences, too. There are many open questions, and a lot of the time, they go with the accepted thing, if it helps further their work, without necessarily 100% endorsing the accepted thing.
In the sense that they omit much that they don't understand, or which the materialist worldview denies, OTOH, 100% they are making excuses, and molding people with open minds to close them. That's one if the reasons there is a bathtub curve in belief in a creator, in STEM. Those with the talent to go far get beyond the BS, while those unable to get mired in it.
Personally, having looked at, recently, germ and terrain theory, I'm not prepared to discount viruses. There is still too much that terrain theory doesn't cover, that modern germ theory does, too much evidence for viruses, too little evidence against. That said, if we modeled public policy around terrain theory, and gave it it's due, we would all be much healthier, and probably be able to make serious progress in real health care, rather than making people sickly for pharma profits. The truth isn't in the middle, so much as both could be useful stepping stones towards getting closer to a single theory that handles the cases both clearly get right.
Thats the thing about theories they are only good until they find something to replace. Einsteins theory of relativity only works if there is one black hole. Scientists believe there are more than one black hole and causes the theory to break but no one wants to talk about it. Another example of science being based on bad science.
The physical sciences have reduced to pragmatism, not truth
Isn't there effectively no evidence for viruses other than the occasional cluster of people getting sick?
What is it that you would like terrain theory to cover?
Global warming... although that's not even science.
It's easy - take a science and look if you could replicate experiments that prove or disprove basic theories of given science by yourself. Not necessary you have to do all that things in reality, but just evaluate a possibility of doing it by yourself, say on kitchen or in the garage.
With physics, chemistry and around it is pretty easy. Even if a science don't have absolute correct theory, final truth about our world, but existing theories give good predictions and proved by replicateable experiments, then you could be perfectly safe to accept that knowledge, even if it is incomplete, it is already useful and practical. It works.
Things get complicated when not only you can't replicate science experiment (for whatever reason, it does not matter), but other independent scientists didn't or ccouldn't replicate it, then there you should be careful. Regardless of the reason you or other scientists can't replicate experiment - "too expensive", "it depends on the researcher", "incomplete description", "you don't have to, that experts know better" and so on, it is a place for shenanigans and manipulation.
And the last and worst grade - if it is impossible to set a controlled experiment and get reproduceable results, like in "climate science", "sociology", "economy", "history" or whatever than it is 100%, absolute, total bullshit, and not a science at all.
Thank you, this is the correct answer.
Everything you are taught can be verified; if it can't, it's not true. End of story.
I'm all for questioning but it's easy to fall into the Flat Earth trap of "I don't understand something so it must be a conspiracy to trick me".
I've been wondering this a lot lately. How do we know what to believe anymore? And how long have they been lying? How much "science" is made up?
Idk, maybe the moon landing was a fake after all. Maybe the US did play a part in the downing of WTC after all.
We know they lied about the origin of Covid. We know they lied about the election fraud. We know they are lying about J6. We know they lied about the safety and efficacy of the shots. We even now know the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK.
I could go on but my point is, do we know the truth about anything? Were there really space aliens at Roswell? Are they hiding a UFO at area51?
At this point, I don't believe anything "experts" that are on TV or in DC say. Nothing.
The whole point of "science" is that you can't just make it up.
If you do the experiment, and it gives the results you expect, then you know that a phenomenon exists and can be replicated. It doesn't matter who tells you what, what matters is what you know.
True, but I'm not a scientist. At all. So I need trustworthy sources of information and those are few and far between these days.
Eric Weinstein has been beating this drum for a while... That we are in a great stagnation for the past 50 years in physics. He goes into all the problems with academia and why our smartest people are wasting their efforts on string theory instead of doing real physics.
((()))
But -- is there any real physics left to do? String theory is obviously an abomination, but physics emerges from experiments, and I'm not sure there are any interesting experimental results out there --even the new 'superconductor' thing is a bit, like, whatever.
Since general relativity has run dry, it is perhaps time to start looking for a paradigm shift outside of the universe as we currently understand it. We should be employing every theoretical physicist to discover a unified theory.
You take away the computers and everything around you could have been made in the 1970s.
id say 100%.
Not everything is false. Newton's Laws, Thermodynamics, Maxwells equations, mathematic proofs, etc. are true.
What is needed is a fresh look, maybe Randall Mills Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics is correct?
The same goes for nutrition and disease, it is increasingly apparent that our modern diet of processed food is causing all kinds of diseases and slowly killing us. We know the proper human diet.
Maybe the Truth is staring us right in the face, but our training has made us blind to it.
Others suggest that to distract one from being DEGREE aka portion (life) within progression (inception towards death). Consenting to stand under (understand) others tempts one to ignore degree of elevation.
GRADE (Hebrew; descend)...being implies ascend (life) within descend (inception towards death). Others tempt one to seek passing grades, while ignoring to grow self.
a) OR'GAN (natural instrument of action by which some process is carried on)...reaction represents the instrument within the process of enacting sound.
If partial perception adapts to perceivable whole; then that implies to learn/teach self and vice versa...anything suggested by others tempts one to ignore self discernment.
b) perceivable represents organ (momentum aka balance); ones perception within represents instrument (choice).
a) control represents restriction, being implies as "free" will of choice within "dom"inance of balance aka free-dom.
b) "who" refers to person; while person implies per (by) sonos (sound)...sound controls who-ever freely chooses resonance or dissonance within.
I have never been told that. What kind of shitty school did you got to?
"hirer resolution"
Our high level math is wrong preventing us from moving forward.
In what way? I don't disagree, but would like to hear YOUR take on why.
Anything with theoretical in the title. The moment science cant prove things on paper and goes into the mind there lies a problem.
They can't prove things on paper because the math is wrong. The math is named after a man, but it's not done the same way he did it. Making it impossible to move forward to the next step.
Got it.
To the extent that this is true, it's philosophical, not 'real'. I'll look up this Farrell and comment further if there's something interesting.
Okay, sorry, but there are apparently a few JP Farrells! Can you give me an explicit link?
Deleted all content, due to internet bullshit. Stay ignorant.
Stop with the internet bullshit. I said that I don't believe you, but that I will look into it. There are a lot of things that I didn't believe until I looked into it.
Thank you for the reference.
Aerotrain
Your internet bullshit is your problems, no one elses.
Partial odds (life) within even whole (inception towards death).
SCIENCE (Latin scio; to know; to perceive) implies learning/teaching self by adapting to perceivable...consenting to suggested scientism tempts one to ignore self for others.
Understanding (suggested) represents the inversion of knowledge (perceivable) and ones submission to "stand under" another.
a) one cannot suggest others what "is" without ignoring that everything perceivable "was" before any suggestion could be shaped within.
b) right (want) vs wrong (not want) tempts one to ignore change (need). Nature isn't right or wrong...it was change before those within can reason against each other what's right or wrong.
a) each suggested information tempts one to ignore all perceivable inspiration, hence ones consent to suggested information representing self imposed disinformation.
b) being implies form (life) within flow (inception towards death)...others suggest IN-FORM-ATION (within form through action) as the inversion thereof.
c) IN-SPIRIT-ATION implies being within SPIRIT (Latin spiro; to breathe aka adaptation of form to flow) of action. Adaptation implies reaction (choice) within action (balance aka momentum of motion).
To believe implies to consent to suggested information as "truth"; which allows others to contradict it as "false". Why? Because consenting to suggested implies holding onto it, which tempts one to ignore being within motion...motion represents the need to let go and the temptation to want to hold onto.
In short...nature doesn't communicate truth or false; it communicates momentum of motion aka change.
Feel free to choose a scientific theory of your choosing, research the underlying arguments and try to debunk it.
No,no.
Far easier to assume someone is out to get us...
What kind of shitty school did you "got to"?
How many languages do you speak?
Yeah, cause THAT is the metric of good schooling.
Cause you know how many languages you need to be a scientist. Weren't we talking about science here?
I mean, you can't even get translated articles in this day and age.
I am asking because you are making fun of a simple grammar mistake.
English is not my first or even second language so I'm curious to see you do better in a foreign language.
So, how many languages do you speak?
More like plethora of mistakes.
And logical errors in basically everything you say. That's the real issue. Can't escape that one, no matter how many languages you speak.
LOGOS wins, every time.
:)
So, how many languages do you speak?
Do you mean Logic? Logos is something completely different.
I meant what I said.
Well, don't go on English boards then?
Are you a US citizen?
Wow
You might want to rethink what I said about logic, because you don't seem to have it.