The Science Deceit

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

The Science Deceit

Unread post by sharpstuff » Thu May 26, 2022 6:45 am

(Science as religion)

“Science is the topography of ignorance.”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

“Religion is the bane of humanity”
―Various

One might also say that science is the god of ignorance. Ignorance being a lack of knowledge.

According to the Cambridge dictionary knowledge is:
understanding of or information about a subject that you get by experience or study, either known by one person or by people generally

Ignorance may due to either lack of ‘knowledge’ through non-acquisition one way or another or a deliberate attempt to find alternative methods of acquiring it and even a deliberate attempt not to learn other views of potentially changing ones views.

Knowledge is the construction of ‘theories’ based upon what we discover by practical or other means, to try to explain how the universe (or any part of it) ‘works’. This notion, as I have repeatedly written, is and must always be an on-going process, continuing, never static and ultimately can never be, as they say, cast in concrete.

Thus, to counter this, the human animal has resorted to inventing an amorphous omniscience which has control of the universe in its or their attempt to explain everything even to the extent of being logical.

This (or these) gods are then held sacrosanct by the believers and according to them, cannot be disputed. The problem arises that their being so many variations of a ‘one’ god that conflicts break out between believers of these various ‘one’ god factions is that the whole fabric of human endeavor is forever mired in the fight (literally as well as spiritually) to gain total acceptance, especially with those who dispute the notion of a god or gods.

I can only conclude (for myself) that what we call ‘science’ is considered a ‘god’ and I must continue my tricky ride on this heretic train of not believing.

Science is a catch-word covering all sorts of data (possibly true in any sense it can be ‘true’), or false, manufactured into what it believes are self-evident ‘truths’ without the ability to personally verify that ‘truth’.

Calling something a ‘science’ does not make it so, nor the perpetrators ‘a’ scientist, especially if that ‘scientist’ is forced into believing what he or she has been taught as a truth without recourse (and a form of punishment) to the contrary. This punishment will not be of the Monty Python ‘Comfy Chair’ variety!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2ncJ6ciGyM

Of both religion and science, belief is limited to the amount of data available (at any given time) and that yet to be collected, without ever finalising a project.

Thus, we must be careful to analyse all the data we can, ‘good’ and ‘bad’, if you will but still realise that we can never have a complete picture because the universe nor anything within it is static. Thus, phrases like the following are to be taken only as intermediate:

The Science is in.
Scientists have found...
A scientist said:
Scientists believe... etc. etc.

‘Scientists’ are the holy of the church of science. Its pilgrims are those who either believe with open hearts to its veracity and closed to further discussion. They can only proselytize, never give a complete answer because there isn’t one and none can there be.

Truth is a property of beliefs. There can be no absolute truth and as I once wrote: Maybe the universe is unfolding as it should. Our trying to unfold it is a moot exercise since we are not gods to do this.

Since, however, science is presented as it is and the powerful by virtue of their armies of gods or billionaires whose agenda is theirs alone, we are left with the potential destruction of humanity (this time around). There can be no one ‘out there’ to save us, only the ability to do what we can for ourselves and others that would help us, not hinder us.

Thus, what we are led to believe about science is, in a word, disgraceful. What some have discovered from their work, observations and experiment is usurped by those who have alternate views and these have been forced to be accepted by the general public on pain of eternal damnation, religious or otherwise. We are taught to accept the main-stream views without recourse to being able to make up our own minds based upon our own experiences, observations and so forth and being able to access information/data that does not meet the requirements of a proper discussion.

The fact that we are told the universe is constructed from ‘atoms’ and even smaller bits and pieces, theories (quantum and so forth) that have long since been argued against, has resulted in theories that we can de-construct the universe to explain it. However, the very notions of these ‘particles’ does not explain anything. We apparently now have the ‘god’ particle, the 'Higgs boson', or whatever!

The fact that we are told that the ‘secret of life’ lies within constructs called ‘genes’, another theory which has been, as we now say, debunked (from the beginning!) is another sad reflection of the ignorance of the believers. (Aside: probably many of the perpetrators don’t believe these theories but owe their life and bread for their continuance.) I also include here the notions of ‘germs’, ‘viruses’, ‘bacteria’ and so forth.

I believe, as sensible humans, that many of us would like answers to certain questions but at the same time we must realise that there may be no answers to many questions that can ever be resolved. Whatever we say a thing is, it isn’t because we can never define something without reference to something else. A conundrum if ever there was one and neither religion, nor ‘science’ can solve this without leaving another avenue to pursue. Theories can never be facts, at least, I have to say, as far as I am concerned.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:44 am

Following on from my previous article, I would like to add the following as I think it is relevant. I know this is (and the original) are long essays but I can think of nothing less to say that I wish.

Many years ago, I wrote and article called The Comfort Syndrome. I cannot remember the context of my writing it, nevertheless, I did. It was the notion that people feel comfortable with that which they do not or might not understand but is publicly understood to be real. I would post it here (in its updated version) but it is 3000+ words in length if anyone is interested.

I say this because in my relentless searches, I discovered the name Ludwik Fleck recently. Further research turned up this interesting link:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fleck/

(My paragraphs)

Ludwik Fleck
First published Mon Mar 19, 2012; substantive revision Fri Oct 8, 2021

In the 1930s, Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961), a Polish-Jewish microbiologist, developed the first system of the historical philosophy and sociology of science. Fleck claimed that cognition is a collective activity, since it is only possible on the basis of a certain body of knowledge acquired from other people.

When people begin to exchange ideas, a thought collective arises, bonded by a specific mood, and as a result of a series of understandings and misunderstandings a peculiar thought style is developed. When a thought style becomes sufficiently sophisticated, the collective divides itself into an esoteric circle (professionals) and an exoteric circle (laymen).

A thought style consists of the active elements, which shape ways in which members of the collective see and think about the world, and of the passive elements, the sum of which is perceived as an “objective reality”. What we call “facts”, are social constructs: only what is true to culture is true to nature. Thought styles are often incommensurable: what is a fact to the members of a thought collective A sometimes does not exist to the members of a thought collective B, and a thought that is significant and true to the members of A may sometimes be false or meaningless for members of B.

Be well.

Mansur
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by Mansur » Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:02 pm

Ten minutes of pure farce.



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z87WgtD8YUw

(NHD : National History Day)

Mansur
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by Mansur » Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:53 am

sharpstuff wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 6:45 am
…Truth is a property of beliefs…
……
…Theories can never be facts, at least, I have to say, as far as I am concerned.
I think you deprive your statements and ideas of all weight if you 'relativize' in the wrong place!

R. Guenon, in one of his early books, i.e. about one hundred years ago, said:
“…Modern experimentalism also involves the curious illusion that a theory can be proven by facts, whereas in reality the same facts can always be equally well explained by several different theories; some of the pioneers of the experimental method, such as Claude Bernard, have themselves recognized that they could interpret facts only with the help of preconceived ideas, without which they could remain ‘brute facts’ devoid of all scientific value.”
Absolute truth and particular truth imply each other. Everything that can ever be true for man depends on the assumption of an absolute truth. You would not have written a single word if this were not so.

Then: if a question cannot be answered, it is because it is wrongly asked (the Pilate's question 'What is truth?' is usually referred to, which he addressed to the truth already bound.)

The very characteristic of today's scientific thinking is that they have answers without questions, and this is what any outsider can see - if he so chooses, and in fact what he cannot fail to see, and even better and more clearly than he who is up to his neck in it.

Since you are so fond of long quotes, I'll put the previous quote here in a slightly expanded 'context':
In assuming its modern form, science has lost not only in depth but also, one might say, in stability, for its attachment to principles enabled it to share in their immutability to the extent that its subject-matter allowed, whereas being now completely confined to the world of change, it can find nothing in it that is stable, and no fixed point on which to base itself; no longer starting from any absolute certainty, it is reduced to probabilities and approximations, or to purely hypothetical constructions that are the product of mere individual fantasy.

Moreover, even if modern science should happen by chance to reach, by a roundabout route, certain conclusions that seem to be in agreement with some of the teachings of the ancient traditional sciences, it would be quite wrong to see in this a confirmation — of which these teachings stand in no need; it would be a waste of time to try to reconcile such utterly different points of view or to establish a concordance with hypothetical theories that may be completely discredited before many years are out. *

* Within the religious realm, the same can be said about that type of ‘apologetics’ that claims to agree with the results of modern science — an utterly illusory undertaking and one that constantly requires revision; one that also runs the risk of linking religion with changing and ephemeral conceptions, from which it must remain completely independent.

As far as modern science is concerned, the conclusions in question can only belong to the realm of hypothesis, whereas the teachings of the traditional sciences had a very different character, coming as the indubitable consequences of truths known intuitively, and therefore infallibly, in the metaphysical order.

** It would be easy to give examples of this: we will mention only one of the most striking: the difference in the conceptions of ether of Hindu cosmology and modern physics.

Modern experimentalism also involves the curious illusion that a theory can be proven by facts, whereas in reality the same facts can always be equally well explained by several different theories; some of the pioneers of the experimental method, such as Claude Bernard, have themselves recognized that they could interpret facts only with the help of preconceived ideas, without which they would remain ‘brute facts’ devoid of all meaning and scientific value.

¬Since we have been led to speak of experimentalism, the opportunity may be taken to answer a question that may be raised in this connection: why have the experimental sciences received a development in modern civilization such as they never had in any other?

The reason is that these sciences are those of the sensible world, those of matter, and also those lending themselves most directly to practical applications; their development, proceeding hand in hand with what might well be called the ‘superstition of facts’, is therefore in complete accord with specifically modern tendencies, whereas earlier ages could not find sufficient interest in them to pursue them to the extent of neglecting, for their sake, knowledge of a higher order. It must be clearly understood that we are not saying that any kind of knowledge can be deemed illegitimate, even though it be inferior; what is illegitimate is only the abuse that arises when things of this kind absorb the whole of human activity, as we see them doing at present. One could even conceive, in a normal civilization, of sciences based on an experimental method being attached to principles in the same way as other sciences, and thus acquiring a real speculative value; if in fact this does not seem to have happened, it is because attention was turned for preference in a different direction, and also because, even when it was a question of studying the sensible world as far as it could appear interesting to do so, the traditional data made it possible to undertake this study more advantageously by other methods and from another point of view.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Fatal Flaws in Science

Unread post by sharpstuff » Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:34 am

Fatal Flaws
IN SCIENCE

“Evidence!” cried Holmes. “I need real reproduceable and palpable evidence!”

The word science means ‘a body of knowledge’, thus we have any number of ‘sciences’. This particular essay is relevant to all of them in one way or another.

In trying to understand how the Universe works we must necessarily rely upon our ability as humans to make conjectures and theories as to how this Universe ‘works’. Humans seem to have the need to explain everything that Nature (for want of a better word) places within and upon our personal experiences. No bad thing in itself, however it is how we view those theories to construct ‘truths’ which cannot be allowed to be questioned that we should concern ourselves.

A theory is a set of ideas which try to explain a process (a continuous analogue development) of something. It may be or lead to something practical or merely a mind exercise.

As individuals, that experience starts at birth and ends with our eventual demise. Thus, I say, the universe begins with our personal birth and continues until our final coil is reached. What has happened before can really only be conjecture, here-say, whatever. Having said that, however, of course we can remember our past, but can only conjecture others’.

True there must have been something before us, otherwise we would not be here at all but we can only theorise that it continues after our demise.

To try to understand what we might wish of our habitation of this planet, we thus create theories. We then try to understand that which we would like to explain by any amount of effort/s to do so. Theories, therefore are (or should be) continuously explored ad infinitum, since there is always something to learn as new data may become available.

The problem, as I have said before in other essays, is that we need to realise that we are only ever going to theorise and can never have anything written in stone, or whatever. When a theory is taken to become a fact (implicit or otherwise), we are sure to be in trouble, as at any time during the process of theorising, we must heed the need to be as accurate as possible, always with the proviso that each stage must be considered by those who would/might question any element of the theory and stand corrected if there is disagreement which cannot be accommodated or with new-found knowledge requiring either adjustment to or complete nullification of that theory.

Life is a continuous process of change and must remain so. A living process (natural, at least) cannot be stopped. However, we have come to believe, by constant repetition, that some things about what we call the ‘Universe’ are fixed and cannot be changed. This is fatal to explaining anything in full without recourse to further work (on a theory, for example) into perpetuity. For example, what is ‘true’ today may not be true tomorrow since we cannot (always or ever) predict with certainty what will happen in the next instant, let alone a longer period of time.

If we do not educate people from birth with the notion that all things must be constantly revised, checked and so forth, we will stagnate. Everyone has the right to challenge everything or anything about our Universe without recourse to some form of violent retribution if we happen not to agree with what we might call a main-stream view. We must all be the rocks in the stream (constantly changing, even if not apparent) to evaluate its path, as much as possible (should we wish to, otherwise we lend ourselves to others’ will which may be detrimental to us or others). To continue the metaphor, we can never exactly predict anything, such as a river flowing over rocks however much calculus we throw at it.

What seems to be ‘true’ is not necessarily so, especially if it rankles with our own experience/s or is forced upon us by some form of violence, often in the form of constant repetition or the notion that because a deal of people believe something it must be ‘true’ or also because they have some manufactured ‘clout’ (higher ‘education’) or some vested interest. Aside: What is the use of ‘higher’ education if it is taught as incontrovertible ‘truth’ and refuses to be discussed or at worst, negated?

We must not be fooled or inveigled into taking anyone’s word for something, especially if we are not able to find things out for ourselves but rely, in some way, for some-one else to tell us something. If we are content (for whatever reason) to allow others to give us an explanation, we must be very aware that what is being shared is not necessarily the last word, or indeed the first and real researchers will always admit this.

We must also remember that because a great deal of people believe something, it is not our lot to fall in with them. We must find strategies to overcome their theories with our own research, for example, if we continue to explore them and if we do not agree for any reason. No one can claim this is easy, it is likely very difficult but it needs to be recognised, at least.

It is a great concern to me as a teacher (at least) that our ‘sciences’ have been usurped by those with an agenda that does not place humanity in a good light, it prefers the dark of keeping others in ignorance with patently ridiculous ideas, however, they are accepted by others without the wherewithal to check for themselves, or even if they don’t want to. Creating a theory is probably a ‘good’ thing. However, religiously sticking to it is not, even if it appears to work, therefore it cannot be claimed as theory since this is not its definition. It should always be available for further study and total exclusion if found wanting or based on false or falsified data.

For examples:

If space flight is not possible then nothing allegedly in ‘space’ exists; satellites, I.S.S. moon landings, Mars Rovers, Hubble telescope and anything else that is not possible except in the imagination.

If viruses and germs or bacteria do not exist (even as such) there can be no ‘diseases’ linked to them and cures found or discovered. These are all entities created to explain phenomena about which we can have little knowledge. These ‘entities’ are all markers to processes about which we can never have complete knowledge because we cannot be ‘there’ to monitor processes which are too small to monitor even with ‘sophisticated’ technology. One might also forget also the notion of an ‘immune’ system. What is there to be immune from, without these entities?

We have theorised that life itself has its roots in what became known as deoxyribonucleic acid ( D.N.A.) and from this notion (the alleged building blocks of life itself (!)) we have concocted all sorts of notions about heredity (genomes and so forth),
From this alleged structure we have created (in our minds) the notions of genes and chromosomes and from that concoction we believe it possible to modify that structure to our own ends. Many believe that this structure we have postulated can therefore be manipulated into ‘gene’ therapies and constructions of unnatural life-forms, playing some sort of game with humanity and other life-forms. Certainly we can change things but not in the way we are led to believe. If D.N.A. as such does not exist but is only postulated, then such things cannot be possible. Anyway, the notion was debunked many years ago but still persists in the imagination and its perpetuation is an untruth.

It is pretty obvious that chemistry is possible. That is, the addition or subtraction of actual substances to produce a reaction. Life would not be possible without it Naturally but we can accomplish this even in the kitchen. Trying to explain the process in extendum is impossible (in my view). However, we cannot know how this occurs (or why, perhaps) just that it does. Reducing our findings to molecules atoms and even smaller and smaller bits of atoms (trying to find the ‘god’ particle), is merely a mind-game with no possibility of finding something that only exists in the imagination. Dots on a piece of graph paper do not an atomic particle make. If atoms do not exist, then we cannot ever understand how Nature actually works, it would be merely conjecture.

If no gods are possible (except in the imagination) then all religions are only possible based on false notions of their existence. Gods are beliefs. A belief is not a fact and should not be taken as one.

It there are no ‘atoms’ (at least as described) there can be no ‘nuclear’ bombs. So-called ‘quantum physics’ is only a mind-game based on ‘particle’ theory. So we need not concern ourselves about those.

If ‘Global warming’ does not exist then we need not concern ourselves about that. If it does, then we need substantial viable proof of this not speculations.

If the ‘Carbon footprint’ does not exist then we need not concern ourselves about that.

If ‘Climate change’ does not exist then we do not have to worry about that.

If ‘chem-trails’ are impossible then we do not have to worry about those.

If ‘psychiatry’ is based only upon ideas about how and why people behave as they do and has no basis for actual ‘hands on’ (such as surgery, for example), then there is no way that it can be considered a ‘science’ or even a form of ‘medicine’. Psychiatry is a myth, as Thomas Szasz says in his paper ‘The Myth of Psychiatry’. Let alone that a troubled and cocaine addict (amongst other things) Sigmund Freud is allegedly the ‘father’ of psychiatry (and Adler and Jung and others) don’t get a look-in. Like Pasteur is to germ theory, so is Freud to behavioural ‘science’. Both have been accepted without recourse to serious disagreement. Fatality to humanity is rife.

However, the fact that we are possibly destroying (or at least modifying) the planet is obvious, when we are creating non-disposable products with our chemistry (pollution, if you will) because we can see it for ourselves (evidence), no theory here.

We might seriously concern ourselves that we are ingesting a multitude of false narratives that have no value to us without realising that these are all concerned with the control of our lives by others, whomsoever they are and for whatever purpose. We would be better spending our time looking after ourselves, not letting some other entity do it for us and getting on with our lives, the rest is distraction from that. Again, if we insist on letting others control our lives, then we will not need another apocalypse (the devastation of a past civilisation before this one, for which there appears to be real evidence) to end the present within which we exist.

Explanations are one thing, reality is where we live and breathe. Science is not science when it is forced upon others, by whatever means, to be anywhere near a truth. There is no ultimate Truth, merely truths that may satisfy an individual but are not necessarily so to others. In my view, Truth therefore is a property of beliefs.

With the ability to falsify to such a degree that it is difficult to determine any event, false narratives are readily available for deceit. Apart from personal experiences, everything else is a matter for interpretation or belief or the willingness to accept another’s view of any event. If someone is not able to accept that, he or she is unable to make positive decisions. I believe the word commonly used is ‘gas-lighting’ or any of the plethora of synonyms readily available.

I believe that it is impossible to explain anything reducing our world to ‘atoms’ or mathematical equations or whatever. In some circumstances it might be useful but it still does not mean we can explain how a leaf grows on a tree, for example. We are therefore left with what we might call ‘magical’ qualities that we do not have the sensory apparatuses to claim the final reward of complete understanding. Most of what we call ‘knowledge’ is merely consensus of repetitive processes which we can never fully understand, however ‘clever’ we take ourselves to be.

Be well.

animus
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by animus » Sat Jul 16, 2022 5:31 pm

Sharpstuff, I have written a reply to both of your recent threads but I have trouble previewing and posting them because I keep getting the same "500 Internal Server Error" message.

So I put them in a single txt-file and uploaded it on a 1-click-hoster:
https://1fichier.com/?l1ua061i6pqmkbfjhv7c

Perhaps a moderator can edit this post of mine and include the real text.


********************Admin Notice (Simon): Dear Animus - done! ************************************************



Re: The Science Deceit
sharpstuff wrote:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fleck/ wrote: Fleck claimed that cognition is a collective activity, since it is only possible on the basis of a certain body of knowledge acquired from other people. When people begin to exchange ideas, a thought collective arises, bonded by a specific mood, and as a result of a series of understandings and misunderstandings a peculiar thought style is developed.
Most of us, being of the same species, and the umpteenth generation at that, have a very similar cognition and thus naturally share a whole lot of similar pieces of the universe's puzzle in our thought style. What Fleck didn't take into consideration is that we have a feeling style as well. But neglecting this seems to be commonplace among us, since most humans have become quite numb in that regard. That would explain why we always find ourselves in these highly painful situations. Anything less painful would fall into the category "ignorance."

"Learning is an experience. Everything else is just information."

Sometimes you need to learn the hard way when the soft way fails to teach you a lesson. The science deceit is successful because most people fail in recognizing particular patterns. When a group of conmen manage to dupe you, so that you lose $100 to them without noticing the con, chances are that they will not just stop conning you. If you get duped by them a second time and still fail to see what's going on, you will likely experience history repeating itself even more often, that is, you losing and hurting, and them winning and laughing. We have read about it and experienced it plenty of times already: Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 9/11 terror, Boston Bombing terror, Sydney Siege terror, Sandy Hook shooting, Uvalde shooting, Cleaveland Kidnapping, Sars, Ebola, Zika, Measles, Corona, etc. etc. etc. At some point, certain patterns may get recognized and some lessons learned along the way. Until then...

Same ol' story
Just another song
Same ol′ beat
Just another drum
Same ol′ tune
Recycled and redone
Where did it get us?
Look where we end up now


And so we experience "the same old" over and over again, just with different environment variables. The last episode of Westworld, S04E03, touched on this when the 3D game environment changed from the Cowboy's Wild West to the Gentlemen's 1920s while the game's storylines and quests stayed more or less the same.

Take a group of children into school's first class and they will all (be made to) learn certain lessons. If they succeed in recognizing certain patterns (e.g. a certain configuration of letters to make up a word; or repeat what the teacher says to get a better grade) they will graduate in the end. If they fail to do so, they will have to "try again", this time with a different environment--different children, different teacher, and the classroom may not get any direct sunlight anymore but is now situated somewhere in the shadow side. However, the lessons themselves will stay more or less the same. Of course there will be slight alterations because, as you already pointed out, the universe isn't static, so society changes, too. If a child graduates, chances are that this child will not gain much from repeating the same class again. It already knows how to apply the previously gained knowledge, at least to the extent it was learned. Thus the child is now ready for the next class and its lessons--that's development. (Wheter it is positive or negative lies in the eyes of the beholder.)

If you look around, you may have noticed that our society is comprised mostly of people who still have to "try again" when it comes to your average PSYOP. In our Kindergarten of a society, the adult "children" are still psychologically not mature enough to understand that when they get into a stranger's ice cream truck, they can get abused.

sharpstuff wrote: According to the Cambridge dictionary knowledge is:
understanding of or information about a subject that you get by experience or study, either known by one person or by people generally
Red or blue, which one is more appealing to you?
By nature, we are all going and growing in some direction, and it is up to you which direction you choose. If the current collective's thought style--today's science--isn't to your liking (anymore), then feel free to explore the world however else you like. In terms of vMemes (spiral dynamics), I would say, it is quite obvious that you are dissatisfied with the orange part of the spiral and thus more than ready to explore the next layer(s).

Just know that other people have their own pace and they may for the time being (want to) be stuck at lower levels of development, spiritually speaking. Just as you can't force a first grader to skip a whole class, or do two classes in a single year, you can't force a Kindergarten of a society to mature overnight. Some just like to be where they currently are. This has consequences of course because humanity's current lifestyle can't be sustained ad infinitum...
Thomas Campbell, My Big Toe wrote: During the eighteenth, nineteenth, and first half of the twentieth centuries, humans, in a typical display of little picture self-centered arrogance, believed they stood alone above all else - particularly in the rapidly industrializing West. Many, whose economic dynamics are still at the front end of the industrial revolution, continue to feel and act that way. That is easy to understand. Industrialization is a process that in the short-run turns natural resources into wealth, power, and a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, short-term profitability often drives non-ecological utilization of resources. Rapid industrialization is a very difficult package to turn down for the sake of ecological responsibility - especially if you are one of the last looters to get to the scene of the riot. To update and urbanize an old maxim, "the early looter gets the best TV." Furthermore, the early looter is also the least likely to get caught and face the consequences. It is an obvious fact that the easiest way to get some quick cash to support an immediate higher standard of living is to mug Mother Nature as she walks through her park. Fortunately, she is an exceptionally hardy and charitable sort and gracefully tolerates our abuse up to a point. However, to pass that point is to trade an endless supply of golden eggs for a single goose dinner. Even if you are extraordinarily hungry, that is a stupid trade.
[...]
In fact, Mother Nature so abhors bureaucracy that even if she gets raped, she will not call the authorities. However, there is little comfort in that fact for any of us because if the abuse she suffers goes too far, she will eventually get even - count on it. And when she does, all within her reach will be equally punished regardless of culpability. On the other hand, as long as we are respectful, she is willing to let us have our way with her whenever desire and indulgence peaks our insatiable appetites. She is an extraordinarily robust lady - at ease with poisonous snakes, killer bees, vampire bats, erupting volcanoes, tornados, and earthquakes - but shortsighted lobbyists and selfserving politicians scare her to death because together, like a malignant tumor, their destructive potential may overpower her capacity to regenerate. Greed kills.
sharpstuff wrote: Many years ago, I wrote and article called The Comfort Syndrome. I cannot remember the context of my writing it, nevertheless, I did. It was the notion that people feel comfortable with that which they do not or might not understand but is publicly understood to be real. I would post it here (in its updated version) but it is 3000+ words in length if anyone is interested.
I don't mind long posts and do enjoy reading yours. Based on the title alone, I'd say it fits into this forum's research into exposing mass deception, since it addresses a key symptom which greatly hinders people from waking up to media fakery. So feel free to create another thread for it. (Your latest post "Fatal Flaws in Science" wouldn't have needed its own thread though. Why didn't you post it here?)



***************Admin Notice (Simon): I've merged Sharpstuff's thread "Fatal Flaws in Science with this thread*********************************



Re: Fatal Flaws in Science
sharpstuff wrote: A theory is a set of ideas which try to explain a process (a continuous analogue development) of something. It may be or lead to something practical or merely a mind exercise.
Either way, you have development. Let your current theories lead you to better ones and you will advance.
Important to note here is that people of different maturity theorize on different levels of understanding. There will always be those who can't quite grasp what the heck you are talking about when you theorize about something but also those who can follow your train of thoughts all the way and are capable of seeing an even bigger picture that will render your current theory moot, in which case it could now be you who has trouble grasping what the heck others are talking about.

sharpstuff wrote: As individuals, that experience starts at birth and ends with our eventual demise. Thus, I say, the universe begins with our personal birth and continues until our final coil is reached.
What has happened before can really only be conjecture, here-say, whatever.
What does it matter if it is only conjecture, heresay or whatever? The higher your intelligence is (and I don't mean just your IQ), the better you get at reading footprints and the better you can work out past, present and future. Exercise in this regard and your experience and memory as an individual may even go beyond birth and death of this lifetime.

sharpstuff wrote: To continue the metaphor, we can never exactly predict anything,
Then let it be so. Let's not be hung up on the need to always having to attain the 100% (A+) score. Kids usually manage to graduate class with lower scores. The same goes for life's evolution. ;)

sharpstuff wrote: What seems to be ‘true’ is not necessarily so, especially if it rankles with our own experience/s or is forced upon us by some form of violence, often in the form of constant repetition or the notion that because a deal of people believe something it must be ‘true’ or also because they have some manufactured ‘clout’ (higher ‘education’) or some vested interest. Aside: What is the use of ‘higher’ education if it is taught as incontrovertible ‘truth’ and refuses to be discussed or at worst, negated?
Given our long history of telling each other lies upon lies, we know quite little when it comes to truth. In fact, we are so far off that most people have given up the search for it altogether. For those who haven't, here's a pointer: try searching inwards.
Gurdjieff, paraphrased by Ouspensky (In Search of the Miraculous) wrote: It must be understood that man consists of two parts: essence and personality. Essence in man is what is his own. Personality in man is what is 'not his own.' 'Not his own' means what has come from outside, what he has learned, or reflects, all traces of exterior impressions left in the memory and in the sensations, all words and movements that have been learned, all feelings created by imitation—all this is 'not his own,' all this is personality.
"From the point of view of ordinary psychology the division of man into personality and essence is hardly comprehensible. It is more exact to say that such a division does not exist in psychology at all.
"A small child has no personality as yet. He is what he really is. He is essence. His desires, tastes, likes, dislikes, express his being such as it is.
"But as soon as so-called 'education' begins personality begins to grow. Personality is created partly by the intentional influences of other people, that is, by 'education,' and partly by involuntary imitation of them by the child itself. In the creation of personality a great part is also played by 'resistance' to people around him and by attempts to conceal from them something that is 'his own' or 'real.'
"Essence is the truth in man; personality is the false. But in proportion as personality grows, essence manifests itself more and more rarely and more and more feebly and it very often happens that essence stops in its growth at a very early age and grows no further.
[...]
"How can essence be separated from personality?" asked one of those present.
"How would you separate your own from what is not your own?" G. replied. "It is necessary to think, it is necessary to know where one or another of your characteristics has come from. And it is necessary to realize that most people, especially in your circle of society, have very little of their own. Everything they have is not their own and is mostly stolen; everything that they call ideas, convictions, views, conceptions of the world, has all been pilfered from various sources. And all of it together makes up personality and must be cast aside."
"But you yourself said that work begins with personality," said someone there.
"Quite true," replied G. "Therefore we must first of all establish of what precisely we are speaking—of what moment in a man's development and of what level of being. Just now I was simply speaking of a man in life who had no connection whatever with the work. Such a man, particularly if he belongs to the 'intellectual' classes, is almost entirely composed of personality. In most cases his essence ceases to develop at a very early age. I know respected fathers of families, professors full of various ideas, wellknown authors, important officials who were almost ministers, whose essence had stopped developing approximately at the age of twelve.
And that is not so bad. It sometimes happens that certain aspects of essence stop at five or six years of age and then everything ends; all the rest is not their own; it is repertoire, or taken from books; or it has been created by imitating ready-made models."

sharpstuff wrote: If [x] does not exist [or is not possible] then we need not concern ourselves about that.
But what if it could[/] exist or was possible? Wouldn't such an inquiry potentially lead to growth of some sort? What is useless to one person is valuable to another. It's best to not underestimate the extent and spectrum of directions in which our consciousness' growth can happen. This includes the good, the bad and the ugly. All of your "ifs" are (potential) pieces of your own puzzle. Whether you concern yourself with them, is up to you. However, others have the freedom to piece together their own puzzle, too. Of course, whatever we decide, all of our action, inaction and condonation will bring about their respective consequences. Footprints in space and time are naturally left behind. And by reading these kinds of "footprints" you will get to assemble a bigger/better picture of the universe, as you perceive it. (You don't actually have to read ALL footprints in order to advance. You will save a lot of time by recognizing patterns in them. (For example, you don't have to taste every single cigarette flavor in order to work out that smoking has certain consequences. If you are intelligent enough, you don't even have to smoke a single one in order to work that out!) But also do consider that other people are exploring the universe as well. Again, this includes the good, the bad and the ugly. Some have fun playing with dolls, some have fun killing ants. Others take it up a notch and have fun playing with "living dolls" or have fun researching how to kill "human ants". And these are merely examples of pleasure (and pain) but both our body and mind have a lot of capacity for growth in all diversity.


I think, what seems to be missing in our global society is an honest collaboration among the alternative folks "across the websites" so that we can share and bring together all the pieces of the puzzle that we have accumulated, independent of mainstream science and its backers. By piecing together the evidence of media fakery, we have already established that there must exist a club of people in our society who enjoy living above the law without being held accountable for it--the conspirators. Many others have come to this conclusion as well. Unfortunately, when I look across the good ones among the conspiracy websites, I can't help but notice that people are still too busy calling each other names ("don't listen to so-and so, he is likely controlled opposition") instead of just working out a common base line where we simply point out where opinions begin to diverge.* So far, we truth-seeking free-thinkers completey fail in organizing our thoughts and actions towards an open-source**, everyone-is-welcome-if-he-behaves, no-stabbing-in-the-back club of our own. If we don't work towards a society that we actually enjoy living in (getting rid of the terror-psyop-fear-mongering, etc.), then we will most likely stay in this dumbed-down and doomed society, which will continue to change along with its cititzens the way the conspirators of these terror-psyop-fear-mongerings want to have it changed. That is, a hive-mind without actual individuals.

*
We have to keep in mind that everyone is evolving in their own pace, so naturally we will have different opinions on various matters. A 5-year old boy will not accept a pink t-shirt because that is a "girl's color." A 25-year old man has grown out of this childish belief and doesn't mind the boy laughing at him for wearing it, knowing fully well that he once laughed, too. Those in the early process of "waking up" from a nightmare of lies into a true reality of new possibilities will naturally have great resistance towards "crazy" new ideas and theories, so ignorance and ridicule are to be expected. We have plenty of experience with that already, so why let it bother us? Can't we still be able to work together somehow?
Thomas Campbell, My Big Toe wrote: You cannot access understanding and wisdom that is beyond what the quality of your consciousness can naturally support.
[...]
I welcome you to walk your dogma in my neighborhood as long as you clean up after it and keep it under control. Don't let it bite, harass, or intimidate anyone. Make sure it does not dig in our gardens, kill our flowers, bushes, or children, or leave piles of poop in our yards. Finally, do not allow it to terrorize or bully the many vulnerable critters and beings that peacefully live and play in the surrounding environment. If you are a responsible owner of a friendly dogma, you and your dogma are welcome in my neighborhood anytime.


**
This club could also start out closed-source and only later become open-source. Just imagine the individuals of cluesforum, fakeologist, pieceofmindful, milesmathis, cuttingthroughthefog, antiquatis, and what have you, all suddenly agreeing to stop posting anything on their own website and instead linking to a new joint platform which has a shared base line of knowledge and ethical conduct in the front page, which serves as a "driver's license" in order to participate in any on-going discussion within the (otherwise hidden) platform, and without which you don't even get to see what is going on inside the "club." I wonder how many passive readers would suddenly get active and be willing to donate $100, or even write a research paper of their own, as a means to get an invite and thus enjoy access to the latest information of above websites, when the websites themselves are suddenly all silent. If the project fails, well, then let everyone get back to their websites and fill them with whatever was shared in the failed project. But if the project succeeds, then just imagine the potential long-term magnitude of this success!

animus
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by animus » Sun Jul 17, 2022 8:27 am

Thanks, Simon. I really don't know why some posts work and others don't. I had a few "glitches in the matrix" with technology already but I am not sure if it is that. This post seems to work, at least I can preview it.

sharpstuff wrote: “Evidence!” cried Holmes. “I need real reproduceable and palpable evidence!”
Thomas Campbell, My Big Toe wrote: Metaphysics, mind, and a careful exploration of the subjective offer a less limited perspective that goes a step or two beyond our current objective science, but go too far beyond that, and truth dissolves into speculation while speculation degenerates into fantasy. To be sure, conjecture can quickly wander into fantasyland if it does not remain connected to a rational foundation of objective, measurable truth-data. How well the model performs is what lends credibility to the assumptions made at the beginning. Save your judgments until later.
The problem with "real reproduceable and palpable evidence" and "rational foundation of objective, measurable truth-data" is that when it comes to working out new, unknown sensual perceptions, intutions and abilities, you hardly understand yourself what is going on when you experience new stuff. It just happens. Sometimes, a quick dive into fantasyland (matrix, artificial world, sci-fi movie, game) might be necessary in order to work out a puzzle's solution inside your own mind, or to get new ideas that will expand the way you think.
That said, when it comes to measurable data, the question arises: how do you tell a blind person to verify if you are actually pressing the red button and not the yellow one? Cognition changes with individual evolution, thus objectivity can't always be uphold. We have to keep that in mind if we plan to advance our methods of science.




For those doing the spiritual work, here is a fine example of a clown complex in your own psyche:
animus wrote: When a group of conmen manage to dupe you, so that you lose $100 to them without noticing the con, chances are that they will not just stop conning you. If you get duped by them a second time and still fail to see what's going on, you will likely experience history repeating itself even more often, that is, you losing and hurting, and them winning and laughing.
animus wrote: I wonder how many passive readers would suddenly get active and be willing to donate $100, or even write a research paper of their own, as a means to get an invite and thus enjoy access to the latest information of above websites, when the websites themselves are suddenly all silent.
I didn't notice it when writing it. I initially wrote "donate $10" but then changed it into $100, thus making the connection to my previous post quite obvious. It wasn't my intention to build up a con with my suggestion. But then again, unconsciously I don't have full access to my own shadow side, so no idea what went on in there. When trying to balance the good and the bad (or white and black) to find that pivotal middle ground, you often end up jinxing yourself... That's my experience. Take it as a little bit of raw truth-data for future measurement when we have worked out a way on how to scientifically measure psychological stuff like this.

(A clown complex running wild, no matter if it is the good or evil kind, can make quite the tear-dropping circus show... And as above, so below--so take note, because this would mean that the circus show we are currently experiencing with the Corona shenanigans is a reflection of our species collective psychological chaos.) Anyway, this clown was exposed, so no circus show in the making here. My above suggestion was a spontaneous one anyway. In the end, we need to find a way how to get rid of fiat currency as well.




I don't mean to subvert your thread, sharpstuff, but I hope I can bring my own bit of understanding to the table without being judged too prematurely for the way I think. I definitely agree that our science is fatally flawed. Here is how I see it:

3D Space > Body > Brain/Heart > Yang/Yin < Mind/? < Soul < 3D Time
Physics > Chemistry > Body—Biology—Soul < Alchemy < Metaphysics


This is the space/time duality as I understand it so far, in which we currently seem to be placed inside. Based on experiences related and archived in various literature, we have the chance to break out of this duality in order to see a greater picture beyond space and time. The human mind has yet to comprehend the 3-dimensionality of time, so there is plenty of research and collaboration ahead of us. The question mark in the first line on the right side of the balance shall trigger the search inward to find out "who am I?" (And just FYI, I am still searching myself, so I have yet to find my real "essence" too.)

If you look at the left side, it is completely materialistic. Physics, chemistry and the body's biology just happen to be the three major science subjects in school. It is all about space. The right side is completely left out with perhaps the exception of a bit of religion to ease the soul, while actually putting it even deeper inside a prison. Psychology (category of alchemy) is not taught in school, else we'd might actually get along with one another. Can't have that. Yes, that's how we grow up in a Western world with public education. No wonder everyone is so egocentric and thinks so materialistically and only cares to learn about the materialistic/spatial "magic"--modern technology.

We have been concentrating on building and advancing machines and pretty much researched the heck out of the left side of the above balance. I think the goal may have been to find a way on how a machine (100% yang) can get access over the bridge into yin. And by now it would appear, our machines are so advanced that they can literally mind control us. Which means, they succeeded in crossing that bridge. They have the ability to attack our psyche directly. I say attack but others may call it augment, whatever. When you get a splinter in your body, it hurts. But you are able to take it out with your hands, so that it will stop hurting and can then heal. But what do you do when your mind (soul) gets pricked? Would people even notice? Would you even be capable of removing any "splinter" on your own accord? Worst case scenario, you will have to live with that painful "curse" for the rest of your soul's life. (which could be several incarnations!?)

Those people who are trying to learn what is up with intuition are actually exploring the soul's senses and are thus diving deeper into the realm of time.
This is where the soothsayer, ESP and other stuff comes from. Just so you know, soothsayer have a bad reputation, similar to conspiracy theorists, because most people are only familiar with the bad ones. If you are 5 years old and begin to play soccer, you won't be able to play like a Lionel Messi. Same goes for those who just started exploring intuition. Most who are doing so are probably somewhere in the beginning level, so it is more likely to come across a bad fortune teller than a good one who actually knows his stuff. Btw, have you ever glared into a display all day long? Then you must be training to become a technological soothsayer... I bet you can "tele-vision" what is going on in the Ukraine... Here is another one: Opening a car with your key from afar is pretty much technological telekineses, even more so when you get a brain implant. But how many decades did that kind of "magic" take to produce? All the stuff we enjoy today is because people in school and university had to learn how to work with a computer and study the physics of space. This kind "spatial magic" has become normal to us. Go meet some indigenous people and project a hologram into the sky. They might think their gods are communicating with them. Nope, just a couple of intelligent people using modern science to play a trick on them. What I am trying to convey is that our technology has pretty much reached a level of "magic" itself. And yet it is just science that we can learn in school and university. We could have also had a school like Harry Potter's Hogwarts and concentrate on the right side of the above balance. But we didn't. And so here we are now, about to become full-blown cyborgs if we continue like this...

In my opinion, our science has been fatally flawed from the get-go because we always ignored the right side of the balance and thus never learned the metaphysics of our world to get a holistic understanding of ourselves. Metaphysics is just a science too. However, since the conspirators seem to keep all those ancient secrets to themselves, we might have to work it out on our own with the many footprints left behind. Just another puzzle for us to assemble. And my guess is, the deeper we dive into ourselves, the more we will explore the "Internet of Souls" where we will have to deal with controlled opposition, too--inside our own mind! Then again, it is the path to learn the language of truth: telepathy. So at some point, controlled opposition will be no more. At least for those who have reached that level. As for everyone else, well, I guess, history will have to repeat itself often enough for them to catch up and evolve to that point as well. With all lessons of life, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Mansur
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by Mansur » Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:46 am

patrix wrote:
Thu Jul 21, 2022 6:54 pm
A model/theory is valid/correct or "flawless" as you put it Mansur, as long as it's reasonable and can be confirmed independently. Reasonable, meaning in agreement with logic, known laws of nature and previous independently confirmed theories. But when an observation is made that contradicts the model/theory, it will have to be changed to remain valid, otherwise discarded. [by whom?] For example if a claim is made that a gas expansion creates a force that can propel the container from which the gas expands in an unrestricted vacuum (i.e. a rocket in space), then this hypothesis/theory/claim will have to be discarded since it is not reasonable because it violates known laws of physics. This is what scientific models/theories and the scientific method is in a nutshell. No more, no less.

These "house rules" is what makes science real science. But as we can confirm in more ways than one, science is the enemy of the Nutwork for the simple reason that it cannot be controlled and thus a society that is anchored in proper science cannot be controlled or rather bamboozled either.

And as you're getting at Fredrika, the corruption of science is by design and has been going on since the 17th century and includes astronomy and the configuration of our Solar system and the Universe. I didn't think of it that way when I began looking at Simons Tychos model five years ago, but seeing how Tycho Brahes model was flipped on its head by Kepler and then further enforced by Galileos, Newtons and Einsteins pseudoscience and dogma, has made me realize that this is not a result of honest mistakes and confirmation bias. But of course, mainstream astronomers of today cannot see this. The lie is too big and sealed by NASAs space travel fakery.

So I for one, don't prefer a world without models and the proper science that Simon and a select few are engaging in. I think we've been living far too long in a world without it. And the end result is a crippling and depopulation event of biblical proportions - Covid vaccinations.
You may be a bit dogmatic in repeating your theses - but, of course, it may well be me who is doing it.

But I have to repeat that there is no such thing as a flawless 'model', nor is it possible.

I would also like to repeat that if NASA used the 'tychos' model (flawless or not), in other words if 'tychos' were mainstream, it would not make feeding the well-respected public with space travel even a hair's breadth more difficult.

As to your standards concerning science in general (outlined above), I think there can be serious problems with that;- the more rational something is, the more complicated things become. Perhaps this could be treated as some kind of law, since it is so regularly observable.

(By the way, how on earth were you able to assimilate the 'idea' of the 'depopulation project'? That an implementation ever got off the ground or ever will? - 'On biblical proportions'? And what has been going on for a long time, on a 'biblical scale,' what about that? Is that no longer to be dealt with or taken into account? Evil covid vaccine? All newborns are subject of multiple vaccination, and they get a good few more before they are two or three years old. Of course, you may say, these are innocent and safe vaccines, tested by real science, etc. at least compared to the 'genetically modified' or rather 'modifying' killer shot. And many-many other, and that is still in the field of ’health care’… OK, I don’t know, if you say that is the way science works, let it be so.)
___________

As to the Copernican 'model': it seems that after a while it became suitable to give its name to the 'world view' that was emerging. It attracted the highest intellects, or at least some of the the highest intellects, maybe because it seemed (and turned out to be indeed) capable of tearing apart the web of worldly interests commonly called the Church. It seemed to be light and a new birth and liberation from the dominion of the superstitions of darkness.

This 'turnaround', of course, did not start and originate in astronomy. It started from much deeper layers, and the new astronomy only followed the direction and is cardinal only in that it expresses more vividly the general turning outward of people towards the external, material world than other sub-disciplines.

The new structure of power which has developed in the four or five centuries since then, as some have stressed, although modelled on the old one, is a hundred times more powerful and omnipotent (all-embracing, all-consuming).


It does not seem a fortunate undertaking to use science (whose origins are impure - and aims even more impure or unclear) to eliminate science, or to pick and choose what is good about science (which can only be done from a perspective completely outside the scope of science), well, as they say, good luck with that.
patrix wrote:
Thu Jul 21, 2022 6:54 pm
But as we can confirm in more ways than one, science is the enemy of the Nutwork for the simple reason that it cannot be controlled and thus a society that is anchored in proper science cannot be controlled or rather bamboozled either.
Science is precisely what power has chosen for itself (or at least what they are using) as the guiding ideology by which it can exercise power in a far more exclusive way and by far more effectively than the Church (clerics) ever could. Science is what power keeps under control more than anything else.

('Nutwork' seems to me a very misleading term; 'nut' is usually used to describe the conspiracy guys who - by the way - form actually a network, a 'sub-network', so to speak. I cannot know how the word affects native English speakers, but it strikes me as referring to a nuthouse where they keep inhabitants busy with work.)

patrix
Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by patrix » Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:36 pm

It boils down to this Mansur:

Does an objective reality exist? For example, does a chair in a room exist regardless if someone is observing it?

My answer is yes. Yours may be different and if that's the case a discussion between us is useless since we don't share this foundation.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7205
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:03 pm

*

Aww, come on now Mansur, cheer up - will you?

In my mind, each one of us can contribute towards tearing down the scientism that's shackling us - given adequate amounts of effort and dedication. You make it sound like it's all hopeless and that Patrik and I are basically wasting our time as we patiently endeavor to bring down the castle of cards that astronomy and "rocket science" (i.e. the 'pinnacles' of the Nutwork's claims to scientific hegemony) are built upon.

Quite frankly, I feel that all folks of intellect (such as yourself) ought to spend more time looking for solutions to our current predicament - what with the Nutwork's obvious, longstanding efforts to dumb down this world's population through their hijacking, distortion and obfuscation of all areas of knowledge. To just keep lamenting dejectedly about how hard it would be to regain control of our lives and destinies (due to the Nutwork's overwhelming wealth and propaganda power) simply will not do.
Mansur wrote: ('Nutwork' seems to me a very misleading term; 'nut' is usually used to describe the conspiracy guys who - by the way - form actually a network, a 'sub-network', so to speak. I cannot know how the word affects native English speakers, but it strikes me as referring to a nuthouse where they keep inhabitants busy with work.)
Well, please know that it was yours truly who, 12 years ago, coined that "Nutwork" term. I certainly didn't mean to describe or belittle any 'conspiracy guys'... :lol:
(I take it that by 'conspiracy guys', you refer to folks like us, here at Cluesforum...). Here's an excerpt from a post I wrote back in 2010:
simonshack wrote: The major news corporations are headed by a handful of moguls who are, contrary to popular belief, wholly subservient to the executive powers of USA, Great Britain, Europe and indeed, most of the world's governments. This unfortunate, yet widespread public belief (that the media checks and 'polices' our politicians) is being currently exploited to its full potential for the profit of a restrict so-called 'elite'. In his time, George Orwell would have called their structure "the Network". I suggest to call what we have today "the Nutwork" - since their inconsiderate behavior betray tell-tale signs of rampant megalomania and an alarming absence of mental soundness. https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p ... 0#p2142630
You then wrote:
Mansur wrote: Science is precisely what power has chosen for itself (or at least what they are using) as the guiding ideology by which it can exercise power in a far more exclusive way and by far more effectively than the Church (clerics) ever could. Science is what power keeps under control more than anything else.


Precisely, Mansur! And that's why the best we can possibly aspire to do is to pull that "scientism carpet" from under their feet - don't you agree?

By the way, the TYCHOS model which Patrik and I are building brick by brick - besides being of earnest, scientific nature - is more of a "crime investigation", the sort of which Sherlock Holmes or lieutenant Columbo would methodically carry out, using ALL of the clues at their disposal. If you'd only dedicate a week or so of your life reading the 2nd Edition of my book, I am confident that you'll soon realize that its conclusions are founded upon centuries of empirical observations performed by extremely patient and hard-working (pre-NASA) astronomers; the problem is, their observations eventually turned out to be dubious and conflictual - as viewed under the heliocentric model. To be sure, the latter is impossible - whereas Patrik and I can show that all of these minutious and laborious astronomical observations gathered throughout the centuries all "fall into place" when viewed under the paradigms of the TYCHOS model.
Mansur wrote:But I have to repeat that there is no such thing as a flawless 'model', nor is it possible.
Well, that's rather rich for you to say, Mansur. How do you know? Have you ever attempted to build one yourself? Is nothing knowable? Or are you just posturing as someone who has "reached the next / higher level of (un?)knowledge"?... Anyways, you are of course entitled to your (rather glum and nihilistic) outlooks on what can be known or not. Again, I hope you'll cheer up - and start submitting to our forum's readers more uplifting musings and ideas, such as: what COULD be done to improve our predicament on this mad world of ours - rather than what CAN'T be done. Meanwhile, Patrik and I will continue to pull the rug from beneath the Nutwork's feet - and their laughable claims of "scientific supremacy". How about that for the most peaceful "scientific revolution" imaginable?

See, ever since 2009 when Max (hoi polloi) and I launched this forum, I've been striving to maintain a positive, constructive and even humorous attitude - in the face of the Nutwork's pathetic and depressing antics. I will thus hereby kindly ask you - and everyone else - to help uphold this general tone and spirit here at Cluesforum (the little oasis of intelligent and constructive thought - immersed in a vast desert of crass and destructive stupidity). Thanks! :)

patrix
Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by patrix » Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:59 am

Well said Simon.

I for one love the term "the Nutwork" that you've coined and I dislike the "elite" since there's nothing elite about these people. They are simple con men and fraudsters and eventually a critical mass will understand that, and that will be game over for them (this time in history). Because how do you get rid of cockroaches? You don't since the only sure way is to burn your own house down. Instead you keep the house clean so that the roaches don't fester and when you turn on the light, they always run and hide. :)

The Nutwork translate to "the nut factory/ministry" in Swedish which is appropriate. Since the Nutwork controlled media, scientism, religion, philosophies and education has produced so many nuts, it's the most productive nut factory ever.

Scientific model/theories, as I tried to explain, is simply a description of how we think something works based on what we currently know. No more. No less.

For example, we know that it is not possible to make anything orbit in a non circular fashion at a non constant speed. Thus it makes sense to base a model of celestial motion upon this known fact. And up until the 17th century and the "Keplarian era", this was what astronomers did. And Simon with my assistance has picked up that torch with in my humble opinion, a very successful result.

If you Mansur don't think models/science is "good", that nothing can actually be known and that the Nutwork (or what you prefer to call them), is too powerful for anything to change. Then I am sorry for you but I also disagree.

And sure, a model that agrees with all known facts such as the Tychos, could be used to promote NASAs space travel fakery, but the main objective of NASA is to protect and promote a model that doesn't agree with known facts - the Heliocentric, so that wouldn't make sense. Not even to the Nutwork :)

Mansur
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by Mansur » Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:10 pm

simonshack wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:03 pm
Mansur wrote:But I have to repeat that there is no such thing as a flawless 'model', nor is it possible.
Well, that's rather rich for you to say, Mansur. How do you know? Have you ever attempted to build one yourself? Is nothing knowable? Or are you just posturing as someone who has "reached the next / higher level of (un?)knowledge"?... Anyways, you are of course entitled to your (rather glum and nihilistic) outlooks on what can be known or not. Again, I hope you'll cheer up - and start submitting to our forum's readers more uplifting musings and ideas, such as: what COULD be done to improve our predicament on this mad world of ours - rather than what CAN'T be done. Meanwhile, Patrik and I will continue to pull the rug from beneath the Nutwork's feet - and their laughable claims of "scientific supremacy". How about that for the most peaceful "scientific revolution" imaginable?
That 'there is no such thing as a flawless model, nor is it possible,' I think is a rather trivial statement. How do I know? How do I know that e.g. 'there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, nor is it possible'? (That was by the way about the part of my post that I least expected a response or reaction to!!) If nothing else, think of the various atomic models or models that exist in biology. A model is a product of the human (or, nowadays computer) brain and is therefore subject necessarily to error. --- I didn't know that TYCHO was designed to be a flawless astronomical system – but: would it lose its appeal if it had flaws? I don’t think so.* The fact that a model has weak points does not take anything away from its value or raison d'être, in fact, as far as I am concerned, it would rather add to it. And I think I could also tell you why.

* On the contrary: it is precisely by its flaws and shortcomings that it will attract the more discerning, those who will intuitively grasp these points and, having dealt with them for a while, will be able to point them out.

It's not 'higher level of knowledge' that I'm talking about, but the existence of higher or more comprehensive problems (or deeper, if you like), and how problematic is even the very approach to them.

__________

I remember well how hoi.polloi warned posters on a number of occasions not to take what is said here or what they get in response personally. I am convinced, on the other hand, that the 'offensive edge' is not in my words or intentions. I believe also that 'interpreting' what was said is totally impermissible while in contact with the person - who may be able to answer to questions.

To draw attention to possible mistakes I wouldn’t call 'unconstructive' or something that would thwart things that really ‘COULD be done to improve our predicament on this mad world of ours'. Since it means giving chance to make the point more clear and explicit in responding…
__________________________________________

In this place, however, what I would consider important to discuss is that….. that the 'Galileo affair' is so well documented and that in spite of that, these documentations appear at such a low (actually zero) level in the mainstream views that I think it should or could be addressed. And even those who have presented the case in the most unbiased (un-dogmatic, non-mainstream) way, have not been able (or brave enough?) to come to a meaningful conclusion. They are mostly content to - 'well, this great man was not that great a man'. They seem to write history - without a lesson, just for the sake of ‘interest’ as it were.

Now, science certainly cannot be judged on the basis of science and scientific principles. And none of the 'priests of science' seem ever undertaken to make serious sacrifices…
___________________________________
simonshack wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:03 pm
Mansur wrote: Science is precisely what power has chosen for itself (or at least what they are using) as the guiding ideology by which it can exercise power in a far more exclusive way and by far more effectively than the Church (clerics) ever could. Science is what power keeps under control more than anything else.


Precisely, Mansur! And that's why the best we can possibly aspire to do is to pull that "scientism carpet" from under their feet - don't you agree?
If, Simon, you agree that science is essentially an ideology of the power, then I really don't understand your position. What could be the basis, and where is that basis, on which you (and in fact many other) seems to want to isolate somehow another, a 'real science' within science (while following scientific methods and principles in everything) - how is it? From day one, the disputes between various views within the scientific (≈anti-cleric) domain have been part and parcel of the process or 'progress.'

The problem, dear Simon, is not that there is a bunch or several bunches of psychopathic enterprisers using and promoting or controlling ('hijacking') science or parts of science, - the difficulty and its gravity lies far deeper than that, namely in modern science as such, mostly in its methods and underlying mentality or way of thinking, in the fact that the tendency to deceive and to become a submissive and willing instrument of power is at its core and essence ('built-in'), - and (not to be forgotten) that any good it can do remains always questionable, more than questionable!

And what could guarantee by the way that tptb will not assimilate it (that 'real or not-fake science') immediately on the spot and even encourage it in its usual detours and then use it to serve its own interests?

If we don't get to the root of the problem, the treatment will necessarily be superficial, - and the Galileo incident seems to be a pretty good illustration of the genealogy of modern science, and thus of the problem itself.
__________________

That how science becomes power, that we now can see more or less clearly, but how does it become knowledge? - (because the two are by no means the same), that is the question. Or, to put the question a little more 'sceptically': can science ever be a source of knowledge?

If Patrix thinks I am taking this kind of questioning from my ('non-existing') little finger or from authors who had taken it from theirs I can assure him that he is mistaken. Nevertheless he seems to be quite right on his own since recent books (let’s say during the last fifty or sixty years) contain no such things – at least not in a serious (personal, ‘existential’) manner. Not to speak about other media outlets… I am, however, not speaking of books but of a whole literature.

And, yes, his 'chair metaphor' rightly arises, in the sense of the famous (?) saw 'the wise and the fool don’t see the same tree'. The pursuit of objectivity at all costs has been treated/depicted already by many thinker as a kind of mania (fixed idea, obsession), - a terrible danger on the part of the researcher that he abdicates his subjectivity and becomes a mouthpiece of some inner homunculus. Somewhere I read that Goethe said, maybe to Eckermann (apropos of his theory of colours I think and referring to Newton's): 'I suppose a scientist denies all five senses.'.

(Incidentally, if researched in some length into what 'nihilism' in the field of 'philosophy', as they say, originally meant, one would see that it does not really fall that far from the present subject.)
________________________________________________
patrix wrote:
Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:59 am
If you Mansur don't think models/science is "good", that nothing can actually be known and that the Nutwork (or what you prefer to call them), is too powerful for anything to change. Then I am sorry for you but I also disagree.
Dear Patrix, as flattered as I am by your sorry for me, unfortunately I think I have done nothing to deserve it - (I have no idea how you were able to project this interpretation onto my words).
And sure, a model that agrees with all known facts such as the Tychos, could be used to promote NASAs space travel fakery, but the main objective of NASA is to protect and promote a model that doesn't agree with known facts - the Heliocentric, so that wouldn't make sense. Not even to the Nutwork :)
As to what 'NASA's main objectives' are, that can only be deduced from its visible activities ('known facts' as you might say). The above sentence, however, does not inform us of the logical process by which the deduction was made. So, if you don't mind me asking, how did you come to that conclusion?

You may also think, then, that the atomic bomb chapter in modern history books exists mainly to deceive the public about the known facts of nuclear physics.

I think this is an awful oversimplification of what is a rather complex issue - which in turn creates even more complex but pointless complications on the other side. Moreover: to arbitrarily link two true statements could raise doubts about both of the things mentioned.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7205
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:13 pm

Dear Mansur,

I would like you to carefully read again this sentence of yours:
Mansur wrote:If, Simon, you agree that science is essentially an ideology of the power, then I really don't understand your position. What could be the basis, and where is that basis, on which you (and in fact many other) seems to want to isolate somehow another, a 'real science' within science (while following scientific methods and principles in everything) - how is it?
:blink: :huh: :unsure:

Now, let me ask you - and please do not take offense, but do you actually expect me to answer to this disjointed gobbledygook of yours?

Look, I will nevertheless try and do so (to the best of my capacity) - so here we go :

I do not have any 'position' regarding science - nor do I pretend to "isolate somehow another 'real science' within science" (whatever that means!...). All I've done with the Tychos is to assemble a Grand Puzzle constituted by countless empirical observations gathered throughout the ages by hundreds of patient and hard-working astronomers. With a little imagination, you may envision the pieces of this Grand Puzzle as thousands of cogs of an exploded engine / or gearbox - spread all over the world: I've picked them all up and, with the priceless help of Patrik, re-assembled them into a working and near-flawless machine (i.e. the Tychosium 3D simulator). That's it.

As we did so, we also realized that the currently-theorized - geometric and mechanical - configuration (the Copernican / heliocentric model) of our cosmic machine - i.e. our Solar System - could not possibly work, nor would it even start! In other words, Patrik and I are car mechanics. :) (btw, Patrik has worked for 20 years or so with the Volvo car & truck company)

Do you own a car, Mansur? Well, if its engine should explode one sad day, who are you gonna call? A Copernican - or a Tychosian mechanic? :D

Mansur
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: The Science Deceit

Unread post by Mansur » Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:16 pm

simonshack wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:13 pm
Now, let me ask you - and please do not take offense, but do you actually expect me to answer to this disjointed gobbledygook of yours?
Offense or not, - I admit that it crossed my mind, - considering your earlier response, which I quoted, and then, since your system is entirely scientific in nature and you might have some cause to say something about it here (this thread is not about Tycho.) I thought you might be interested in other people wondering what your opinion is on this, more general, matter. Anyway.
___________________

Modern astronomy is only one chapter within modern science and, while undoubtedly the most spectacular, it does not occupy the central role that it initially seems to have done.

A possible rectification in this area would, in my opinion, have no impact on the myriad other areas which, indeed, are hardly connected any more.
______________

And no, I don't have a car, nor even a driving licence, although if push comes to shove I might be able to handle the beast; - and, in the event of a breakdown, I would go for the craftsman who was on hand, - although it's not quite clear what metaphorical meaning might be at work here.

Post Reply