Troll thread?

Everyone here,Myself included are scientists of the most impeccable credentials.

Harummph!

and gentleman

datamining.

[deleted]

oh, i know he is.

keep pointing it out.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

it doesn't even have to be about you. these posts can be mined by others.

but as a general rule, "i'm new here; tell me things about you" posts are clown shoes. this is an open community, whose members possess varying levels of scientific literacy.

as well, some here question the vulnerabilities of scientific research, and the ways in which scientists, publications and institutions can be influenced.

It's just that it's the best and only method we have of aquiring knowledge.

No it's not. It's not like the acquisition of knowledge didn't exist before the word "science" as such came about.

And I honestly think that many people in the conspiracy community would benefit greatly of a science education.

As would many in the so called "scientific" community.

Are you aware of a documentary called "Who Killed The Electric Car?"? Are you aware of Virginia Steen McIntyre and her (and others) discoveries at Hueyatlaco? Are you aware of Jim Vieira's archeological and cave formation discoveries throughout the world?

Yes. Indeed the mainstream scientific community itself would greatly benefit from a "proper scientific education".

There comes a point where it is blatantly obvious that there are some things that there is no reason to believe are true, and some things there is no reason to believe are not true.

It would seem such from the limited, terrestrial human perspective. What exactly many of those things are, however, are extremely up for questioning still.

I understand if this is not the correct place to discuss these things

Incorrect. This forum is the exact place to discus some of these things. However, dogmatic acceptance to particularly limited perspectives (just as if not more often perpetuated by those very types that fancy themselves part of the "scientific" community) tend to derail, inhibit, and prevent a proper assessment of the type of true, critical, even "outside the box" type of thinking and theorizing that, again, many who take great pride in being called "scientists" would do themselves well to imbue.

This is part of the reason why some (myself included at times) get turned off by those that look more like the scientific equivalent of "bible thumpers" than anything else. They are just as dogmatic as the wost religious bigot, and make it very difficult to have a conversation that can grow and develop into real knowledge.

Seems like a rational thing to do, but I don't know any specifics.

I would disagree. It might seem like a rational thing to do on a very superficial level if you are interested in protecting your investment on a short-term basis (i.e. on the basis of one generation or two), but when one looks at it from the perspective of what is better for the health, longevity, and sustainability of the very organism creating the technology itself (i.e. humanity) AND from the perspective of what is better for the very platform and foundation upon which that technology is being created (i.e. the planet Earth), then you realize that the best thing to do is to side with technologies that DO NOT promote pollution and waste as the current ones do, and to side in favor of those technologies that have already been developed by various scientists and inventors that have proven themselves to be valid, viable, "clean" working technologies that benefit both the human species and the planet they live on as a whole as well.

even if you test it, and even if it has been replicated, there is always a danger of some sort of bias or variable that fools us.

Yep. Certainly.

In light of such examples I would never trust my own reasoning, or my own experiments, my own intuition etc.

I wouldn't go that far. I wouldn't say don't trust your own reasoning, intuition, or experience/experiments. I would say to simply have confidence in the fact that you did indeed do "such and such" experiments and studies and you did indeed come out with "such and such" results regardless of out how revolutionary or strange those results may seem or actually be. Then at that point, be ready and willing to be absolutely and totally wrong about your discoveries (or at least shown that there might be another explanation) if someone comes across and validly shows such a thing. Easier said than done, but don't be too attached to the results of any experiment. Simply go where the data, information, and evidence point you. One can do this without necessarily "not trusting" one's own intuition.

(at least in principle, this is difficult).

Correct.

Until new evidence is provided, our best guess is the status quo, wether that is "we don't know" or "the current scientific consensus".

Well, one has to at least make sure and be willing to simply research as many avenues of investigation as possible - whether it be in the more mainstream areas of research or in the more alternative areas. One will often find if one is discerning and intelligent enough that it is really in the alternative fields that the more salient data is to be located.

At the point when one begins to look into alternative areas of examination for the explanation to certain phenomena, however, one will sometimes begin to uncover not only a more viable explanation for said phenomena, but (something much more sinister here) an influence that may exist whereby such information is actually actively suppressed from the awareness of the mainstream fields and public.

This, my friend, is when you discover and begin to delve into the very real world of conspiracy.

This is when one discovers that in that very mainstream arena of civilization - where the vast majority of the population derives its information from and where they are almost entirely ignorant of anything else - there is a very real world of apparently sinister influence and power in existence which actively and aggressively pursues and suppresses any and every form of information - scientific or otherwise - that directly or indirectly challenges a status quo that's been set.

After making this discovery (and, at times, picking one's jaw up off the ground in the process) you begin to wonder what exactly the dictates of that status quo are. What is the motivation? What is the modus operandi? What is the end game? For what reason are certain things happening in the way that they're happening? Why is such information that would be of obvious benefit to all of humanity across the entire planet so obviously suppressed?

The questions are deep and complex, and the answers are extremely difficult to find because the moment one begins actively searching for those answers is the moment that one begins actively swimming AGAINST the current of that very mainstream mentality that the majority of the people are plugged into don't question much if at all. This is when you begin to question and challenge all those people plugged into that mainstream - a mainstream that you've finally discovered is not all that it makes itself out to be to you and everyone else.

When you start doing this, however, and going down this path, you'll find that you'll be met with not only those very powerful influences that are the very creators of this deceitful paradigm - a great and powerful cabal indeed - but you'll also be assailed upon by those very people closest to you - your very family members and loved ones - that are not themselves aware of the deceitfulness going on around them. Often those that can effectively fight against those "big powers" that come after them and try to keep them shut up end up falling apart like a flimsy deck of cards when they have to combat their own family members and loved ones on the same issues.

TPTB (The Powers That Be) know this, and will often target these very areas and family members when someone gets too close to challenging that very status quo that many so devotedly pay attention to.

I don't know if this makes me a bible thumper or not, but that is where im coming from atleast.

So far it doesn't seem that way me. I say this because you don't seem to be belligerent or have a bad or "know it all" attitude like some bible thumping types (scientific or religious) do.

I disagree with this. This will only serve to reveal the true power of the faults of the human mind.

So looking as well in the alternative, NON mainstream fields for truth "will only serve to reveal the true power of the faults of the human mind."?

Are you sure about that?

It's been in looking in the alternative fields that I discovered some of the very examples that I gave you initially which directly challenge what mainstream science says and that have still proven to be sound and haven't at all been refuted yet.

Even if you are trained in the scientific method, and have enough knowledge about the philosophy of epistemology, there is just usually too much that needs to be learned.

Oh I fully agree with this. However, it seems to me that one would still be remiss at not looking in as many different areas for viable information as possible.

If it goes against the scientific concensus, then either you are much more competent than thousands of scientists in their field in which they have years or decades of training, OR, the thousands of scientists from all countries around the world, from competing schools are involved in the conspiracy.

With regard to the latter of the two choices, it is possible for this to be the case unwittingly believe it or not. I do not supposed that literally EVERY single scientist that says "1,2,3" would actively support "1,2,3" if "1,2,3" were proven to be part of a purposeful ruse against that very society of which they themselves are a part. However, there have indeed been enough examples of scientist and inventors that have been "quieted" (sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly) for intelligently challenging the status quo, and I imagine a decent level of unquestioning, "going with the flow" complicity has settled into the ranks of mainstream investigation. This undermines true discovery.

And they are spending millions of manhours writing falsified scientific journals. This is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence.

I would say that you're looking at it from too simplistic a perspective here in assuming that, again, literally every single scientist is 100% aware of the specific extent to which they are part of a machine not designed to help humanity. Think of this dynamic from the perspective of the vastly complicated "need to know" dynamics that exist in huge corporate empires and convoluted governmental conglomerates. It is very often the case that the left hand knows not what the right hand is doing, and everyone is simply doing a specific, compartmentalized job in the best manner that they can without doing anything that would cause the "higher ups" to get angry at and fire them for. "Just keep your head down and work. Don't question. Just do your job."

And even with regard to those whose job it is to question, many times their questioning is only allowed to take place within a certain limited frame of reference specific to the particular area those in charge want them to work in. When the questions begin to stray past that specific area of discovery, they are reigned back in by either being directly told to shut up, or by having their job, character, person, and/or work undermined (again, they get "quieted"). Sometimes the inventor's discoveries are allowed to blossom and flower, and then after everything is said and done and the final work is put on the front desk, those in charge will simply sequester that information and keep it from seeing the light of day if it challenges the status quo.

Relevant to this is this post I made. Pay specific attention to what I say in the original post's "EDIT" section. Click on the provided link in that area and take a look at it. This is a specific example of some of the things I talk about here.

alternative methods are alternative for a reason. They just don't hold up to peer review, unless of course the entire scientific community is in on the conspiracy as mentioned.

It's said that part of what allows TPTB to get away with what some say they get away with is the fact that the public has been generally conditioned to have a perspective of the world that is so limited and mundane that they would simply not believe the truth if it were put in front of their faces in full disclosure form. It would simply annihilate too many of the beliefs they've (we've) been indoctrinated to believe are true and that we have grown to have an emotional attachment to. A real acceptance of many of these things would threaten to absolutely destroy many of those attachments. Therefore, most of us end up simply choosing to be like Cypher from the Matrix and knowingly look away, keeping our faces turned steadfastly toward the veritable cave wall.

the deeper you dig, the wider the conspiracy becomes, because as soon as there is counter-evidence, you need to explain it.

Not necessarily. There is some counter-evidence that simply shows some conspiracies to not have existed at all; to have ultimately been little more than a hoax.

I myself have come across many circumstances whereupon what I initially thought was true and factual I, after more digging, referencing, and cross referencing, discovered that it was more likely nothing but a charlatan lying all along.

Delving into the admitted Pandora's box of alternative sources and conspiracy theories will indeed complicate matters much more. It will indeed cause you as an investigator to have to be MUCH more diligent in your questioning and inquiry. It will cause you to have to withhold your final conclusions more than would otherwise be the case. However, it is also similar to being a 7 year old child going from a 3 foot kiddy pool to the nearly fathomless deep of the ocean. Yes, in the ocean there is FAR more of a chance that you will meet your doom. However, the type and level of discovery that you will absolutely garner if you prepare yourself sufficiently for the undertaking (that is, of including mainstream and alternative sources into one's investigations) is such as to make where you were previously investigating appear to be little more than wading in a dirty mud puddle in comparison.

Again, you will indeed be more likely to come across sharks and all other kinds of things that can hurt and kill you in the ocean - something you would likely NEVER come across in the kiddy pool with mom watching and protecting you - but you are also much more likely to actually find a greater level of truth and understanding than would have otherwise ever been case.

So whoever made the counter-evidence must be in on it.

Again, you need to have a sufficient level of discernment and personal responsibility to be aware of this type of possible pitfall. What you bring up is indeed a valid consideration, so one must as a result be even more willing to discard literally ANYTHING regardless of how steadfastly they previously regarded it as being correct. Conversely, one must also be more resolute with what one indeed KNOWS is right regardless of how many things one might come across challenging it.

An amazingly tall order, I know, but such are the waters one must travel through if they are interested in furthering their understanding.

All phycisists disagree with the claims from the 9-11 conspiracists regarding the collapse of the towers? No problem, because all phycisists are in on it.

Okay. We have to stop for a moment here and examine this statement. You claim that "all physicists disagree with the claims from the 911 conspiracists regarding the collapse of the towers". Really? Do they? All of them? I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but - as far as I know and have researched - "all" physicists most definitely DON'T agree on a set theory. There are many imminent physicists that have quite a bit of standing who show anomalies in the official story that it seems are absolutely incompatible with known scientific theory. However, there are other physicists (hired by the government and the administration) who disagree with these physicists. It would, therefore, seem that there is no "all physicists" here who agree on one thing or the other. As a result, one could not say that "all physicists are in on it". It seems from my estimation that all physicists aren't "in on it".

Regarding what happened on 911, one must just follow the available evidence presented not only by mainstream sources, but also by alternative sources, and weigh them both on their own merits. It makes it more difficult to arrive at an answer to be sure, but the answer that one ultimately arrives at is more likely to be closer to the actual truth than would otherwise be the case.

This is, as far as I can see, a failure to apply true critical thinking.

It seems to me that the true failure to apply critical thinking lies in hurriedly applying universals to any group directly or indirectly involved in what happened.

It is also important to consider the following when regarding the attacks on 911.

And there are huge amounts of data from psychology that can explain why the human mind is so prone to conspiracy thinking, but I guess psychologists are in on the conspiracy as well?

Researching some of the work of Dr. John Mack - a Pulitzer Prize-winning, Harvard-educated professor of Psychology at Harvard - will help one go a long way in terms of finding out just how variable and nebulous are some of the presumably inviolable dictum of this society.

Dr. Mack has no weight as a psychologist? Okay. If you say so.

Confirmation bias explains why various theories exists - both in the conspiracy realm and outside of it. It certainly doesn't explain all anomalous phenomena in general, however.

Either way, all the best on your journey through life.

Peace,

You are correct. I am incorrect. He is a psychiatrist. Not a psychologist. I made a mistake. Apologies for getting the profession incorrect. He is trained in and specializes in mental disorders and psychoanalysis, as you said.

Somehow, this makes him actually a lot more qualified in the specific area of understanding that I brought him up for. Not less. Thanks for that.

All the same, most things are ultimately neither here nor there for most people, and individuals will generally not allow themselves to understand certain things regardless of their truth or falsity if, as already mentioned, they have a psycho-emotional disposition too heavily favored in one direction or another. Lots of people that call themselves investigators, regardless of their supposed area of expertise or credentials are embarrassments to themselves and their field of study. Others, of course, are great benefits.

Such seems to be the way of things on this tiny wayward raft called planet Earth.

This is one of the reasons we need the scientific method of peer-review so that others can scrutinize every last tiny detail of your work and reasoning systematically.

It seems more than any peer reviewed methodology, what is needed is a civilization that doesn't stifle true discovery and awareness - scientific or otherwise - as has been shown to be most certainly the case on this planet. What good or use is a peer reviewed method of scrutiny when at the end of the day it bows down before moneyed interests and the limiting stranglehold they have upon much of this world? That is what ends up having the last say with regard to what makes it to the public's awareness and what doesn't.

This is not to say that peer reviewed journals should not exist. Of course not. However, the importance that many place upon them is entirely out of proportion with the reality of what is and is not allowed to move forward in the civilization. I've found that many people seem to have a very uncritical - even religiously-based - emotional attachment to the supposed "hallowed importance" of peer reviewed journalism.

Again, it's valuable and important, but it should not take such an exclusive position upon what is valid or true to replace one's hold on an understanding that even those overseeing said journals work under the jurisdiction of a power that has prevented many a very real technology from getting out to the public.

These great investigators that are embarrassments to themselves, you realize that the system of peer-review makes sure that if you are an embarrassment, we all find out?

You realize that the system of peer-review is blind and powerless to that societal influence keeping the world in the current, ignorant state that it's in?

So unless your conspiracytheory is so big that all the scientists are in on it, or EVEN bigger: Something so powerful that it can fool all the scientists, then you have nothing to argue with.

It seems then that your belief and faith (those two wonderful words many keep coming back to whether they understand they're doing it or not) in the method of peer review would, therefore, comes nowhere near to understanding the possibility that some of the information found here could possibly be true. It would seem not.

If it is such a big conspiracy, well how can we test if you are right?

And examination of the (pretty big) world that exists outside of the limited confines of the peer reviewed one is not a horrible place to start looking.

Can't use science, because science can't be trusted.

Science - in and of itself and when practiced correctly - has a good possibility of yielding information that can be understood as being valid. As it is practiced on this planet, however (especially as it is practiced and applied in the mainstream arena), it has been shown to not have always been worthy of such validity.

We trust random youtube videos instead.

You "trust" nothing. Trust is what unscientific types rely upon to come to conclusions. You work and research using critical assessment. This brings the dialogue back around full circle at this point, as I began where I started and say once again that a critical assessment of what is available both in the mainstream and in the alternative streams of study is what is needed for better understanding.

Anything less will leave one wanting in their awareness of how things really work.

The irony is that "questioning" all given facts and ideas is what science is all about, a neverending quest for more and improved knowledge.

How is that ironic?

You come with a bunch of claims that are simply not testable.

Of course they are. Perhaps in your world they're not, however.

There is no evidence.

Apparently in your world there isn't. Okay. I'm sure the company you're with in this sentiment makes you feel confident and comfortable.

I could literally sit down and pick any major disaster and fabricate a conspiracy theory

Good for you. I couldn't - at least not one that would make sense if it weren't decently valid and scrutinized properly.

and it would be equally likely to be true, because neither can be tested.

Again, you seem to project your bias and belief upon areas such bias and belief have no jurisdiction over.

Like that link you gave me.

If observed circumstances match the proposed theory, then - while this does not necessarily indicate fail safe proof - one has gone a decent way in the direction of validity, and those that quickly jump to discard or discredit such theory do themselves more harm than good.

Im sorry I don't see any point in continuing this

I'm glad you have finally come to the conclusion I myself reached quite a few messages back. I was simply waiting for you to catch up.

You need some basic level of knowledge about the philosophy of epistemology in order to understand the requirement of falsifiability. Take care.

yes, we are aware it is interesting.

Welcome

I disagree with this. This will only serve to reveal the true power of the faults of the human mind.

So looking as well in the alternative, NON mainstream fields for truth "will only serve to reveal the true power of the faults of the human mind."?

Are you sure about that?

It's been in looking in the alternative fields that I discovered some of the very examples that I gave you initially which directly challenge what mainstream science says and that have still proven to be sound and haven't at all been refuted yet.

Even if you are trained in the scientific method, and have enough knowledge about the philosophy of epistemology, there is just usually too much that needs to be learned.

Oh I fully agree with this. However, it seems to me that one would still be remiss at not looking in as many different areas for viable information as possible.

If it goes against the scientific concensus, then either you are much more competent than thousands of scientists in their field in which they have years or decades of training, OR, the thousands of scientists from all countries around the world, from competing schools are involved in the conspiracy.

With regard to the latter of the two choices, it is possible for this to be the case unwittingly believe it or not. I do not supposed that literally EVERY single scientist that says "1,2,3" would actively support "1,2,3" if "1,2,3" were proven to be part of a purposeful ruse against that very society of which they themselves are a part. However, there have indeed been enough examples of scientist and inventors that have been "quieted" (sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly) for intelligently challenging the status quo, and I imagine a decent level of unquestioning, "going with the flow" complicity has settled into the ranks of mainstream investigation. This undermines true discovery.

And they are spending millions of manhours writing falsified scientific journals. This is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence.

I would say that you're looking at it from too simplistic a perspective here in assuming that, again, literally every single scientist is 100% aware of the specific extent to which they are part of a machine not designed to help humanity. Think of this dynamic from the perspective of the vastly complicated "need to know" dynamics that exist in huge corporate empires and convoluted governmental conglomerates. It is very often the case that the left hand knows not what the right hand is doing, and everyone is simply doing a specific, compartmentalized job in the best manner that they can without doing anything that would cause the "higher ups" to get angry at and fire them for. "Just keep your head down and work. Don't question. Just do your job."

And even with regard to those whose job it is to question, many times their questioning is only allowed to take place within a certain limited frame of reference specific to the particular area those in charge want them to work in. When the questions begin to stray past that specific area of discovery, they are reigned back in by either being directly told to shut up, or by having their job, character, person, and/or work undermined (again, they get "quieted"). Sometimes the inventor's discoveries are allowed to blossom and flower, and then after everything is said and done and the final work is put on the front desk, those in charge will simply sequester that information and keep it from seeing the light of day if it challenges the status quo.

Relevant to this is this post I made. Pay specific attention to what I say in the original post's "EDIT" section. Click on the provided link in that area and take a look at it. This is a specific example of some of the things I talk about here.

alternative methods are alternative for a reason. They just don't hold up to peer review, unless of course the entire scientific community is in on the conspiracy as mentioned.

It's said that part of what allows TPTB to get away with what some say they get away with is the fact that the public has been generally conditioned to have a perspective of the world that is so limited and mundane that they would simply not believe the truth if it were put in front of their faces in full disclosure form. It would simply annihilate too many of the beliefs they've (we've) been indoctrinated to believe are true and that we have grown to have an emotional attachment to. A real acceptance of many of these things would threaten to absolutely destroy many of those attachments. Therefore, most of us end up simply choosing to be like Cypher from the Matrix and knowingly look away, keeping our faces turned steadfastly toward the veritable cave wall.

the deeper you dig, the wider the conspiracy becomes, because as soon as there is counter-evidence, you need to explain it.

Not necessarily. There is some counter-evidence that simply shows some conspiracies to not have existed at all; to have ultimately been little more than a hoax.

I myself have come across many circumstances whereupon what I initially thought was true and factual I, after more digging, referencing, and cross referencing, discovered that it was more likely nothing but a charlatan lying all along.

Delving into the admitted Pandora's box of alternative sources and conspiracy theories will indeed complicate matters much more. It will indeed cause you as an investigator to have to be MUCH more diligent in your questioning and inquiry. It will cause you to have to withhold your final conclusions more than would otherwise be the case. However, it is also similar to being a 7 year old child going from a 3 foot kiddy pool to the nearly fathomless deep of the ocean. Yes, in the ocean there is FAR more of a chance that you will meet your doom. However, the type and level of discovery that you will absolutely garner if you prepare yourself sufficiently for the undertaking (that is, of including mainstream and alternative sources into one's investigations) is such as to make where you were previously investigating appear to be little more than wading in a dirty mud puddle in comparison.

Again, you will indeed be more likely to come across sharks and all other kinds of things that can hurt and kill you in the ocean - something you would likely NEVER come across in the kiddy pool with mom watching and protecting you - but you are also much more likely to actually find a greater level of truth and understanding than would have otherwise ever been case.

So whoever made the counter-evidence must be in on it.

Again, you need to have a sufficient level of discernment and personal responsibility to be aware of this type of possible pitfall. What you bring up is indeed a valid consideration, so one must as a result be even more willing to discard literally ANYTHING regardless of how steadfastly they previously regarded it as being correct. Conversely, one must also be more resolute with what one indeed KNOWS is right regardless of how many things one might come across challenging it.

An amazingly tall order, I know, but such are the waters one must travel through if they are interested in furthering their understanding.

All phycisists disagree with the claims from the 9-11 conspiracists regarding the collapse of the towers? No problem, because all phycisists are in on it.

Okay. We have to stop for a moment here and examine this statement. You claim that "all physicists disagree with the claims from the 911 conspiracists regarding the collapse of the towers". Really? Do they? All of them? I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but - as far as I know and have researched - "all" physicists most definitely DON'T agree on a set theory. There are many imminent physicists that have quite a bit of standing who show anomalies in the official story that it seems are absolutely incompatible with known scientific theory. However, there are other physicists (hired by the government and the administration) who disagree with these physicists. It would, therefore, seem that there is no "all physicists" here who agree on one thing or the other. As a result, one could not say that "all physicists are in on it". It seems from my estimation that all physicists aren't "in on it".

Regarding what happened on 911, one must just follow the available evidence presented not only by mainstream sources, but also by alternative sources, and weigh them both on their own merits. It makes it more difficult to arrive at an answer to be sure, but the answer that one ultimately arrives at is more likely to be closer to the actual truth than would otherwise be the case.

This is, as far as I can see, a failure to apply true critical thinking.

It seems to me that the true failure to apply critical thinking lies in hurriedly applying universals to any group directly or indirectly involved in what happened.

It is also important to consider the following when regarding the attacks on 911.

And there are huge amounts of data from psychology that can explain why the human mind is so prone to conspiracy thinking, but I guess psychologists are in on the conspiracy as well?

Researching some of the work of Dr. John Mack - a Pulitzer Prize-winning, Harvard-educated professor of Psychology at Harvard - will help one go a long way in terms of finding out just how variable and nebulous are some of the presumably inviolable dictum of this society.