Yep.

I believe in the principles of science, the scientific method, etc., but there are too many opportunities for corruption and our power structures have been proven corrupt. If you can't perform the experiment yourself, you can't be sure whether or not they're simply lying to you, like everything else.

I'm a scientist... more specifically a materials scientist. At some point, you are able to recognize what is bullshit and what is not regardless of your specific expertise.

"Adjust" your data? You can't do that! It means your test is flawed and your "data" is useless. "Adjusting" it to suit your hypothesis is outright fraud.

Science should also be predictive. For instance, I can accurately predict because of experiments that I have done and the experiments that others have done what happens when I combine two materials in a formula. You are constantly "adjusting" your models because their predictive capability is flawed and inaccurate but you still insist on calling them accurate predictions on which we can base policy?

It's ridiculous. Most people don't even know what a "fact" actually is. This is more religion than science.

so fucking this.

climate 'researchers' (i don't consider them scientists) that come up with climate models that can only make accurate predictions after making 'adjustments' (inserting the appropriate algorithm to change the wrong answer to the right one...how scientific!)to their models and claim that this is evidence of climate change are literally scientifically illiterate.

climate researchers come up with all sorts of excuses all the time as to why their predictions keep turning out wrong. 'anomalous' events, 'unpredictable weather', 'natural fluctuations'. If you CAN'T predict these 'anomalous' events (which seem to appear consistently enough to consistently cause climate models to make wrong predictions), it means you DON'T understand the climate well enough to model it accurately, so DON'T pretend that you can.

http://i.imgur.com/jFH4jpV.png

Be having a normal conversation, Someone looking at glaciations mispeaks that we are overdue for an ice age when they meant glacial period. I make a simple correction to make sure everyone understands the meanings of words and stuff...

Some global warming freak attacks me thinking he has found an exploitable flaw in my knowledge base.

Realizes his mistake before I can reply and deletes his comment.

But it makes you realize there are people here, so angry about you having a different opinion, that they lurk on the sidelines waiting to attack you about anything at any moment.

Global warming, one of those "scientific models" that constantly fails to predict anything significant, is a prime example of trash science. There is no 2nd earth for us to experiment on that is human free. There is no control group, there is no way to isolate variables. Its a nearly impossible task, scientifically, to make accurate global predictions. It will take hundreds of years for us to collect enough data to make meaningful predictions about climate change and that is only after we have started to collect all the right data. We can track CO2 for a thousand years and still learn nothing about climate change if we are wrong about CO2's influence on the climate.

We need to consider and collect as many data points as possible for hundreds of years and analyse that data responsibly without making end of the world predictions.

Yep. It's all appeal to authority. You don't need to be a doctor to know when you are being sold snake oil. ;)

The other issue people have is that it is very difficult for most to have perspective on how short of a time frame we have been able to directly measure different variables. We are limited by our life-experience, so to our mind, the world only exists as we understand it when we are here and it is difficult to really understand how different the planet used to be.

We have been collecting these direct measurements for a little over a century (if my memory serves me correct). How old is the planet?

100 years / 4.5B years = sample size of .000000022%. I may be off by a zero, but you get the point. People are very bad with putting the very large and the very small into the proper context.

I think most reasonable people understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas... there is no dispute about that.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M

Definitely agree. Most arguments I see lately are forms of gaslighting through the authority of science. A peer reviewed paper becomes canon for the flock. Source?? Source? It becomes all the proof anyone needs like scripture. Today we have mass medication of children easily justified by science. Instead of being cured people become test subjects. The war on health through cure all pills aids in the war on spirituality. People have put their faith in the pill to cure not their own will. Science instantly discredits anything but cold numbers. Refusal to analyze emotion and spirituality leaves science without either. It is a religion like any other. The knowledge that should be saving humanity throughout history is always captured and manipulated for gain one way or another.

Source

I've grown to hate this word, it's like people want you to spoon feed information to them

I think it is because most intelligent people understand that knowledge is like money; you have to earn it yourself to understand its true value.

I like the way you put it... I totally agree.

That is why I started:
/r/corruptscience

I believe that the scientific method is often used in a wrong way, and can be used to block new ideas. The method can introduce new theories about a subject, which can be tested accordingly. That is fine.

But how it is used in mainstream science, is that unless an older theory is falsified according to a majority of the scientists, the older theories will be maintained. And alternative theories that are too different from the older theories are simply blocked.
If you are point out that an old theory has some problems, and you start to doubt this theory, you can be seen as a crackpot.

In the case of corruption, where relevant information is kept hidden from us, there is no way to falsify the old theory. The mainstream theory that the government is generally helpful and caring can not be falsified. The government will not release such information.
That means that the scientific method used in this wrong way can not be used to investigate corruptions.

But if we allow the alternative theories to exist. We can now suggest that there is some kind of corruption in the government. We can suggest that some groups are more corrupt than others. And we can theorize that some of these groups are organized and aim for profit over the wellbeing of others. We can even find evidence for many cases of such corruption.
This seems logical from a scientific point of view. But mainstream science denies such theories, and call them conspiracy theories. They "request more evidence", which is logically not there, because the people involved keep this evidence away.

This denial of mainstream science is illogical. And this persistent denial, logically means that mainstream science has become corrupt in some way. And while I do not know the source of corruption, I find it logical that the corrupt people want to hide and continue their corrupt practices have learned how to influence the media, the law, and of course the mainstream science.

Nothing wrong with the scientific method, but it is used as a buzzword to cloak horrifying things. I think you are thinking well.

It has been my experience that some if not most successful priests, oops I mean "scientists," have curious occultic beliefs that include participating in rituals that for the "rational" mind would appear to be more religeous than anything else. For example, google jack parsons and babylon rising.

CERN scientists seem to be very esoteric too.

That weird video of the dance ritual they released a few days ago matches the dancing in I Pet Goat, II. Creepy is an understatement.

Why this got a down vote is beyond me... Any true scientist has to look at whats going on with CERN and wonder what's up with all the ritualism and esoteric symbols. If you just down vote this info without researching then you are lieing to yourself.

Cern terrifies me. In their documentation they say they're looking to break or change the "standard model." Do you know what they consider the "standard model?" Reality. Our reality is what they consider the "standard model." I've had people practically scream at me talking about it's just a theory, it's theoretical physics they're experimenting with and on. Even if they don't open a portal to hell, or change our reality, the magnets they're using are 100,000x stronger than the earth's magneto sphere. They could literally rip away our atmospheric protection on accident or on purpose who the hell knows just to see if its a provable theory. That's just on the surface, add the rituals and the statue of a god doing the dance of destruction on their front lawn to label them mad scientists isn't out of the question. EVERYTHING that's coming to a head (isis, russia, furgeson, etc) is all just a distraction for what they're doing at cern on friday.

I agree 100%

Excellent point.

I always use Jack Parsons as an example when people say practicing the occult is unscientific, or that it makes you unscientific.

I've felt this way for a very long time. In doing so, I consider science to be a religion amongst fools.

Just like you said in your post, "science says this, or science agrees"

People make the same statements about God, or some other force.

I've tried to explain this and what you say to friends who jerkoff to science, but that never goes well.

Also, I think that science has painted itself into a corner by not giving light to non physical phenomenon, such as astral projection and the like.

I'm not about pseudo science of anything but people experience these things. Lots of them do. So, something is deffiently going on here. However, if they were to acknowledge these things, a lot of other knowledge would more than likely be as well. Things would have to be rewritten, etc. It'd be a big deal, so it's easier not to I guess.

I love the scientific method but I have noticed that Science is almost a religion, Carl Sagan and Neil Tyson are prophets, and all bow to Atheism.

It has always been a very blinded faith created by archon's/demons. What better way to slap the creator in the face then to convince his creation he doesn't even exist. To be so blinded by faith(in atheism) that you ignore all evidence of intelligence behind creation is the epitome of the "head in the sand" analogy. Its easier to say nothing is happening behind the scenes then to take the time to look and then having to act... Head in the sand.

all evidence of intelligence behind creation

Like what, may i ask?

Lifeless matter somehow self organizing into a living organism. This doesn't seem a little odd?

Eh. Yeah its odd. I see now that my "like what?" was a baited question... Its going to come down to theologists saying this is proof that there is an intelligent creator, while i would just reply saying that its not proof of anything.

I dont believe it is possible to know, either way, whether an intelligent creator exists. To believe that one exists requires exactly as much blind faith as one would utilize in completely believing none exists.

This is where i was going towards with the guy that posted saying atheists are the epitome of blind faith. Its actually both sides who represent the epitome of blind faith, imo.

It all boils down to personal opinion and what one chooses to believe. The only truth is that none of us truely know, as any evidence, for or against, is up to interpretation and can only be construed, one way or another, based on what we currently know and understand up until this very moment (which always changes).

One group is openly admitting blind faith, while the other rejects blind faith while having the strongest.

There are too types of atheists: the first claims that they know for a fact there is no intelligent creator. Thr second believes that it cannot be known whether there is an intelligent creator, but chooses to believe there is none.

There are similar types of theists: one who claims they know for a fact that there is, indeed, an intelligent creator. The second, who concedes that it cannot be known whether there is an intelligent creator, but chooses to believe there is.

The first groups in the atheist category and the theist category require the exact same amount of blind faith. Exactly the same amount. The second groups tend to have variable degrees of blind faith, but less than the former groups nonetheless.

I feel it is important to differentiate the groups we are identifying, here. I speak from the perspective of an agnostic atheist. I have sense you might be a devout theist, but it doesnt matter to me.

I'm a nothing. Can't say either way.

Fair enough. I wasnt trying to label you or anything, just expressing things from my perspective (which, as always, could be wrong.) Hope i didnt come off as rude..

Couldn't agree more. I actually had someone reddit tell me I was wrong becuase they were a scientist. They didn't even specify what field they work in, just said that they are a scientist and I'm wrong because science.

It's insanity.

People have been conditioned not to question "science". It's as if the individuals who label themselves "scientists" are infallible, immune to vanity or personal ambition, never blinkered by received ideas, unaffected by the pressure and agendas of the multi-billion dollar corporations that pay their wages.

But, but, people argue that the "scientific method" and "peer review" ensure that science is always objective! Sadly this is not the case - human failings get in the way.

The majority of scientific experimentation and trials conducted by pharmaceutical or chemical companies never see the light of day, because they only publish results that are favourable to their products! I'd like to see legislation that compels all organisations that do scientific research to publish ALL their results, from all their experiments and trials, instead of cherrypicking those that suit their commercial objectives. This positive selection of results completely subverts the scientific process.

And as for Peer Review, the Nobel Laureate Professor Sydney Brenner has this to say:

"I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."

Full interview here

That's what happened with Tamiflu, the vast majority of studies said the drug was worthless, and they all disappeared, in favor of those few studies done with smaller sample sizes that found a favorable outcome with the drug.

Yes, good example. Large corporations simply cannot be trusted to put truth over projected profits.

The first studies that showed a link between tobacco and cancer were made in the 1920s, but Tobacco companies and governments managed to selectively "ignore" the independent evidence, relying on big tobacco sponsored studies saying cigarettes were safe and not addictive until the mid 1970s.

With regards to tobacco, this made me laugh -> http://171.67.24.121/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/doctors_smoking/more_doctors_smoke_camels/large/camels_doctors_whiteshirt.jpg

Amazing, isn't it! And of course anybody at the time who argued that tobacco didn't "soothe your throat" and might even have adverse health effects were crazy conspiracy nuts.

There is no guarantee of the eternal consistency of physical rules - the universe, up until now, could all be a very elaborate rouse.

You might enjoy /r/philosophyofscience.

I think it started with global warming. "All these evil companies/governments are denying the science that says things are fucked and we need to use less fuel!" An Inconvenient Truth, according to the documentary featuring Al Gore.

It went from "the science says!" meaning that the government, that the corporations are in denial/lying in face of the facts for unscrupulous purposes, to the people are anti-science and maliciously ignorant for not blindly trusting the authorities when it comes to making what they feel are the best decisions for themselves/their children.

The notion has certainly been twisted.

If you want a person to make better decisions to benefit themselves, there's no reason to cajole them! That's what they want anyway! Be helpful, not antagonistic. But somehow people are monsters for not agreeing with you as to what the best course of action in their own personal lives is.

With the fluoride issue, there are literally hundreds of studies (and they keep coming) saying this stuff is bad, it can have detrimental effects. Then there's a bunch of studies that didn't find any link to health problems, and these are pointed to as proof of safety. And then 'science' says the issue is settled. Case closed, thinking abandoned. Eventually the science doesn't matter anymore, and it simply becomes a matter of politics, and people use those selected studies to support the policy, whilst ignoring the rest of the evidence. And if you question policy, apparently are insane, and anti-science.

You've described what Mark Passio calls "scientism":

"Not real science, but scientism. Science as set up by institutional bodies to be rigidly skeptical belief systems that blot out anything that could possibly say anything to the contrary of their pre existing beliefs."

Well said. I came to the conclusion that false science was being peddled years ago.

I couldn't have said it better.

We need to start turning english statements into flowcharts/decision trees based on logic and reason. Anybody have exposure with this?

You are describing the "religion" of science, wherein like you said, critical thinking is tossed aside as unnecessary because "the scientists said so, don't question the scientists".

Little do they realize they are behaving in the exact manner that they claim the stupid religious people to act in.

I'm a Christian, but I think critically. Religion only "controls" me as far as letting me know what really is right from wrong, and conditioning me to not want to act on what is wrong.

I have no problem not murdering, I do not want to do it, so in that case and many others, "religion' isn't controlling me, I'm merely following Gods law to not murder other people, a rule I gladly follow.

Personally, i view scoence as a wonderful starting point. But, in its nature, science is meant to change, and therefore the position reliant upon curreny scientific knowledge is due to change as well.

All science is supposed to do is explain the world around us as accurately as possible. This means using the most up-to-date evidnece, observstions, and understandings and theories to come up with the most up-to-date explanation for any given question.

As knowledge grows, and our perspectives shift, so must science. This is where shit gets rough.

People will spend their entire life (a result of a specialized workforce, btw) trying to find one thing... One thing... To make it all worthwhile and to justify their perserverence and any federal grants they have received. When desperate, or feeling like they arent worth anything, their temptation to skew data becomes immense. Or even to make shit up, hoping nobody will catch it.

If ever one of these ploys is successful for a certain period of time, and becomes accepted despite its known or unknown flaws, reversing or modifying it becomes much more than just a shift in position. It becomes political, and personal, and could destroy reputations and possibly careers. Not to mention the lost investments and profits.

Im not agreeing with the behavior at all. In fact i abhor it. It does humankind a disservice to be so petty to manipulate the general perception of the universe around us for personal (or corporate) gain.

Had to chime in. Science has been corrupted and means damn near nothing now. "Believe Nothing...."

Science has no definition of truth, only of what is false. People touting scientific "truth" are peddling the new religion. Bill Nye is a good example, Tyson is another.

all evidence of intelligence behind creation

Like what, may i ask?