Somehow the scientists of the world didn't suspect that their authority would be seen as politically valuable by forces that would impose a dogma upon them through threats, bribery, psychological manipulation, and other methods of exerting control over humans beings.
We should be different, designing our institution with the foreknowledge that there are malicious forces out there who care less for truth and more for power, and they will use us to mislead the people away from the truth and towards believing the lies which favor those in power.
Those who seek to control what is perceived (truthfully or falsely) as being scientific knowledge are the true enemies of truth and science.
Once again the threat to something originates from within, from an outsider that made their way inside with malicious intention.
It used to be that that the colleges & universities did that until they were all bought out with "donations" . I suspect any new consensus would get "Jewed" with donations just as well
Hence why we should have a teams whose job is specifically to reject all the donors with shady backgrounds and ulterior motives. Or maybe commit fully to only accepting donation from individual donors.
Who ever does the research, better have protection from the chabad lubivichers wet works department, and a team of Lawyers to fend off the government lawfare attacks, and have unorthodox funding methods, free from irs esstoppel and corporate freezing of bank accounts.
We should cover our asses when we know they are due to attack us, also we should get some personalities who can act as a "face" for us, promoting our work and fighting back against any attacks on it's reputability. We will present ourselves as a cure to all the issues within modern academia:
- The lack of replication behind studies whose conclusions are being promoted in the media. - The politicization of science and inability to do controversial research or publicize results that offend popular cultural narratives. - The ignoring of evidence that contradicts strongly held convictions about the world within our cultures, and the purposeful oversimplification and misrepresentation of evidence in order to twist observations into seeming to support popular cultural narratives in ways they do not. - The repurposing of science as a tool of public manipulation by political forces, making it into a church where truth is dependent upon what particular people (the "celebrities" of the world of popular science) are saying or what the majority of people in a specific category (the anointed priesthood) say, rather than being what it should be, which is a methodology were claims are interrogated with experimentation and held up against the evidence in order to determine their truthfulness. Which is disastrous when you consider that most of the greatest revolutions in science came from the outsiders who were not popular within the scientific community nor popularly supported in their claims, these revolutionary thinkers would be completely powerless to do their work if they existed in a world like today where the modern state of science would cast them out as "pseudoscientists" for daring to disagree with the popular opinions, the good thing about science even 50 years ago is that it gave the unpopular dissenter the power to challenge the majority opinion because evidence mattered more than consensus, and if this pariah could show his claims to be true, or those of the consensus to be false, the scientific method would favor his claims over those of the consensus.
[ + ] totes_magotes
[ - ] totes_magotes 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 16, 2022 14:29:18 ago (+1/-0)
What you meant to say was "We need a scientific group that is not bought and paid for and is incorruptible."
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 16, 2022 15:32:13 ago (+0/-0)
Somehow the scientists of the world didn't suspect that their authority would be seen as politically valuable by forces that would impose a dogma upon them through threats, bribery, psychological manipulation, and other methods of exerting control over humans beings.
We should be different, designing our institution with the foreknowledge that there are malicious forces out there who care less for truth and more for power, and they will use us to mislead the people away from the truth and towards believing the lies which favor those in power.
Those who seek to control what is perceived (truthfully or falsely) as being scientific knowledge are the true enemies of truth and science.
Once again the threat to something originates from within, from an outsider that made their way inside with malicious intention.
[ + ] Robhere
[ - ] Robhere 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 16, 2022 13:24:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 16, 2022 13:28:38 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ReincarnatedGoat
[ - ] ReincarnatedGoat 0 points 2.4 yearsDec 16, 2022 10:42:48 ago (+0/-0)
Who ever does the research, better have protection from the chabad lubivichers wet works department, and a team of Lawyers to fend off the government lawfare attacks, and have unorthodox funding methods, free from irs esstoppel and corporate freezing of bank accounts.
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 1 point 2.4 yearsDec 16, 2022 12:40:19 ago (+1/-0)
We should cover our asses when we know they are due to attack us, also we should get some personalities who can act as a "face" for us, promoting our work and fighting back against any attacks on it's reputability. We will present ourselves as a cure to all the issues within modern academia:
- The lack of replication behind studies whose conclusions are being promoted in the media.
- The politicization of science and inability to do controversial research or publicize results that offend popular cultural narratives.
- The ignoring of evidence that contradicts strongly held convictions about the world within our cultures, and the purposeful oversimplification and misrepresentation of evidence in order to twist observations into seeming to support popular cultural narratives in ways they do not.
- The repurposing of science as a tool of public manipulation by political forces, making it into a church where truth is dependent upon what particular people (the "celebrities" of the world of popular science) are saying or what the majority of people in a specific category (the anointed priesthood) say, rather than being what it should be, which is a methodology were claims are interrogated with experimentation and held up against the evidence in order to determine their truthfulness.
Which is disastrous when you consider that most of the greatest revolutions in science came from the outsiders who were not popular within the scientific community nor popularly supported in their claims, these revolutionary thinkers would be completely powerless to do their work if they existed in a world like today where the modern state of science would cast them out as "pseudoscientists" for daring to disagree with the popular opinions, the good thing about science even 50 years ago is that it gave the unpopular dissenter the power to challenge the majority opinion because evidence mattered more than consensus, and if this pariah could show his claims to be true, or those of the consensus to be false, the scientific method would favor his claims over those of the consensus.