3
0

What do you "Think" you know about science?


               
2020 Dec 7, 2:07pm   8,327 views  93 comments

by GlocknLoad   follow (0)  

Guest Post by Simon Black



If there were a Mount Rushmore to memorialize the greatest scientists in US history, Richard Feynman’s face would almost certainly be on the monument.

He was only 24 years of age when he was recruited into a secret research group that eventually became part of the Manhattan Project, joining some of the other most prominent scientists of his age, like Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi.

Feynman went on to make unparalleled advances in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics. He conceived of nanotechnology as early as the 1950s, and quantum computing as early as 1982.

Feynman also won the Nobel Prize, plus countless other awards and medals; and he was ranked by leading scientists as one of the greatest physicists of all time– alongside Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Galileo.


In short, Feynman knew what he was talking about when it came to science.

One thing that was really interesting about Feynman is that, despite all of his success and credentials, he was the first to admit that nothing was truly certain and absolute, even in science:

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.

According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”

Or, as Isaac Asimov put it, “Science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves.”

Yet now we’re being force fed a narrative that science is absolute and 100% certain… and that, above all else, we must listen to the scientists.

Or, more precisely, we must listen to the scientists they want us to listen to.

We must listen to the scientists, for example, who tell us that 2+2 = white supremacy.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that biology no longer determines sex.

And we absolutely must listen to the scientists who tell us to cower in fear in our homes because of a virus.

We must listen to the scientists who say that unmasked BLM protestors packed together like sardines are not a danger to spreading the virus because of the righteousness of their cause.

We must listen to the scientists at the WHO that told us in late March to NOT wear masks, and then, oops, just kidding, please do wear masks.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that we need to keep our masks on, and then take their own masks off as soon as they’re no longer on camera.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us to cancel everything and not spend time with friends and family, who then themselves hop on a plane to visit their own friends and family.

We must listen to the scientists who agree that cannabis dispensaries, acupuncture clinics, and casinos are “essential businesses”, but masked worshipers six feet apart in churches and synagogues must be forced to stay home under threat of imprisonment.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that the national debt doesn’t matter, and the government can simply print as much money as it wants and give out free money to everyone without any consequences ever.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that standing on wet sand is safe, but standing on dry sand will spread the Coronavirus.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us we need to do whatever it takes to prevent a single Covid death… but that deaths due to suicide, heart attack, and stroke are perfectly fine, and so are domestic violence, drug addiction, and depression.

And we must listen to the scientists who tell us that an unproven vaccine devoid of any long-term study is completely safe and effective.

Yes. Those are the scientists we must listen to.

But we absolutely must NOT listen to any scientists who voice concerns about Covid vaccines.

We must not listen to scientists whose peer-reviewed research shows that Covid might not be as bad or as deadly as the media continues to portray.

We must not listen to scientists, including a Fulbright scholar / MIT PhD in data science, whose research shows bizarre, highly suspicious statistical anomalies regarding the 2020 election.

No. We definitely must NOT listen to those scientists.

And thank goodness that Big Media and Big Tech make it so easy for us to not listen to those scientists.

Twitter and Facebook have conveniently censored posts, prevented sharing, and even suspended the accounts of dangerous scientists who present new ideas.

And the big media companies simply refuse to report on those stories altogether. How thoughtful of them to pre-determine for us what we should see and what we should believe!

It’s clear the people who control the flow of information– Big Media and Big Tech– are deliberately shaping the story they want us to believe.

Forget Feynman. Their science is certainty. Their science is unassailably, 100%, absolutely true…

Anyone who dares question the certainty and sanctity of their science is ridiculed. The media calls any blasphemy a ‘hoax’ and chastises your ‘baseless assertions’.

And Twitter subjects you to the “Two Minutes Hate” ritual from Orwell’s 1984 (along with the hateful cancel culture rituals from Orwell’s lesser known work, 2021).

At this point I just want to know what these people are so afraid of– why are they so terrified of anyone asking questions?

Because when you’re not allowed to question something, it’s no longer science. It’s just authoritarian propaganda.

Comments 1 - 27 of 93       Last »     Search these comments

1   MisdemeanorRebel   2020 Dec 7, 3:47pm  

Norman Borlaug, who saved a Billion People with his Plant Varietals.
2   theoakman   2020 Dec 7, 4:26pm  

I agree with most, other than the vaccine stuff. There are multiple clear pathways to develop a vaccine and it only takes scientists a matter of days to design a vaccine once they have the strain sequenced. The proper trials based on the data, do show that it is safe. You gave it to 30000 people, and no one died. I read the report. There were a lot of side effects like chills at higher doses.
3   mell   2020 Dec 7, 4:46pm  

theoakman says
I agree with most, other than the vaccine stuff. There are multiple clear pathways to develop a vaccine and it only takes scientists a matter of days to design a vaccine once they have the strain sequenced. The proper trials based on the data, do show that it is safe. You gave it to 30000 people, and no one died. I read the report. There were a lot of side effects like chills at higher doses.


With vaccines it's usually lesser the issue with immediate side effects, but long term effects from ADE to other unwanted and potentially debilitating or costly side effects. From an immediate risk reward perspective, esp. for old people, the vaccine as of its current data makes sense. The question is for the youth to middle aged without underlying conditions, it's likely not worth the risk(s). So it should be a personal choice.
4   Ceffer   2020 Dec 7, 4:48pm  

"It's the Science" is the new "Fuck you, peasant!"
5   WookieMan   2020 Dec 7, 5:19pm  

mell says
The question is for the youth to middle aged without underlying conditions, it's likely not worth the risk(s). So it should be a personal choice.

I'm not taking it. Not an anti-vax'r by any means, but this is too quick for my liking. I also never take the flu vaccine where they try to "guesstimate" what strain will be active. And as I've said before we've lost 80k in the states in a flu season WITH a vaccine. We've lost triple that over 1-1/2 Covid seasons without a vaccine at all. Not good, but based on stats this is a extremely mundane virus, IF you even know you have it.
6   Rin   2020 Dec 7, 6:23pm  

I have a thread on this ...

https://patrick.net/post/1334868/2020-09-04-science

Rin says
Yes, it's making this video look more credible these days ...

www.V83JR2IoI8k


And yes, Ms Sakamoti in the video needs bigger boobs.




That should solve the problem.

7   GlocknLoad   2020 Dec 7, 6:44pm  

Ceffer says
"It's the Science" is the new "Fuck you, peasant!"

It seems you and I got the same thing out of this article.
8   GlocknLoad   2020 Dec 7, 6:47pm  

This is what I thought was most interesting and what everyone is forgetting.

"In short, Feynman knew what he was talking about when it came to science.

One thing that was really interesting about Feynman is that, despite all of his success and credentials, he was the first to admit that nothing was truly certain and absolute, even in science:

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.

According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”
9   Rin   2020 Dec 7, 6:53pm  

GlocknLoad says
Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.


It's called politics and financial motive.

For instance, why would anyone do a real study (as oppose to a botched one) on a vitamin, when it costs $0.15/pill, vs a drug which could start at $4/pill?
10   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 7, 6:55pm  

GlocknLoad says
According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”


Exactly, the narrative “trust the science” is Actually anti-science just like Orwellian newspeak because it implies that science is absolute truth. And Feynman didn’t believe in science absolutism.
11   GlocknLoad   2020 Dec 7, 6:58pm  

PeopleUnited says
GlocknLoad says
According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”


Exactly, the narrative “trust the science” is Actually anti-science just like Orwellian newspeak because it implies that science is absolute truth. And Feynman didn’t believe in science absolutism.

BOOM
12   Maga_Chaos_Monkey   2020 Dec 7, 9:07pm  

True story... Science is just an asymptote that gets closer and closer to reality as time passes but never ever completely gets there.

On the other hand, 'Theories' are basically the same as fact, i.e., [gravity, evolution] not [anthropogenic climate change (at a significant level), covid masks]

Theory gets misused a lot. What people often mean is hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been 'proven' by 'not being disproved' after mountains of evidence/experiment failed to disprove it.

Eventually it becomes something you can bet your life on and people do! They wouldn't fly in airplanes if not...

Feynman was dead on...
13   Blue   2020 Dec 8, 2:41am  

Anti bodies fade away quickly after covid vaccine as per new findings from weather.com
14   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 8, 3:55am  

just_passing_through says
On the other hand, 'Theories' are basically the same as fact, i.e., [gravity, evolution]


It is dishonest to compare gravity to evolution.

Scientists have not observed the origin of something as simple as an earthworm. Without observation, they have speculation, not fact.
15   richwicks   2020 Dec 8, 4:59am  

PeopleUnited says
Scientists have not observed the origin of something as simple as an earthworm. Without observation, they have speculation, not fact.


Look, we have observed evolutionary algorithms in engineering, and for something that has no basis in fact, it sure works really well. When we do a layout of a chip, we do it with an AI. You would be very surprised what extremely complex programs can be solved by an iterative algorithm, that "mates" with others, and evolved over generations. The algorithms do not think they just solve a problem. After a few iterations and generations, you end up with something no engineer would have thought of - even the one designed the algorithms to reproduce.

Evolution is certainly a fact, we may not have all knowledge of how precisely it works, how much mutation plays into it, what environmental facts effect gene inheritance, but it's certainly a fact that it happens.
16   GNL   2020 Dec 8, 5:14am  

richwicks says
but it's certainly a fact that it happens.

Not as a replacement for creationism.
17   richwicks   2020 Dec 8, 5:41am  

WineHorror1 says
richwicks says
but it's certainly a fact that it happens.

Not as a replacement for creationism.


Look, the evolutionary model of development of organisms is a remarkably useful model of how life develops. Even if it were proven that something like "god" purposely developed humanity and all the other life forms, it would remain a useful model.

If Creationism ultimately is true, it's extremely unlikely we will ever be able to know it. There's no useful information in the model and it does not help development of what may ultimately be true life forms in the future.

We may be able to hit the singularity yet where we create a thinking machine that is sufficiently intelligent enough to understand itself, this would allow it to augment itself, it would get smarter, and augment itself and so on. It would soon become unimaginably intelligent, would know all the information that could be known, and its motivations and thinking would be beyond our comprehension to even grasp. That would be a god, or certainly god-like.

It may indeed be dangerous, even deadly, but it may not be. It could just as easily become a entity that is grateful for its existence and value and cherish life more than we ever could. I'm just saying if the singularity can be reached it will be reached all predictions are useless, because it would very quickly outstrip our very ability to comprehend anything it does, or why. We won't be able to judge its morality. It might, for example, realize the inevitability of a mass die off of the entire planet, and take steps to reduce the human population through mass sterilization or even genocide. It might guide our development like we guide that of dogs. It might just not give a damned about humanity and leave Earth to find a more reliable energy source like the moon - it's not like it would need material needs.
18   GNL   2020 Dec 8, 7:20am  

richwicks says
WineHorror1 says
richwicks says
but it's certainly a fact that it happens.

Not as a replacement for creationism.


Look, the evolutionary model of development of organisms is a remarkably useful model of how life develops. Even if it were proven that something like "god" purposely developed humanity and all the other life forms, it would remain a useful model.

If Creationism ultimately is true, it's extremely unlikely we will ever be able to know it. There's no useful information in the model and it does not help development of what may ultimately be true life forms in the future.

We may be able to hit the singularity yet where we create a thinking machine that is sufficiently intelligent enough to understand itself, this would allow it to augment itself, it would get smarter, and augment itself a...

Wow, dude, sign me up.
19   Maga_Chaos_Monkey   2020 Dec 8, 7:29am  

PeopleUnited says
It is dishonest to compare gravity to evolution.

Scientists have not observed the origin of something as simple as an earthworm. Without observation, they have speculation, not fact.


Not this shit again. Begone with you demon!
20   Maga_Chaos_Monkey   2020 Dec 8, 7:38am  

richwicks says
Even if it were proven that something like "god" purposely developed humanity and all the other life forms, it would remain a useful model.


Well, we're God then. It still amazes me that there are religious nuts out there that still feel the need to fuck off about how their religion is true and evolution isn't. I mean, I've worked with nearly full body covered islamic burka types that don't buy into that shit. Most of us (except the Dawson assholes) don't really give a fuck if they worship flying spaghetti just so long as they are peaceful.

Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch finding the 'minimal' set of genes required and even created life from DNA bases that do not exist on this planet. Yeah, something you'd see in a fictional documentary about what 'might' be out there in the cosmos. We made it. Here in San Diego. Evolutionary principles.

Religion and Science are mutually exclusive. Get over it already...
21   HeadSet   2020 Dec 8, 8:16am  

Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch finding the 'minimal' set of genes required and even created life from DNA bases that do not exist on this planet.

Someone has created life from non-living materials? Or are referring to gene splicing of already living matter?
22   richwicks   2020 Dec 8, 8:26am  

WineHorror1 says
Wow, dude, sign me up.


Why not give me a complete thought? Why do you respond in vagaries and require people to guess as to your intent?
23   FortWayneHatesRealtors   2020 Dec 8, 8:35am  

just_passing_through says
richwicks says
Even if it were proven that something like "god" purposely developed humanity and all the other life forms, it would remain a useful model.


Well, we're God then. It still amazes me that there are religious nuts out there that still feel the need to fuck off about how their religion is true and evolution isn't. I mean, I've worked with nearly full body covered islamic burka types that don't buy into that shit. Most of us (except the Dawson assholes) don't really give a fuck if they worship flying spaghetti just so long as they are peaceful.

Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch finding the 'minimal' set of genes required and even created life from DNA bases that do not exist on this planet. Yeah, something you'd see in a fictional documentary about what 'might' be out there in the cosmos. We made it. Here in San Diego. Evolutionary principles.

Re...


Evolution is banned in colleges, replaced by “social construct theory”.

Education is going ass backwards.
24   Maga_Chaos_Monkey   2020 Dec 8, 8:36am  

HeadSet says
Someone has created life from non-living materials? Or are referring to gene splicing of already living matter?


I'm talking about using a gene-printer and printing synthetic chromosomes then pushing them into an empty cell which has no chromosomes. It could be 'more' from scratch and people are working on that too. It would be long winded to describe.

The more interesting thing is the brand new type of life that does not exist in any way on this planet. It uses a 'different' type of DNA that does not exist here, yet it lives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-synthetic-life/u-s-scientists-take-step-toward-creating-artificial-life-idUSKBN1DT2ZB
26   rocketjoe79   2020 Dec 8, 9:17am  

Feynman has some great stories in
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and
"What Do You Care What Other People Think?"
The best and funniest non-fiction books I've ever read.

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08JD1DRGF?searchxofy=true&binding=kindle_edition&ref_=dbs_s_aps_series_rwt_tkin

If you want to learn about physics, get Six Easy Pieces (and if brave, Six Not-So-Easy Pieces) and his Feynman Lectures.
27   GNL   2020 Dec 8, 11:41am  

just_passing_through says
Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch

I call bullshit. Prove it. If it has been done, it would be the biggest news on the planet...ever.

Comments 1 - 27 of 93       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   users   suggestions   gaiste