Scientific Progress

[juan]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:41:02 +0200
Tom <tom at vondein.org> wrote:


> 
> > 	Thanks for providing a reason why your view of the
> > 	establishment can be biased. You like what they do
> > regardless of where the funding comes from.
> 
> If I can learn something new, does it really matter, who paid for it?


	Well, at least you are being candid. "The end justifies the
	means". And in this case "end" is simply something that you
	like, not even some fuzzy 'common good'.  Too bad such
	justification isn't exactly  valid.

	
>  
> > 	You like astronomy? Fine. Do astronomy with your own money.
> 
> Yeah, I'll build my own orbital telescope and count galaxies :)


	You can do whatever you want, as long as you can raise the
	money by voluntary means. The concept isn't hard to
	understand...I assumed you subscribe to some sort libertarian
	political philosphy? Am I mistaken?

	At any rate, it's obvious that there are economic/physical
	LIMITS to ANY 'scientific' project, or even to ANY project,
	even when funded with stolen money.  Such is reality...


> 
> > 	"Upper Paleolithic humans may have hunted cave lions for
> > their pelts" 
> > 
> > 	Really?? But they also may NOT have hunted cave lions,
> > right? Don't you see anything wrong, even with the wording of the
> > 	'scientific' 'fact'? Do you think that suggesting a
> > possibility and providing very flimsy evidence for it is 'science'? 
> 
> I see. This particular example might be the wrong one. The problem
> we'd need to discuss here are the media. Of course, if one study says
> something "might have happened" this is no fact. However, media
> immediately report about such singular studies as if it were.


	I don't see how the media come into play here. You selected
	the article, not the media. But since you mention the media,
	do notice that the academics and the media are complicit. It is
	thanks to the corrupt media and their promotion of state
	'science' that the 'scientists' get their stolen funds.



> 
> Also, somewhere else someone stated, that science is about finding the
> truth. But this is false as well. 

	
	That seems kinda contradictory...


> Science is about theories and
> confirming evidence, experiments and studies. 
	
	Theories, evidence and experiment? What about those? Are they
	'true', 'false' or what?


> However, they remain
> theories. This is the core of science: a serious theory must be
> falsifiable. That is, even theories as the "theory of relativity" or
> "global warming" might some day fall apart when someone finds evidence
> which contradicts it. But in the meantime science works with the
> consensus (we had this point already in the climate thread),


	Yes, the claim that truth is a matter of consensus was made. It
	of course remains an absurd claim and thankfully people didn't
	even bother to provide a 'proof' (there isn't any valid one of
	course).

> since you
> must work with something.

	Why? There's no truth but you 'must' work? 


> 
> So, did humans hunt cave lions? 


	If they did, that would be hardly surprising, which is why
	that piece of 'scientific' research is just a joke. To sum
	up, somebody writes a paper about something that 

	1) is likely to have happened
	2) but can't actually be proven
	3) yet the author covers his ass by saying "uh but maybe it
	DIDN'T happen eh"
	4) is pretty much irrelevant anyway

	5) it's the perfect nonsense for some anonymous 'researcher' to
	get a GRANT.
 
> I don't know. But I know one thing: we
> humans are the most dangerous species on this planet, so why not? 

	Right, humans were HUNTERS and HUNTED STUFF. Wow. We really
	need 1000s of millions of dollars stolen and wasted to find such
	amazing 'scientific' NON-TRUTH =)
	
	Because science isn't about truth anyway.


> We
> kill everything, including our own fellow humans.

	True. Notice that the vast majority of human predators work for
	the state though. For instance, NASA, which isn't really
	concerned with astronomy, but with space-based weapons.



> 
> > 	And are there people who feel curious about what happened to
> > 	lions 10,000 years ago anyway? Fine. Let them waste or
> > devote their onw resources to find out. 
> 
> I am curious about this, but we digress :)


	Actually you picked a perfect example for me to make my points.
	Thank you very much =P


>  
> > 	How could any sane person deny that fucking NASA, which is
> > 	nothing but a branch of the US gov't and more precisely of
> > the pentagon are not parasites? I assumed you knew that by
> > 	definition gov't employees and contractors are parasites.
> > That is a 'scientific' truth.
> 
> I don't deny this. However, the knowledge they acquire is good for all
> of us, wether you're interested in astronomy or not. 

	SOME of the knowledge is useful. Some is not knowledge but just
	bullshit. Some other knwoledge can be easily misused so it's
	quite debatable how good it is. 

	Tell me what is the value of learning how to build weapons of
	mass destruction. 


> I understand your
> point but I cannot reject all NASA does just because they are
> government backed.

	Whatever useful stuff they do can be done in a civilized, i.e.
	not-state-funded way. And if there are some pet useless
	projects that can't be voluntary funded, so what. Resources ARE
	limited.

> 
> > 	Do you realize that your 'beloved' scientists are sceaming
> > 	"We are gov't funded parasites" ? 
> 
> Yes, I do. The question is, who shall fund them instead? Corporations?
> That's just the same shit. Crowdfunding? Will never happen. There'd be
> no science at all without funding. We'd still be hunterers and
> gatherers :) 


	That's a whole paragraph full of nonsense and propaganda. Do
	your own RESEARCH =)

	Let me point out though that your line of thinking that
	goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the
	mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
	



> 
> > 	Again, I'm  not talking about science if correctly defined
> > as an unbiased search for truth. I'm talking about the people who
> > 	claim to do science, the vast majority of them being paid
> > with stolen money, to 'research' completely irrelevant stuff like
> > 	'paleolithic lions', or to 'explain' how central banking is
> > the source of civilization and progress.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom