Public Dissentiment

[juan]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:07:09 -0500
John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:

> 
> > On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800
> > Razer <g2s at riseup.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> ... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago.
> >> That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of
> >> global events. 
> > 
> >    American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly
> >    taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military
> >    party line.
> > 
> >    The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of
> >    people who used to burn witches....or 'cure' gays with
> >    electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of
> >    course. 
> > 
> >    
> 
> 
> Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not
> (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that
> burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and
> religious fervor.

	Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored joo-kristian
	tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political
	phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot the
	'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are
	considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'.

	Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument,
	but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant. They
	are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose.

	

> 
> It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the validity
> of science when it suits you, and at the same time using your own
> brand of scientific speculation to support a particular conspiracy,


	Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, 
	what you said describes you better than it describes me. 

	The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really
	talking about a rational search for truth, which is also known
	as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the
	establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. 


> again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't. Hint:
> science and the scientific method are fucking real. 


	I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not 'real'. 



> 
> Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, 

	Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the 'medical'
	'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are not mistakes. 

	And if you believe that rational inquiry can lead to that sort
	of 'mistake' you don't really understand what rational inquiry
	is, and you are in no position to lecture me or anynody else
	about 'science'.



> but
> they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science works. 

> 
> > 
>