Public Dissentiment

[John Newman]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:43:26PM -0300, juan wrote:
> 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.
> 

Whatever, you get my point.

> 	
> 
> > 
> > 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. 

That's not at all what I'm talking about. You aren't the arbiter of all
that is correct.

> 
> 
> > 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'. 
> 

You've made plenty of outrageous claims - that global warming is a hoax,
that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. 

> 
> 
> > 
> > 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. 

There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. Early
experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china,
exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA came
around, etc, etc. 

> 
> 	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'.
> 

Rational inquiry is what leads to the correction of mistakes. I would
think that is obvious.

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