What is the value of the State?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:20:11AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
> As I mentioned, cosmology is another field whose theories also can never be
> conclusively proven and despite massive consensus will remain just that:
> only opinion.

Well I for one am very s[ck]eptical about this particular assertion -
the Talls might just drop in and make a -public- appearance, and
provide a lot of data about neighbouring galaxies.

I'm sure we'll --never-- travel faster than the speed of sound ..


> Here Hawking et al fume at those opposing one of their
> cherished theories and the unmitigated gaul to play the Scientific Method
> "card".
> 
> https://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-and-32-top-physicists-just-signed-a-heated-letter-on-the-origin-of-the-universe
> 
> Warrant Canary creator
> 
> On May 13, 2017 7:46 AM, "Steven Schear" <schear.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science
> > and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.
> >
> >
> > http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming
> > _by_Michael_Crichton.html
> >
> >
> > Warrant Canary creator
> >
> > On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> >> > If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new
> >> > scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine
> >> > the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that
> >> > official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary
> >> > evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official
> >> > truth, to just make the evidence up.
> >>
> >> This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models
> >> - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem
> >> they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey
> >> stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data,
> >> to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't
> >> fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific"
> >> explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming"
> >> to "important data points not previously included in the model" and
> >> other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey
> >> stick.
> >>
> >> It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone
> >> self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it.
> >> But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is
> >> identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is
> >> a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public"
> >> theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.
> >>
> >