What is the value of the State?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:42:01AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > > On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> A shitty novelist points out that science has been wrong in the
> > >> past,
> > >
> > > You highlight Crichton's point perfectly - that shitty science from
> > > the past that he spoke of is not, was not, and never shall be
> > > science, it was merely "science", political social movements dressed
> > > up as "concensus science".
> > >
> > > And here you are, once again, smack bang in the trap this has set for
> > > your weak mind - calling past "science" as science, instead of the
> > > politics it is.
> > >
> > > And anyway, what the hell has Michael Crichton's novel writing
> > > ability got to do with the clear, succinct and slightly humorous
> > > facts he raises in his essay/talk??
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hey, you replied to one of my emails!
> > I guess it's easier to jump on this bandwagon than try to defend any of
> > your other countless (and disgusting) hypocritical views.
> >
> > Maybe we can send some death squads out to the science departments at any
> > institution doing climate research? Especially if they're (((jewish))) -
> > sounds right up your alley, you bad boy ;)
> >
> > In any case, Chrichton selectively chose a few things which, as i said, no
> > one ever claimed was a known science. Like the drake equation.  Then he
> > further selected a bunch of stuff that has been discredited, thanks to
> > further scientific work, over time. In effect, he showed that science, over
> > time, works.
> >
> 
> What he showed is that it works VERY poorly when those in scientific
> "authority", and who often have reputation and/or financial attachments to
> the prevailing Consensus, use their influence (politics) to suppress
> conflicting views (and often the careers of those holding them). Yes, over
> time it "works" but the lengths of these "erroneous consensus" epochs can
> stretch to lifetimes and during these periods the public can be denied the
> advantages of the later "proven" science (for example, saving lives due to
> effective medical treatments) or forced to pay (for example, through
> unwarranted taxation, misguided public policies and regulations).
> 
> 
> >
> > And naturally he stayed away from all the wonderful things that have been
> > wrought by scientific innovation, and that are in fact a CONSENSUS, once
> > they have been accepted by the scientific community. That these consensuses
> > can change is obvious, or he wouldn't have had so much crap science to pick
> > from (and doctors would still be following Galen and bleeding you to get
> > your humors in order when you went to hospital)
> >
> 
> The crux of Crichton's arguments are that all too often Consensus is
> presented publicly as Settled Science instead of what is really is:
> politics. This is especially troubling when dealing with areas of science
> (e.g., climatology) in which the application of the Scientific Method (not
> just collected data or models) is impossible/impractical given current
> technologies. I have yet to see those pushing the anthropomorphic climate
> change models openly admit this.

Well, you're unlikely to see John back down from his current stupid
position - goes with the weak American-media-fed-childhood mind he
seems to have.


> > The fact that science advances is not a legitimate attack on any
> > particular piece of current science. If that's all you got... you got
> > nothing.
> >
> > And i called him a shitty novelist because he is just that - a shitty
> > novelist. Actually i rather enjoyed a travel memoir he wrote, but basically
> > he's a hack. It's an opinion, you aren't obliged to share it (i doubt you
> > have the capacity to share it - somehow i don't envision you as a big
> > reader. maybe mein kampf before bed? ;)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> that predicting the future is hard, and that some equations
> > >> are basically guesses (e.g. the drake equation). Of course,
> > >> everyone has known this, including Drake and the SETI people, from
> > >
> > > Did you even read the whole thing?
> > >
> > > The problem is that previously 'revered' rags like "Scientific
> > > American" have become the Popes of "concensus science", destroying
> > > actual scientific take downs of their cherished political dogma.
> > >
> > >
> > >> day one (although there have been remarkable advances in the
> > >> ability to detect exoplanets recently, thanks mainly to the kepler
> > >> space telescope). What deep insight.
> > >>
> > >> It's funny how the biggest skeptics on climate science tend to
> > >> either be funded by the petroleum (and related) industry (these are
> > >> the few that publish studies) OR have no real scientific background
> > >> and are generally right-wing/conservatives or massively
> > >> conspiracy-inclined.
> > >
> > > Since you have no basis in science, of course we ought to have
> > > predicted your typical decent into ad-hominen.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Warrant Canary creator
> > >>
> > >> Did not create warrant canary,
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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.
> >
> >