What is the value of the State?

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Sat May 13 16:12:32 PDT 2017

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??

> 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.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list