What is the value of the State?

Steven Schear schear.steve at gmail.com
Mon May 15 10:42:01 PDT 2017

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.

> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 9008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170515/0e512fe2/attachment.txt>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list