The war against understanding.

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Elder
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:19 am
Location: indonesia

The war against understanding.

Unread post by Elder » Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:06 am

As a follower of the 'Electric Universe', one can't help coming across various debunkers from time to time. Most of them seem to have bad scientists and are misinformed to a greater or lesser degree. The RationalWiki pours scorn on a variety of topics of historical and scientific interest, without really knowing the science behind them or just completely ignoring the facts. These sort of people are fairly easy to deal with if you have on board such able personnel like Wal Thornhill and Stephen Smith. However, a different breed of deniers are some people called the 'Guerrilla Skeptics'. These are well organised and seem to operate in a number of different countries world wide. They plan their activities behind closed doors, and you can only listen in if you a member of the group. They are a secret society. Their interests seem to cover religion, science and information.
They have become a thorn in the side of the open source Wikipaedia, which as you know is a very valuable resource for the general public on every conceivable activity of human beings. The 'Guerrilla Skeptics' are trying to censor the free dissemination of information i.e. if something does not agree with the mainstream thinking, it is not published and regarded as heretical. Rupert Sheldrake, who is a well known biologist with some cutting edge views on a variety of topics, is having a hard time getting his work recognised because of these reactionary people.
All information on the open source Wikipaedia, should be disseminated without bias or criticism from third parties. This is especially important for scientific research because there will be no progress if it is blinkered by mainstream thinking. The 'Guerrilla Skeptics' are like an atheist church intent on organising other people to accept their beliefs. If they are allowed to get too strong, peoples brains will become locked in one robotic direction. Gone will be open mindedness and free thought, the Orwellian big-brother scenario will be a reality.
This may sound extreme at the moment, but the indications are, that good new ideas are often being swept under the carpet and never see the light of day. There is a war against understanding and it is difficult to know where it really comes from, or how to deal with it. The 'Electric Universe ' is still there, and I hope it will never be scuppered by the main stream.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The war against understanding.

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:20 pm

Pure Scepticism means that you doubt everything.

Scepticism as it is used in science and media, means that you doubt everything that is not mainstream.
I call it pseudo-scepticism.

If we look at the behaviour of these pseudo-sceptics, we can see that they
behave like religious extremists. They do not allow any doubt or alternative ideas.
They are usually intelligent, but not capable of dealing with other viewpoints.
If you come with a good alternative model or idea, they can become aggressive.
They can use personal attacks, use all logic fallacies possible, use prejudice,
call themselves specialists. They use lies when possible, and justify it by calling the opponents hoaxers.
They even justify their behaviour as some kind of police job.
They often treat science as something holy, scientists as oracles.

I think that these pseudo-sceptics are mentally ill. Their behaviour is similar to that of
people that are sociopaths. Even the brain-scans are similar.
That is because their mind is focussed on thinking from one fixed viewpoint.
These fixed viewpoints are often caused by traumas in their youths. Many pseudo-sceptics had
parents that were very religious, or had someone who died after alternative treatments.
So internally, they are still fighting with their past. They project their trauma on people that
trigger that trauma.

Sadly many scientists are nerds. Many have autistic tendencies. They are focused on maths,
numbers and data. They think a lot. They are not very good in social interactions.
That means that they do not notice when they are manipulated by people.
They even make life easier for them. They can focus their minds on the maths and numbers, without
having to look at the many other possibilities. As socially underdeveloped people, they are also
more likely to follow the instructions given to them. Some even like such instructions.
It is also nicer to dream about black holes and big bangs, than to look at the sun's very complex physics.
It is easier to pretend that this all reality does not matter, and we can theorize about dark matter and
dark energy. What if there are worm-holes? What if we can travel through time?

Did you notice that pseudo-sceptics actually support such fantasies?
These manipulative people have established themselves in high ranks inside the scientific community.
They have become leaders instead, and decide for the group what is good science and what is bad science.
In their eyes, good science is always something that is in line with the already accepted ideas.
And this is supported again by the older scientists that have worked their entire life on one little subject. It would
be wrong if this subject was based on a false idea, wouldn't it?

So essentially we have three groups of people in a symbiotic relationship. This has been going on for
more than 100 years.

The problem would be solved when the scientists start to recognize the manipulative behaviour,
and to get them out of the system.

Alternatively we can build a strong scientific community that does allow alternative ideas.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The war against understanding.

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:18 pm

Money

I forgot to add the importance of money in science as well.
Many science publications are about getting money.
This includes promoting a product and attacking a alternative (usually cheap) product.
Most scientific research and the publishers on a certain subject is funded by the industry

Make people stupid enough so that they will give you their money.

Technocracy

Additionally there is a political aspect. Many pseudo-sceptics are promoting technocracy.
In this political system the smartest scientists are in power. The pseudo-sceptics see themselves as the smartest,
even if they had no normal scientific education. They see other people as stupid.
Technocracy is something that does not match with reality.
Real scientists just want to do experiments. And as I described above, many scientists are not socially active people, and do not have very good social capabilities. And politics deals with lots of people.
Scientists can be wrong too. A real political situation is not the same as a mathematical formula. Historians might be the best politicians, since they can refer to real former political situations. But history and culture
is rather ignored or misinterpreted in technocracy. That is because "new" things are supposed to be better.
Normal people are considered stupid in this system. While there are some stupid people, they are everywhere.
There are scientists that can not even cook their own food. And as I described above, many pseudo-sceptics are
people with severe psychological traumas, incapable of changing their minds about certain subjects.
And at the same time every person is a specialist in his/her own area. A farmer usually knows more about
his animals than the educated scientist.
So this whole technocracy idea is totally flawed. But it is still being promoted.

The technocracy movement is also part of this "war" against understanding. It promotes the theoretical
knowledge of the scientist over the practical knowledge of the farmer (for example).
It is also a "war" against democracy.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Elder
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:19 am
Location: indonesia

Re: The war against understanding.

Unread post by Elder » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:16 am

Thanks a lot for your reply. As you say, the sceptics of today are in fact pseudo-sceptics and are not really aware of how they are or what they do. Yes, maybe even mentally ill. I am trained as a Landscape Architect, but before that I was working in the field as a landscape gardener and forester. The difference in working duties is extreme, but you get to realise the difference between theoretical knowledge and practical. The farmer is in fact much more in tune with nature and reality than the scientist, who is only really good in a school. If they met together they could probably achieve a lot, but it doesn't seem to happen too often. The same with governments and the people they represent and work for. The 'technocracy movement' as you say , seems to be one of the prime culprits of this war, and also against democratic leadership. I hope the better parts of humanity are able to pull themselves above the mess, some of them seem to be in at the moment.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests