End Corruption in Science

[Lloyd]

I believe a quasi-unanimous rule method of group decision-making, called Sociocracy, is the most promising path to ending corruption in science and in everything else.

I'm starting a book, called Science Revolution, at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/science-revolution , in which I plan to write about how to make the Science Revolution, while also doing it. Actually, a lot of people have been making the Revolution for quite a while. I'm just trying to help add the finishing touches that puts it all together, turns on the key, and gets it off the ground, or off the starting line.

Okay, now somewhere along here comes the part where we try to herd a bunch of cats into a Sociocracy field and get them to work together like a pack of dogs. Do we have any experienced cat-herders in the house?

My best guess is that to get off the ground, we need a core group of 6 to 8 people to meet weekly for an hour to develop our organization and do that for a few months. So people who have time and interest to meet for that period of time and make proposals and act on them are what we're looking for IMO.

The audience is welcome to comment too. You can give examples of nonsense science and corrupt science, as long as it's not political or religious discussion. You can comment about Sociocracy too, if you want. And stuff like that.

When I was 19 I was in college studying physics etc and I had a vision of scientists working together for the benefit of rapid progress for all of humanity and ending political problems and doing colonization of space and all kinds of stuff. I wanted to put that ball in motion, but life happened. Now I guess I'm finally getting back to that 55 years later, when everything else is finally out of my way. (Doctors called it grandiosity back then.)

I don't look for smooth sailing, but I hope the voyage is doable just the same. About 12 years ago there was a group of us TB forum members working on Electric Sun models. There were 3 different models and I asked everyone to rate the probability of aspects of each model being right and they all put something like close to 100% for their own models and close to 0% for the others. So I need a better strategy than that this time for getting to the truth.

Is anyone here excited about grandiose ideas? Or do they annoy you? And how do emotions fit into science?

I hope to come up with a meeting agenda soon. Feel free to make suggestions and stuff.

[Lloyd]

32

NONSENSE
In my book draft at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/science-revolution I have this list so far under SCIENCE NONSENSE, a paper I may write for the book:
big bang, expanding universe, nebular hypothesis, black holes, worm holes, dark matter/energy, neutron stars, AGW, unsound dating methods, uniformitarianism, quantum mechanics, relativity, massless photons, entanglement, flat earth, way shortened history {Fomenko, Heinsohn}, no-virus theory, vaccine theory, drugs {mainstream medicine & illegal drugs}, UFO theory, no moon landings theory & no nuclear bombs theory {Miles Mathis} …
WHAT SHOULD BE ADDED?
I'll add mainstream education & socialization, including majority rule, authoritarianism etc.
WHAT DESERVES PRIORITY?
I think the most dangerous errors are the ones that should have top priority to disprove. I would put mainstream socialization first and mainstream medicine second. The TB forum likely won't allow arguments against mainstream medicine here, but most of the rest may be okay, unless it gets too political.

[nick c]

Lloyd, good luck with your book.

A few thoughts:

The peer review system is a major road block for paradigm shifting ideas. Judgement by consensus inevitably becomes political. People working within the higher levels of the peer review system have enough political power that they can make or break an upcoming career.
Therefore, an attempt to institute a paradigm shift will be politically repressed.
The phrase "scientific consensus" has relevance only if one realizes that the word "science" within that phrase, stands for Political Science. But why is that?

As a post Velikovskian catastrophist, I am of the opinion that the bulk of social and economic problems, and certainly the human race's compulsion to wage war and inflict destruction on an unimaginable scale, up to actual extinction events; is the result of the denial of our recent catastrophic past. The irresistible and collective urge to destroy the planet stems from the attempt to remember the near extinction events that were thrust upon our ancestors by cosmic events. We are the descendants of a relatively small percentage of ancestors who survived. And we create weapons capable of inflicting mass destruction from the sky. And often times we paint a star on those ICBM's. The latest development in warfare is the use of satellites to inflict destruction from space. Nobody, as an individual, wants to destroy the world; yet collectively, that potentially, is the end result.

The above might seem to be a diversion from the topic of this thread, but actually it is the root cause for the reason that you perceive there to be an unacceptable level of "Corruption in Science".

Present day science is a human institution which is devoted to the suppression of any attempt to remember and reconstruct the catastrophic past. The uniformitarian doctrine is the underlying paradigm which dominates establishment/consensus science, which is collectively, a reeling amnesia victim who is irrationally resistant to facing the reality of the violence which was inflicted upon our species from the cosmos. This results in attempts to lengthen human and geological history through the implementation of ill conceived dating techniques such as (short term and long term) radiometric dating, astronomical retro calculation into the remote past, ice core dating, dendrochronology, and the subservience of stratigraphy to a preconceived chronology rather than what is actually there in the ground.

[crawler]

32

NONSENSE
In my book draft at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/science-revolution I have this list so far under SCIENCE NONSENSE, a paper I may write for the book:
big bang, expanding universe, nebular hypothesis, black holes, worm holes, dark matter/energy, neutron stars, AGW, unsound dating methods, uniformitarianism, quantum mechanics, relativity, massless photons, entanglement, flat earth, way shortened history {Fomenko, Heinsohn}, no-virus theory, vaccine theory, drugs {mainstream medicine & illegal drugs}, UFO theory, no moon landings theory & no nuclear bombs theory {Miles Mathis} …
WHAT SHOULD BE ADDED?
I'll add mainstream education & socialization, including majority rule, authoritarianism etc.
WHAT DESERVES PRIORITY?
I think the most dangerous errors are the ones that should have top priority to disprove. I would put mainstream socialization first and mainstream medicine second. The TB forum likely won't allow arguments against mainstream medicine here, but most of the rest may be okay, unless it gets too political.

ADD.
Spacetime. String theory. Gravity waves. CMBR.

[Lloyd]

Thanks, Nick and Crawler. I added biased peer review to the list of impediments to science and I added Crawler's additional examples of science nonsense.

BOOK.
SCIENCE REVOLUTION https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/science-revolution
(This is intended to be a Book & Hopefully a Movement)
(These are the planned chapters, so far)
CORRUPTION IN SCIENCE
KEEP POLITICS OUT OF SCIENCE
SOCIOCRACY WILL END CORRUPTION
SOCIOCRACY FOR ALL - VIDEOS
SCIENCE NONSENSE
SCIENCE IMPEDIMENTS
PROGRESSIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
SCIENCE GOALS
SOCIOCRATIC SCIENCE ENCYCLOPEDIA

DISCUSSION PLAN.
MY PLAN is to invite interested people to participate in Sociocratically organized discussions to start this Science Revolution to end corruption in science and make science work efficiently for the common good of all of the people.

I plan to have the discussions in this thread and on my Substack and maybe elsewhere. To do this Sociocratically, which I'm still an amateur at, I'll try to make a meeting or discussion agenda. I have a vague idea that a fairly random discussion can act like a meeting. It would be like a very slow meeting where people talk to each other haphazardly over a period of days instead of gathered altogether in an hour or so of time.

MEETINGS.
In Sociocratic meetings, a circle of people are usually 6 to 8 in number. They make an agenda with most important topics first. They agree on what time they want to end the meeting. They discuss one proposal at a time. Everyone takes a turn saying if they accept the proposal or if they don't object or if they do have a reasoned objection. If there's a reasoned objection, they discuss how to modify the proposal to satisfy the reason for the objection. They sometimes use hand signals for "voting", with thumb up meaning accept, thumb sideways meaning no objection, and thumb down meaning objection. After going around the circle, anyone making objections is asked to state the reason/s. Then they proceed just stated.

DISCUSSION LIKE MEETING.
I figure that in a Sociocratic thread, similar things can be done, but over a longer time period, like a week or so.

AGENDA.
1. Organize
2. Group choose topic to Practice IMPROVED SCIENTIFIC METHOD
3. Practice IMPROVED SCIENTIFIC METHOD
4. Post Results in SOCIOCRATIC SCIENCE ENCYCLOPEDIA
5. Promote IMPROVED SCIENTIFIC METHOD & SOCIOCRATIC SCIENCE ENCYCLOPEDIA

Does anyone propose any changes or additions to this agenda?
To organize, does anyone want to invite others to follow this thread?
Or does anyone have suggestions how to organize?
Does anyone favor a topic to practice Improved Scientific Method on? By Improved I mean Sociocratic.

[Lloyd]

109

IDEAS: 1. GAMING; 2. END GOAL: ALTERNATIVE WIKI

EXCITEMENT.
Excitement is a fundamental human need. It's also a fundamental need of other species. Things need to be exciting to get participants. Gaming might help make Sociocratic Science more exciting. I invite discussion of developing a Gaming program to do Sociocratic Science on a fun topic, such as ELECTRIC UNIVERSE and/or SATURN MODEL MYTHOLOGY. Learning is exciting as long as a misguided education system doesn't turn it into boredom. Amateurs are usually satisfied to have just some basic learning on a topic, while pros often enjoy going deeply into it. Most of us are satisfied to be amateurs, so amateur participants in Sociocratic Science procedure may prefer to stick to the basics and then call it quits. On the other hand, Facilitators may like to help potential pros go further into a topic to flesh it out.

ALTERNATIVE WIKI.
Most of us might enjoy helping to develop or at least being able to read the outcome of Sociocratic Science procedure on a given topic such as the above. Or we might enjoy just having access to an Alternative Science Wiki and referencing it for others. The Natural Philosophy Alliance was kind of working on something like that back in 2017, but I lost touch with them. My online book Substack seems to have potential to contain alternative science info. So an initial short-term goal should probably be, I guess, to do one paper of "settled science" on a topic that interests several of us that's easy enough to complete that we can do so without much difficulty and with maximum enjoyment.

PROPOSALS.
The two topics I listed above, Electric Universe, and Saturn Theory Mythology, are surely too large to handle in short order, so I reckon a Subtopic needs to be selected. I'm open to proposals. The dating of the Great Flood is one subtopic I enjoy. I might mention other subtopics later, if it seems worthwhile.

PARTICIPANTS.
I volunteer to participate in producing a Sociocratic Alternative Science paper. I'm not great at recruiting others to participate. I did have a little luck recruiting members ten years ago. But I don't know if members have enough time and interest any more. Do they? Maybe I'll send invitations to some members before long. I welcome anyone else to do so as well.

INVITATIONS.
One of these days, unless volunteer/s help sooner.

[jacmac]

As another post Velikovskian I support all the comments from Nick.
To your list of misguided nonsense....

"NONSENSE
big bang, expanding universe, nebular hypothesis, black holes, worm holes, dark matter/energy, neutron stars, AGW, unsound dating methods, uniformitarianism, quantum mechanics, relativity, massless photons, entanglement, flat earth, way shortened history {Fomenko, Heinsohn}, no-virus theory, vaccine theory, drugs {mainstream medicine & illegal drugs}, UFO theory, no moon landings theory & no nuclear bombs theory {Miles Mathis} …
WHAT SHOULD BE ADDED?"

I add:
The non scientific practice of ignoring anomalous data that indicates a theory is incorrect because there is not a comprehensive replacement hypothesis such as in the Halton Arp saga.

Also, the attack on Velikovsky's book, Worlds in Collision, by "scientists" that did not read it.

And the complete lack of any discussion in astrophysics of the basic assumption that "gravity does everything" in space, with it's companion "there is no electricity in space."

[Lloyd]

129

Thanks, JacMac.

I'll try to rephrase your additions and include them in the book draft.

Speaking of the hard-headed notion that gravity does everything, I came across this video by Anton P, which I plan to post in my weekly sci updates:
DART Mission May Have Completely Resurfaced The Asteroid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEoKMWMlQiU
{Author said these 2 asteroids appear to be rubble piles held together by a little gravity and electrostatic vanderwalls forces. I reckon they're too small to have significant gravity, so it's mainly held together by static electricity. This means some asteroids formed from dust and debris, probably from impacts on a planet or moon etc.}

[Lloyd]

CHRONOLOGY

Nick, would you like to try a scientific method of discussion of dating methods of ancient history etc?

You said you favor short chronologies, whereas Saturnists favor less shortened chronologies. I favor David Rohl's, which is about 250 years shorter than mainstream chronology. I think all agree that the Dark Ages of Greece and other places are wrong and need to be removed.

My model is based:
- 1st on the oldest tree being about 4,700 years old, which must have grown after the Great Flood;
- 2nd on several other features, like rivers etc being 5,000 or so years old, as per Jonathan Gray's writing, also which must have formed after the Great Flood;
- 3rd on the Septuagint Bible stating that the Great Flood occurred c. 5,300 years ago, which event deposited nearly all sedimentary rock strata;
- 4th on Michael Oard's finding that the Ice Age lasted only c. 700 years after the Flood and that the Ice Age occurred on top of the sedimentary strata deposited by the Flood;
- 5th on the Younger Dryas impacts having occurred near the end of the Ice Age, which destroyed most megafauna;
- 6th on iridium-microspherule layers being possibly caused by Saturn novas during the Great Flood and the Younger Dryas event;
- 7th on the Saturn Golden Age having started after the last nova, i.e. after the Younger Dryas;
- 8th on Moe Mandelkehr's finding of a catastrophe 4,300 years ago, which ended the Golden Age and which I suspect was due to the Indian Ocean Burckle Crater impact event;
- 9th on pyramids and ziggurats etc having been likely built after the Golden Age in commemoration of the Saturn Configuration;
- 10th on the Dead Sea event having been dated by David Rohl to 1830 BC, which I suspect was the end of the Jupiter Age, which started after the Golden Age;
- 11th on the Exodus having been dated by David Rohl to c. 1446 BC, which involved a large comet, but probably not Venus
- 12fth on David Rohl's dating of subsequent events.

By this model, the Golden Age only lasted 300 years from 2,600 to 2,300 BC and the Jupiter Age 470 years from 2,300 to 1,830 BC and it's possible that Venus and Mars, as well as Jupiter, were still in close proximity to Earth in 1830 BC. Cardona had an article in Kronos, I think, called Jupiter, God of Abraham, which gave evidence that the Sodom and Gomorrah disaster by the Dead Sea was caused by brimstone that came from Io, a large moon of Jupiter. I think Cardona later abandoned that idea, but I still find it plausible. It may be that Jupiter was on an elliptical orbit then which brought it close to Earth on occasion, or it may have still been in the remains of the Saturn Train of planets.

I suspect that Venus was not the comet of the Exodus, because Cardona said he found no evidence that anyone who talked about the comet of the Exodus ever called it Venus. Even in Worlds in Collision it seems no one was sited as saying the comet was Venus. And surely by that late date everyone at that time was well familiar with Venus as a planet, no longer as a comet. It's not settled science, of course, though. I guess the myths of the Americas provide clues that Venus could have been seen as a comet as late as the time of the Exodus, but it's odd that no one in the eastern hemisphere seems to have called the Exodus comet Venus. So it seems unlikely that the Exodus comet was Venus and it's more unlikely that Mars encountered the Earth c. 700 BC. I can quote from some Aeon articles etc about this later, if needed.