How can we trust scientists any more?

[TheObserver]

It's one thing to be anti-corrupt scientist, it's another thing to be anti-science.
Depending on altitude, air pressure and such water boils at around 100 C/212 F and freezes at around 0 C/32 F. Is this in dispute?

[Jack]

Originally Posted by TheObserver

It's one thing to be anti-corrupt scientist, it's another thing to be anti-science.
Depending on altitude, air pressure and such water boils at around 100 C/212 F and freezes at around 0 C/32 F. Is this in dispute?

Thats not my point at all


And i think that deep down you know that.

What is my point is that "science" when confronted with indisputable evidence will not recognise that isac neutons brain did not know everything (if anything other then some very minor details when compared to the scale of things) . Any establishment that rests its laurels on everything that a man said well over 400 years ago needs a smack on the ars€. For a start, the guy was wrong on one very major thing that has kept people a slave to automobiles, electricity, and all of those other things we spend 60% of our money on. "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" ... and you stand there and defend an institue that promotes this to this very day? May i ask, who's side are you on?

Im none for science, all for truth. And truth needs not be segregated into little frictional groups (science ; physics, biology, spirituality et al) that contradict each other around every cornor. If science was as fantastic and reliable as most people think it to be then it would indoctrinate every part of reality into its teachings instead of accepting some very evident things and dismissing some other not so evident but extremely important stuff, ie ; spirituality.


The very word science is now defined by its very existance. If at one time it defended truth above all else then so be it, but as it stands the very word science denotes the very system that has been used to enslave the human mind. And for that the very word itself no longer stands as a representation of truth, it stands for a representation of control.

[TheObserver]

The water still boils the same for atheists and religious people alike. Inconsistencies between disciplines will eventually work themselves out.
I guess i just don't like angry anti-(fill in the blank)-ism.
Again i think you're angry at corruption, not repeatable experiments.
Follow the money, use discernment, but don't whitewash all science as evil.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by TheObserver

The water still boils the same for atheists and religious people alike. Inconsistencies between disciplines will eventually work themselves out.
I guess i just don't like angry anti-(fill in the blank)-ism.
Again i think you're angry at corruption, not repeatable experiments.
Follow the money, use discernment, but don't whitewash all science as evil.

My apologies, to put it in a way thats easier to understand ; you may as well take that word "science" and throw it out the window. My point being, the word science is now discredited and tarnished, the very word now stands for lies, ridicule, corruption, imprisonment.

The word science is where my beef is at, not the actual persuit of truth. The persuit of truth is not science, they are completely different concepts. Its like using the word ba$tard.. we all know it means a child born to illegitimate parents (unmarried) but the word means something entirely different now, just like the word "science".

We need a new word for this stuff... "truth" maybe?

[TheObserver]

Ok Jack, i got your point, but there's nothing new about it, flat earthers, and earth centrics paraded their biased 'experts'
against Copernicus et al back in the day and the future will have it's share of controversy as well, but in the end
'repeatably observed truth' will always rise above superstition and 'unobservable assumptions'.

[gibonos]

Some things are constant and there is no question about them, most of them are not tactical in economic/control sense.
However if a scientist tells me i.e. that sun exposure is bad for your plants and I somehow see that they grow better then in a shade, would I listen or which is more controversial that fish are good for you "recent experiment shows". Question has the be asked what fish, where from, how much mercury does it hold, is the color real and is it good for ones health. The fact they are good for Smith it does not mean that Brown wouldn't die from very same batch.
It's all relative and is up to the observer to decide what is good and what is not.
There might be some suggestion, common knowledge but not in a system based on profit and greed, not betterment of humanity.

To show another side, would it be possible:
- to create full body analisys to design perfect diet (one that would eliminate imbalances) for everyone.
- to make machines to work for us,
- to have cars that don't break, not saying antigravity crafts for everyone or teleportals, instead of bus stops :-)
- to have a device, where you only supply hemp fiber, desing your own outfit, bum bum 30 sec and you have a perfect fit, like designers clothing.
Technology is there we just have to put into use.

I think I'll another thread about what would like to see in the world, that would have the most impact :-)

Gibonos