ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Modern science is non-science

I've been saying this for years, simply on the basis of informed observation. But now there is hard evidence that nearly all - not just most - modern "science" is, in truth, literally nothing of the kind:
Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong. Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be “alarmism” from forecasters over man-made climate change.

“We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation, which can be watched in full below. “People just don’t do it.”

Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.
Science, like so many other institutions across the West, has been converged. And, as per the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence, it has lost its ability to perform its primary function.

Labels: ,

100 Comments:

Blogger The Kurgan March 29, 2017 5:56 PM  

Yup. I often think actual science probably was at its heyday in about 1888 or so, and by 1925 was starting a rapid decline.

Blogger Lovekraft March 29, 2017 5:56 PM  

It probably is plausible to draw a correlation between the decline of scientific rigour and the rise of Political Correctness. A pall was lowered on asking relevant questions, starting IMO with newspapers (here in Canada) being told they cannot put photos up, or identify the race of, criminals.

Early 90s was when I saw PC in full bloom. Today it is thinly-guised authoritarianism/socialism.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 29, 2017 6:02 PM  

PC is as rotted as Soviet Communism, our elite should thank the Lord and the FED for cheap credit

Anonymous User March 29, 2017 6:03 PM  

Government should stick to engineering. It's demonstrably capable of seriously large successful engineering efforts. Its track record for pure science is terrible.

Anonymous VIP Ltd. March 29, 2017 6:06 PM  

I always thought that non-falsifiability was sufficient by itself to preclude science. Really need eight factors?

Anonymous VFM #6306 March 29, 2017 6:08 PM  

“They cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want.”

There are, quite literally, tons of skulls and skeletal remains from the 1800s and 1900s that screwed with the Darwinian hypothesis and statistics. They vanished, like the Ark of the Covenant at the end of Raiders. Bad science not only has cost us dearly in scientific knowledge, but in history.

Anonymous joke10 March 29, 2017 6:08 PM  

I think science could also benefit from laying out a hypothesis and then trying to prove/disprove the theory by laying out all evidence, even that which looks bad for your theory. Science should be about truth!

Blogger Eric Mueller March 29, 2017 6:08 PM  

Most of what is considered "science" these days is theoretical. There is nothing practical or testable about it.

Anonymous VFM #6306 March 29, 2017 6:10 PM  

You've got it backwards, VIP Ltd. Yes. You need to follow eight factors to do good science. That is very different from precluding science.

Blogger Elocutioner March 29, 2017 6:13 PM  

But my friend asked how I could dismiss the 'consensus' of scientists around the world who push AGW, surely they can't all be in on some big conspiracy! And how many scientists still have zero doubts about evolution and watch Ted talks?

I particularly love it when Black Science Man takes time out from running his projector at the planetarium to utter the latest round of 'the science is settled!' Just look at the last 40 years of astrophysics to see what a particularly stupid statement that is coming from him.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 29, 2017 6:23 PM  

@1 Kurgan
I often think actual science probably was at its heyday in about 1888 or so, and by 1925 was starting a rapid decline.

Good call. Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa was published in 1928 and it clearly was not science at all.

Her graduate advisor wrote in the forward to the book:
Courtesy, modesty, good manners, conformity to definite ethical standards are universal, but what constitutes courtesy, modesty, very good manners, and definite ethical standards is not universal. It is instructive to know that standards differ in the most unexpected ways. - Franz Boas

Who?

That's (((Franz Boas))), of cultural relativism infamy.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable March 29, 2017 6:26 PM  

Fascinating. The argument is no longer about whether science is corrupted but simply the extent of it. Even if it were only 30% corrupt, would you give any credence at all to the next NYT "scientific" proclamation? Would anyone sane?

Blogger Durandel Almiras March 29, 2017 6:32 PM  

Lysenkoism is the truth, the science proves it.

Anonymous hoots March 29, 2017 6:35 PM  

The convergence of SCIENCE! is not to be lamented. It is a massive opportunity.

Anonymous Grayman March 29, 2017 6:36 PM  

In my field it's well known you can buy almost any research result you want..... it's a disaster. FDA is just as bad

Blogger pyrrhus March 29, 2017 6:41 PM  

Greg Cochran's comment on the Replication Crisis in the social sciences..".There isn’t one, as far as I can see, because sociologists, on the whole, don’t give a shit about being wrong. They like it."

Anonymous Looking Glass March 29, 2017 6:46 PM  

@10 Elocutioner

Having a passing affinity for Cosmology in my youth, it was readily apparent (and then accepted) that everything we thought we might know was mostly conjecture. Everything was up for being falsified by further study, but that was the fun of it. You need ideas and some structure to test for future information, but it was wide, wide open. (Still is, but I'll get to that.)

I also got to watch the rise of AGW in real-time. It really, really wasn't hard to sort out that the Hockey Stick study was bad. (That no one could replicate it that were using similar data pointed to that.) But "Science" was suddenly an attack vector where, even a few years prior, it wasn't completely converged. It's far, far worse now.

Blogger Michael Maier March 29, 2017 6:54 PM  

But DOCTORS know what they're doing when they prescribe medications... like vaccines...

Blogger HardReturn¶ March 29, 2017 7:02 PM  

Real science is transparent, like following a recipe in a cookbook. Somebody wants you to enjoy that tasty entree. If you have the right ingredients, measure and prepare like the recipe tells you, you too can replicate the tasty entree. Science nowadays is like using a cookbook where some of the ingredients have been redacted and the cooking steps deliberately obfuscated. And the entree turns out bland at best or toxic at worst.

Blogger Lazarus March 29, 2017 7:09 PM  

Judith Curry is the go to scientist on the problems with "science" in general and climate science in particular. She has been fighting the good fight for years. Testified today at the House Science Committee Hearing:

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/29/house-science-committee-hearing/

Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purposes.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. Owing to these pressures and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.

Blogger praetorian March 29, 2017 7:14 PM  

The only thing certain is that further research, and research grants, are necessary.

Anonymous Mark Auld March 29, 2017 7:16 PM  

Makes you wonder what the definition of science fiction is...is

Blogger frigger611 March 29, 2017 7:21 PM  

Wow. Unreal. I really don't like to swear much...but, Jesus!

There has been a gnawing, corrosive feeling eating away at my gut for more than a quarter century, that we SHOULD have been on Mars by now. That the promises of Science Fiction were actually just the realities we should be enjoying now (rather than predictive, SF stories - the hopeful ones - are lamentations of what might have been).

I dunno. This post really has struck me.

Thank God for you and the Ilk, Vox. Thank you. No one else is exposing this so widely...

Blogger Peter Jackson March 29, 2017 7:27 PM  

Thankfully, Trump is starting to dismantle the climate scam apparatus, at least in this country.

Blogger Cail Corishev March 29, 2017 7:48 PM  

There has been a gnawing, corrosive feeling eating away at my gut for more than a quarter century, that we SHOULD have been on Mars by now.

We've wasted a ton of money, time, and brains on the jobs programs known as the Shuttle and ISS. I first read about Robert Zubrin's "Mars Direct" plan in his book Entering Space 10-15 years ago. His group presented a manned Mars mission plan to NASA when the new Bush administration called for it in 2000. It was intentionally low-cost, with a live-off-the-land model using proven, current (1990s) technology, so it had an estimated price tag of $30 billion. Spread over ten years, per their plan, it would have taken about 20% of NASA's budget. It was rejected in favor of a much more expensive plan, which was then shelved anyway when the War on Terror started.

So yes, we could have had men landing on Mars every six months starting around 2010. But it was more important to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer March 29, 2017 7:57 PM  

SJWs are an infection that are continually seeking power. It's interesting that as science had passed it's zenith computer science emerged. When it became apparent that computing was the next big thing the SJWs starting attaching themselves to that industry. What I find shocking is how quickly computer science was converged (arguably started 15-20 years). Now we are seeing the extent of the rot in this industry as well. While alt-tech exists, it is going to be hard to turn the tide back on the industry as a whole. In the next 5-10 years we are going to start to see stagnation in software innovation due to the level of convergence.

Anonymous DirkH March 29, 2017 7:58 PM  

"But it was more important to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan."

Well you get Heroin back in return. Can't say THAT about Mars.

Blogger Azimus March 29, 2017 7:59 PM  

4. User March 29, 2017 6:03 PM
Government should stick to engineering. It's demonstrably capable of seriously large successful engineering efforts. Its track record for pure science is terrible.


I wonder if this may be part of the problem. All gov brings to engineering projects is a pile of money. The actual engineering is done by private firms - at least in situations like bridge/dam building, NASA, so forth. My brother in law is a civilian "engineer" for the Navy, and all he does for his ample salary is act as a liaision/translator between the tech-speak of the engineering firms that design the weapons and the idiot Officer-4 or higher who says "I want this weapons system to do X and I don't care about the laws of Thermodynamics!"

So, because real engineers in the private sector are able to turn a pile of money into "Things that Work" - gov thinks they can do the same thing with science, and it just don't translate - ergo, the success in engineering is part of the problem.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky March 29, 2017 8:00 PM  

I think it was around 1996 or so, when the IPCC became totally converged, that we could see the game was rigged, that the cultural Marxists had hijacked science. The WaPo actually gushingly proclaimed it after that conference was over. Breathlessly one columnist said, "For the first time, science has been enlisted for social justice!" <-- something very close to that as I recall, I have to quote from memory.

That was the time they had a big row at the IPCC, where the SJWs in science launched a coup. They came up with a statistical valuation on human life (?), in the service of formulas for calculating how much rich, developed countries had to pay poor ones for global warming. Scientists, doing this. Giving the pols an assist with the UN imprimatur. Opposing scientists were locked out, fait accompli.

It is and was a joke, really. You gotta remember, the Soviet Union had fallen just as 1991 came to a close. That was some soul-searching time for the Marxists, they were adrift for a while. This, climate change (nee global warming, nee the looming Ice Age) was what they rallied to.

And of course, the Left never stops corrupting. Climate change was only the big, major beachhead. Once they converged the handing out of grants it flowed everywhere. To all areas of science and technology. You don't have to produce good science for the peer reviews, journals, or grant proposals, you just gotta tell them what they want to hear.

Blogger Mark March 29, 2017 8:01 PM  

Francis Schaeffer prophetically anticipated this 40 years ago. He said science would become just another form of coercion and social manipulation. I think the term for it is scientism.

Blogger Rusty Fife March 29, 2017 8:02 PM  

basementhomebrewer wrote:SJWs are an infection that are continually seeking power.

This world really needs an Ark B project. A giant sinkhole of graft and incompetence. I'd pay 10% tax just to fund it and suck all the waste out of the rest of the system.

Blogger Jose March 29, 2017 8:02 PM  

Oh my Feynman!

The Scientific Method. Used by zero scientists. Ever.

It's one of those constructions that take up space in the first lecture of a first year graduate seminar on whatever field, typically taught by either an outsider (philosophy professors need something to do, and apparently you can't given them janitorial duties) or a full professor whose last research activity happened before the students' parents entered grade school.

Real science happens while people who don't do science discuss "scientific method." Newton didn't use it, neither did Galileo, Copernicus, Lavoisier, Pasteur, Hari Seldon. What they did was basically:

1. While doing something else, exclaim "hey, that's funny..."
2. Start messing around either with stuff (experimenters) or some formal system (theorists). Science was gamified well before anyone had thought of the word "gamification."
3. Talk to others, get them arguing. Drinking is encouraged. Conferences in nice locales (Physics, Chemistry, EECS) or complete dumps (Math, Biology, MecEng) are used as informal idea-labs.
4. Ideas come up. Models are written. Predictions are wagered on.
5. Experiments are done. Sometimes they take years to plan, sometimes they're table-top.
6. "Big" papers are written, added to the many small papers and preprints.
7. Someone looking at an experiment or a model exclaims "hey, that's funny..."

Meanwhile, word-thinkers talk about "method" and "process" and have conferences about "hermeneutics" and "epistemics" while people who can do math, know how to run gels, or understand the difference between face-centered cubic and body-centered cubic structures keep on trucking... I mean, developing science and technology and trying to keep up with the latest ignominy engineers have dumped on their illusions of grandeur.

This is not to say that when money is involved, as in academic promotion, government and other funding, scientists aren't people. But in general science prevails, if only because engineers tend to use it for their purposes and that unmasks any wrongitude fast and hard.

For a good yarn about how science really works (and a good intro to recent-ish physics), I recommend Leonard Susskind's book "The Black Hole War."

If you want to see how "The Scientific Method" was used by a put-off politician and a fired employee to harass a real scientist, read "The Baltimore Case" by Daniel Kevles.

Blogger Robert Paxton March 29, 2017 8:06 PM  

-But DOCTORS know what they're doing when they prescribe medications... like vaccines...=

Yeah, I became an RN a few years ago, partly to acquire a real world skill. While I love my work, I have definitely learned that much of medicine is simply fucking voodoo. There is real, high value stuff there (I work in emergency so we do some real, hands-on stuff), but a lot of it is guess work and trial and error when it comes to disease treatment.

It is also corrupted by PC. I.e, diabetes type II is not a disease that you just have the bad luck to get. It's the result of overwhelming your system with the crap that society pushes on us as food. But we keep spinning our wheels looking for a cure and treating people with drugs that just further complicate their overall health picture.

Blogger Robert Paxton March 29, 2017 8:12 PM  

Sorry, that last paragraph needed some more explanation. I meant to elaborate that physicians are disinclined to tell people that they are too fat, that their sexual activities are bad for them, etc. Instead, they treat diseases that are really just the results of lifetimes of bad choices and which could be cured with some better decisions about diet, activity, etc.

Anonymous Eric the Red March 29, 2017 8:22 PM  

Under Converged Science, don't forget to include the Fake Statistics of the precautionary principle. The entire EPA is built on those shifting sands.

Blogger Jew613 March 29, 2017 8:25 PM  

When the politicians began to use Climate Change to seize power, and the businessmen used it to make money, it should have been obvious that the so called scientists were simply prostitutes saying what their masters demanded.

Blogger frigger611 March 29, 2017 8:31 PM  

@25

Thank you Cail, I will look into that. Sounds like it might depress me further, but then my Nietzsche voice tells me to fuck off...

I cannot describe the emotional pain involved, when, after hanging a 65 ton Justin Bieber show in the Long Beach Arena, I walked outside to see a 747 flying overhead with the last shuttle strapped to its back, mothballed per Obama's orders that we were better off without space exploration, should rather use NASA to reach out to our Muslim brothers, (I mean, conquerors).

Yes, I admit that I welled up.

Talk about feeling fucking totally meaningless. "I work for justin fucking bieber and there goes the pinnacle of American achievement into the wastebasket with half-eaten hot dogs."

I swear, I thought it was over.

Trump's win is a real blessing from God, I hope people understand that.

Anonymous VFM #6306 March 29, 2017 8:31 PM  

No way, Jose.

Anonymous Eduardo March 29, 2017 8:35 PM  

@38

could that be a reference to: THIS?

No? sorry then.

Anonymous Eric the Red March 29, 2017 8:50 PM  

@23:
In addition to Converged Science, also note that we've squandered our energies, creativity and money over the last 45 years on elevating the worship of dark skin and paying trillions in extortion money to minorities so they won't tear down the country even faster than they've already been doing.

Blogger Jose March 29, 2017 8:51 PM  

HardReturn¶ wrote:Science nowadays is like using a cookbook where some of the ingredients have been redacted and the cooking steps deliberately obfuscated. And the entree turns out bland at best or toxic at worst.

Slight imprecision there; here's the correction:

What passes for Science for the general public nowadays, usually delivered via "popularizers" who aren't active research scientists (eg. Neil "Kardashian of Science" Tyson, Richard "my model of evolution is from the 1970s; vote Labour" Dawkins) and sometimes don't even understand the basics (eg. Malcolm Gladwell, any "science writing" program graduate), delivered for economic, political, or social reasons pursuant to objectives of those in power or paying the popularizer, and not necessarily related to any knowledge base of the scientific fields it purports to represent, is like using a cookbook [rest of paragraph unchanged].

Blogger frigger611 March 29, 2017 8:56 PM  

@38 BRAVO! and agreed!

Lefties like to rewrite every great script into a beer swilling and dope smoking Animal House. Principia Mathematica is not the result of Beer Pong.

By the way, speaking of corruption and debasement of history - I think I heard there's a new CHIPS movie?

Blogger John rockwell March 29, 2017 9:00 PM  

@Jose
Scientists actually get their careers destroyed for being truthful:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/semengate-stuns-scientifi_b_853164.html

Blogger tz March 29, 2017 9:09 PM  

The thing is the Scientific Method works fine. That is why the Alt-right uses it and will win.
The modern "pagan priests in lab coats" are disconnected from reality.

Blogger Jose March 29, 2017 9:14 PM  

@43:

I. Science ≠ Scientist[s]

II. A more precise read of the Puffington Host article is "A particular scientist got in trouble with non-scientists by attempting humor on a publication aimed at the general public.

Current understanding of pair-bonding and anti-depression effects of male ejaculate on female humans unchanged."

[Insert joke about condominiums here.]

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 29, 2017 9:15 PM  

@37 frigger

Dude, the Shuttle was well past it's sell date. Another crash was only a matter of time. But if you want to get pissed off, look into where the blueprints for the Saturn V rockets went. That's the Moon rocket, the Skylab rocket. There's one on static display in Huntsville, I think. The first stage rocket chambers are ginormous.

There's also no way to build one from scratch. Because the blueprints are gone, since the 70's I was told, probably a NASA decision to ensure Shuttle as the major game in town. That's why NASA's new heavy lift rocket had to be designed from scratch, why Musk's Dragon is maybe a better machine, too.

Look, the Moon is 3 days away, when the Sun is quiet. Should have been a mini South Polar style research bunker in the Moon for 20 - 30 years now. We should know what it takes to live in low g like on a Mars mission from all the tens of thousands of man-hours in Luna.
But no. Because priorities.

Blogger Jose March 29, 2017 9:17 PM  

Nature and Science regularly publish papers that break every single tenet of "The Narrative." But these papers do so in the technical language of their respective fields, so the "feelings-driven" people can't tell.

Blogger Jose March 29, 2017 9:20 PM  

It's a little bit like in the 1970s, when Soviet physicists wanted to publish their nuclear research, so they wrote papers about "star collapse" which the censors didn't object to, but where the physics were those of fusion bombs. :-)

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club March 29, 2017 9:42 PM  

What else is to be expected in an environment where the idea of "consensus", that the theory with most votes is the right one, has been enshrined as the ne plus ultra of "science"?

Blogger frigger611 March 29, 2017 9:44 PM  

@46 Deplorable Paradigm

Thank you, and I do not at all disagree with you.

You and Cail, I am sure, know quite a bit more of what is achievable, what is otherwise possible, in a perfect world.

But I was programmed from birth as a new person in 1964 to know that if somethin gonna be put out to pasture, we Americans got a newfangled thing itchin to be blasted off. It ain't so no more. (Pardon my poor French).

So all your papers on what-coulda-been are lost to me. Yes, the shuttle was obsolete, but it was the best we had, and since its retirement, Russia and China happily fill the void. We now pin our hopes on a South African, fueling our yearning for more nwe immigrants, because each and every one is just as promising as Elon Musk.

When I saw the shuttle being put down like an old dog before my very eyes, pardon me if I shed a tear.

Blogger Cail Corishev March 29, 2017 9:45 PM  

@46, Yes, killing the Shuttle was a broken-clock moment for Obama. He did it for the wrong reasons, but it was the right thing to do, and overdue. The promise was that a reusable lander would lead to regular flights, but the opposite was true. A craft capable of landing like a plane and being reused had to be much heavier, stronger, and more complex, which meant it took far more fuel to get into orbit. The fuel/payload ratio was terrible, and launch ended up being more risky than a simple rocket. It made for a heck of a patronage project, though.

Blogger Skyler the Weird March 29, 2017 9:48 PM  

Science is Corroding.

Anonymous Stickwick March 29, 2017 9:54 PM  

A Breitbart editor chose a deliberately provocative -- and misleading -- headline. If this is the work the article was discussing, then it pertains to the social sciences. In which case, I would agree with Armstrong. The vast majority of social "science" is not science at all.

Anonymous Grayman March 29, 2017 10:13 PM  

Look up the history of the sea dragon rocket booster. It was capable of putting payloads it orbit at a cheaper price then anything else, even the modern best options or even apollo.

It was privately developed but refused by NASA because it didn't use new or intetesting tech. It was a big dumb EFFECTIVE booster.

Blogger Greg C. March 29, 2017 10:13 PM  

So, could this also be known as "FAKE" Science?

Blogger Silly But True March 29, 2017 10:14 PM  

#Jizzgate is easy to understand:
A hetero male-female relationship cannot have any _natural_ benefits compared to the aberrant alternates.

They had to wage war against any reporting of those findings.

Anonymous Grayman March 29, 2017 10:19 PM  

It's true in pharma / biotechnology as well. If you have the money you can get a lab to produce any phase 1 study results you want.

The current hot game is orphan drugs. Play with the stats and you can get hundreds of millions from governments for orphan drugs that treat a GLOBAL patient population of a few thousand people even though the drug is more likely to cause negative side effects than do anything beneficial.

Anonymous Grayman March 29, 2017 10:23 PM  

A true reusable lander works fine, the military requiremen's added onto the spittle is what killed it.
My uncle was on the design team. He constantly said that thete should have been 2 shuttles, a civilian and a military one. By forcing one shuttle to meet both specs you got a behemoth that couldn't perform any mission well.

Blogger Scott Birch March 29, 2017 10:24 PM  

Genuinely frightening. Why has this been allowed to continue? What is DC and the Beltway doing? Why does this not concern them? FFS.

Blogger frigger611 March 29, 2017 10:29 PM  

Well.

I know what I saw, a funeral procession for an unloved thing destined for a pauper's grave, unsung and unlamented. A great crime that I will remember, and not forgive.


Blogger frigger611 March 29, 2017 10:37 PM  

I remain hopeful that we might one day have a governmental/private sector AND international cooperative agreement to have insurance planted somewhere off this rock.

You know - like maybe a Lunar Colony for starts...


Anonymous Grayman March 29, 2017 10:48 PM  

Europa is probably a better bet for a long term habitable outpost. Once you have functionally unlimited water available for an outpost the rest is much easier.

There are some intriguing proposals I've seen for a lunar mass driver launch to europa...

Blogger Lazarus March 29, 2017 11:03 PM  

frigger611 wrote:I remain hopeful that we might one day have a governmental/private sector AND international cooperative agreement to have insurance planted somewhere off this rock.

You know - like maybe a Lunar Colony for starts...



Earth will become the new Eden. No need to wander about seeking utopia. Just another frivolous speculation, based on lack of faith.

Who cares if humanity survives somewhere else if the fundamental problem is unresolved?

It would be better for the universe if they do not survive.

Blogger tim March 29, 2017 11:18 PM  

Funded by Deep State bureaucrats

Blogger tim March 29, 2017 11:20 PM  

Don't curse God, curse satanic goons

Blogger Silly But True March 29, 2017 11:21 PM  

The Martians of Syria, Somalia, and Iraq are waiting for the United States to expend the effort and resources to return them home.

Blogger frigger611 March 29, 2017 11:57 PM  

@63

I am not as sanguine as you are on the matter. I neither believe in a linear and inevitable progression for mankind, nor a rescue for us in the time that you might desire, (the time for the Rapture is known only to God).

So with my humble and limited knowledge I must admit that we, as a human species, have been given an abundance of evidence that shows us that world-ending and species-ending cataclysms can and will occur without warning.

Let's act like we know this, shall we?


Anonymous Eric the Red March 30, 2017 12:05 AM  

The cosmic aspects of this blog have made me realize that the recent court opinion on Trump's immigration EO is highly discriminatory: it fails to include all the outer space aliens as Fake Americans.

Blogger Phat Repat March 30, 2017 12:30 AM  

Though I believe most 'scientific' papers are mere exercises in fulfilling the 'publish or perish' requirements of PhD's there may be another explanation for why the scientific method isn't followed: commercialization. The publishers of today's scientific papers are likely more interested in receiving notoriety, and consequently additional funding or commercial opportunities, from their research. By providing you (competitor, private institution, et al) a recipe (or road map), those opportunities are likely lost.

Blogger praetorian March 30, 2017 12:49 AM  

But no. Because priorities.

Zaaaaaa brak pirr.

Blogger John rockwell March 30, 2017 1:20 AM  

Really a shame that that this kind of bullshit that passes for science nowadays ensure that people are hookwinked into falsehoods like flat-earth theory.

How many of the evidence for round earth is fabricated or fake.

Blogger John rockwell March 30, 2017 1:21 AM  

This phenomenon really got into my radar since it just popped into my youtube recommended more and more and twitter more and more often.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents March 30, 2017 1:23 AM  

@70

Zaaaaaa brak pirr.


Maxine Waters, is that you?

Blogger John rockwell March 30, 2017 1:25 AM  

And people I know get getting hooked into this theory.

OpenID anonymos-coward March 30, 2017 1:30 AM  

There has been a gnawing, corrosive feeling eating away at my gut for more than a quarter century, that we SHOULD have been on Mars by now.

That corrosive feeling is the feeling of having been fed too many propaganda cartoons in childhood. There is absolutely nothing there on Mars and absolutely no reason to go there.

Europa is probably a better bet for a long term habitable outpost. Once you have functionally unlimited water available for an outpost the rest is much easier.

If we're actually being serious here and not just channeling childhood myths: the only suitable place for space colonization in the Solar System is in the atmosphere of Venus. The place has just the right temperature, pressure, amount of light, gravity and radiation for human life. It's also the place with the cheapest travel energy budget. You'd have to solve the problem of lack of oxygen, but that's a relatively minor issue.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Hair March 30, 2017 1:57 AM  

OT: NC caved on the bathroom law. NCAA delenda est.

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 30, 2017 2:02 AM  

Elocutioner wrote:my friend asked how I could dismiss the 'consensus' of scientists around the world who push AGW, surely they can't all be in on some big conspiracy!
<sigh>  Look, idiot.  Physical phenomena like this are literally undeniable.  There are complicating phenomena in the actual atmospheric/oceanic system but they cannot reverse or even substantially offset the basic effect.  The consensus of climate scientists is based on what the physics requires to be true.

If you insist otherwise, perform the experiment in which the bottle full of CO2 and the bottle full of air absorb the same amount of heat from the lamp.  So go do it.  It won't take you long or cost you much.  Time's a-wasting!

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa was published in 1928 and it clearly was not science at all.
Mead was roughly contemporary with the Piltdown Man hoax (1912), which was received skeptically even at the time.  It may have taken until 1957 for Piltdown Man to be definitively debunked, but that was always the way to bet.

If you have to deny the measured physical properties of CO2, straight or in mixture, you are on the wrong side of ALL related scientific questions.  Period.

Anonymous SenhorOscuro March 30, 2017 2:24 AM  

I was thinking about psychology today, before reading your post. My conclussion, that came after watching what female psychologist I know in FB, was that the main problem with this "science" is that today is flooded with women. And they do not try to tell the truth to patients, they do not try to help finding and solving the problem. They do what women do: work on self confidence, telling petty lies to confort, empower (if the patient is female) and effeminate if the patient is male.

That´s the reason psychology, as the rest os "social sciences" are useless today: they are controlled by women and that provokes only sjw that follows the narrative can make a career there. Science is today as useless as SJW narrative is to explain reality.

Blogger SciVo March 30, 2017 2:26 AM  

P-values because science. (Heh.)

Blogger Alex March 30, 2017 2:28 AM  

@77

"The consensus of climate scientists is based on what the physics requires to be true."

Unless the consensus is a pack of lies.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Blogger Abyssus Invocat March 30, 2017 3:09 AM  

The decline of science began with the transformation of scientific discovery from an individual passion to an industrial and commercial pursuit, and then as a vehicle for the pursuit of state interests rather than the truth. Those developments allowed the feminization and SJW infiltration of science. Take Satan's coin, dance to Satans tune.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft March 30, 2017 3:27 AM  

@77. Mr, are you aware that water vapour is a more effective greenhouse gas than either? No? Figures.

I could rant at you for hours on just the lunatic idiocy of carbon taxes and such related to CO2, but this is probably sufficient for now.

Anonymous JAG March 30, 2017 4:10 AM  

Mr. Triggered at it again, I see.

Blogger praetorian March 30, 2017 4:42 AM  

If you have to deny the measured physical properties of CO2, straight or in mixture, you are on the wrong side of ALL related scientific questions

You have to go back.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 30, 2017 6:36 AM  

"The consensus of climate scientists is based on what the physics requires to be true."

This is simply appalling naiveté, at best.

It ignores everything we know about the actual history and philosophy of science, and abandons all that in submission to an idealism of mythic proportions.

Blogger tuberman March 30, 2017 6:53 AM  

Yes, the corruption of science is such a huge area it's nearly impossible to really contain it in a dialogue. As one person has already said real science usually moves forward first by OBSERVATION... as in LOOK, SOMETHING IS ODD HERE, AND NOT CLOSELY OBSERVED BEFORE.

Long before SJW convergence, there was social science troping itself as a hard science, "publish or parish" academic hard science hacks, old worn-out, even disproved theories still, getting in the way of new observations, Big Money, such as pharmaceutical companies creating all sorts of crap statistics through bad science, etc,etc, and etc.

Real science still goes on, does not get much coverage, and is a minor part of all "scientific papers," and has gotten worse with convergence.

Anonymous FrankNorman March 30, 2017 7:01 AM  

Al Gore = Fake Scientist

Blogger tuberman March 30, 2017 7:08 AM  

Another problem with science today is putting the "cart before the horse," as in mathematics moving science onward.You get "string theory," or as pushed by Greene's "The Elegant Universe" fifty years of super cool math, that leads to absolutely nothing practical in science.

Mathematics is proof after the discoveries and theories, and cannot be the lead for science. The leads are observation and a visionary outlook.

Blogger William Meisheid March 30, 2017 7:25 AM  

Mark Auld: Makes you wonder what the definition of science fiction is...is

This is the thread winner for sure!

Blogger exfarmkid March 30, 2017 7:54 AM  

Vox here is one of my favorite quotes from you:

In order of reliability, the three aspects of science are:

Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession


It is still a great idea to have specific sub-terms under the general term "science". But how to get catchier terms, because "scientody" just ain't catchy. And I can't think of anything better so this is not a criticism.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 30, 2017 8:02 AM  

@90

And we could call the study of science itself:

"Scientology!"

oops.

Blogger William Meisheid March 30, 2017 8:12 AM  

Mr. Rational - to use a posting on the video that blows that phony demo out of the water...

Puzzling Words
Bull S! you can see the reflection on the table that the lamp is deceitfully pointed at the one. Plus a real test would not allow a time break for him to do what ever he wanted to heat the bottle. THIS IS A WORTHLESS VIDEO and fails any scientific validity. He could of proved that in real time. PLUS this example likely produces a level of 20 to 80 % CO2 (~ 500,000ppm), while the global change is 20ppm or raised to 400ppm which is 00.04 %.

Blogger GPMark March 30, 2017 8:30 AM  

Irony can be pretty ironic...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_EPA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-29-17-56-41

Anonymous BBGKB March 30, 2017 10:42 AM  

Robert Zubrin's "Mars Direct" plan in his book Entering Space 10-15 years ago. His group presented a manned Mars mission plan to NASA when the new Bush administration called for it in 2000. It was intentionally low-cost, with a live-off-the-land model using proven, current (1990s) technology

Thanks to affirmative action NASA can't even make it to the space station without Russia's help

Blogger JP March 30, 2017 2:15 PM  

Interesting word choice, "enlisted". It means that one joins the army at a lower rank, not as an officer. Science isn't calling the shots, "social justice" is.

Blogger Thucydides March 30, 2017 7:28 PM  

It will probably need the resources of a billionaire, but there may be a workaround.

The IBM "Watson" program, which was used to win the championship round of "Jeopardy" in an interesting demonstration of natural language and massive database searching, could be used to "read" every on line scientific paper and evaluate it on the criteria established by J Scott Armstrong. After sieving through all these papers and evaluating them, the list can then be catalogued (maybe on Infogalactic or one of its successors?) and people would be able to search for real scientific papers and extract useful information.

The secondary effect would be to publicize and highlight actual scientists (the people who wrote the papers) and whatever institutions they come from, creating a pool of credibility and discounting the credentialism of other so called scientists and institutions.

And even within science, the availability of an easily identified and used resource of credible information will allow non converged scientists and institutions to rapidly build on this information, giving them a "compound interest" effect as they build and advance on useful foundations.

Blogger James Dixon March 30, 2017 7:29 PM  

> Science isn't calling the shots, "social justice" is.

That is always the case, and is the underlying mechanism of Vox's "Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence".

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 31, 2017 9:48 AM  

frigger611 wrote:I cannot describe the emotional pain involved, when, after hanging a 65 ton Justin Bieber show in the Long Beach Arena, I walked outside to see a 747 flying overhead with the last shuttle strapped to its back, mothballed per Obama's orders that we were better off without space exploration
Sadly, that was one of the few things they got right.  Between Proxmire and Garn, the Shuttle was compromised into near-irrelevance from the beginning.  What should have been a rugged, fully-reusable system of getting to orbit wound up being far more costly than the expendable boosters it was supposed to replace.  Both the commercial and military launch markets abandoned it, which left only special NASA payloads like the HST and modules for the ISS.  Once the last ISS module was launched, the aging and obsolete Shuttle had no more purpose.

SpaceX just launched and landed a re-used liquid-fuel booster.  This is more than the Shuttle program ever accomplished.

@94  NASA is already sending supplies to the ISS aboard rockets and capsules designed by an escapee from BRSA.  Soon humans will be taking those capsules too.

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 31, 2017 9:53 AM  

a deplorable rubberducky wrote:That was the time they had a big row at the IPCC, where the SJWs in science launched a coup. They came up with a statistical valuation on human life (?), in the service of formulas for calculating how much rich, developed countries had to pay poor ones for global warming. Scientists, doing this. Giving the pols an assist with the UN imprimatur. Opposing scientists were locked out, fait accompli.
The IPCC was formed in 1988, and obviously the policy recommendations from the late 90's and onward are SJBS.  However, there are three huge holes in the "it's all a Marxist plot!" conspiracy theory:

1.  The message from the climate scientists has always been consistent and was long, long before the IPCC was even a gleam in some bureaucrat's eye.
2.  The policy recommendations of actual climate scientists (not bureaucrats) are actually aimed at solving the problem rather than power-grabbing.
3.  After the fake science financed by the Rockefeller Foundation (Herman Muller, who got a Nobel prize based on fraud and helped establish the radiation-phobic "LNT" principle as doctrine), the Tobacco Institute (which financed a lot of fake papers "proving" that second-hand smoke was not a health threat), and the involvement of some of the same tobacco "scientists" in the program to deny anthropogenic climate change, all of it financed by a highly lucrative fossil-fuel industry... we must conclude that the burden of proving clean hands falls most heavily on the anti side.

@47  Precisely

@80  You're using two non-scientists to assert something about confirmed and replicated lab work?  What are you, a baraminologist?

Benjamin Kraft wrote:are you aware that water vapour is a more effective greenhouse gas than either?
Are you aware that water vapor has the property of condensing and falling out of the atmosphere?  It's called "precipitation", you might want to look it up.  The amount of water vapor (and thus its greenhouse contribution) falls rapidly with declining temperature, and non-condensible CO2 contributes something like 6.7K to earth's greenhouse.

The notion that the CO2 effect is saturated and further additions will do nothing is ascientific BS; it was probably the creation of a propaganda operation.

I could rant at you for hours on just the lunatic idiocy of carbon taxes and such
HOW MANY TIMES have I told you that the POLICY is irrelevant to the SCIENCE?  If you have to change the subject from physics to policy it means you have no challenge to the physics.

@85  Then tell me why Hansen is fully behind the consensus on the science while so wildly at odds with the policy prescriptions coming from the usual suspects?

The actual history and philosophy of science* is that it purges itself of officially-promoted nonsense like Lysenkoism as soon as the pressure to adopt it is removed.  The scientific conclusions regarding CO2 have been remarkably stable since Arrhenius in 1896.  Today's pressures are coming from the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry, which has been actively sabotaging nuclear power since the 1950's.  Had we simply continued the projected nuclear trendline of the 1960's we would not be worrying about this today.

* Social is a modifier meaning "not", e.g. "social science", "social justice", "social work"....

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 31, 2017 9:53 AM  

@92  Not so (you fail to understand perspective), but if you think the experiment was done wrong you certainly have it within your ability to repeat it yourself.  You also fail to account for the loss of heat to the water and also to the room from such small bottles.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts