I'm ashamed to admit that I used to be one of these science guys as I called them with derision now. One of the big traps a lot of millennial nerds fell into was thinking that people like Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye were sages, When every one of these people turned out to be a hack.
I only just now heard of him. The article you linked details a lot of procedural problems in science, like how an experiment is not allowed to be replicated, which goes against the core tenet of the scientific method. I also like how he detailed how a lot of people learn about science but not about the purpose of it or the method itself, one of my teachers had to explain that to me a long time ago, it took me forever to realize that he was an undercover red piller. I used to think that he was just a contrarian, or he was just playing devil's advocate, I was a dumb high school kid and didn't know much about how people leaned politically at the time.
The main component required for science is falsifiability - that a theory has something about it that Could be disproven. A theory that's "always right" or can explain anything (by constantly moving goal posts) , is considered a pseudoscience.
Think of the entirety of the left's favorite boogiemen.
RICHARD P. FEYNMAN
Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
Nothing has changed, it’s only gotten worse.
I'm ashamed to admit that I used to be one of these science guys as I called them with derision now. One of the big traps a lot of millennial nerds fell into was thinking that people like Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye were sages, When every one of these people turned out to be a hack.
Have you read Karl Popper? Red Pill.
I only just now heard of him. The article you linked details a lot of procedural problems in science, like how an experiment is not allowed to be replicated, which goes against the core tenet of the scientific method. I also like how he detailed how a lot of people learn about science but not about the purpose of it or the method itself, one of my teachers had to explain that to me a long time ago, it took me forever to realize that he was an undercover red piller. I used to think that he was just a contrarian, or he was just playing devil's advocate, I was a dumb high school kid and didn't know much about how people leaned politically at the time.
Cargo Cult Science is the most apt description for most academic research now. Like the MSM, worse than worthless.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - John P. A. Ioannidis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/pdf/pmed.0020124.pdf
Yes, you have put this reference on here before. Very nice! Thank you!
https://youtu.be/Avt-Xs6o_Xk
Video where the comment came from.
https://patriots.win/p/Fg35oqzx/bow-to-leper-messiah/c/
Popper is absolutely the right person to be reading for this! He had a lot to say about the difference between science and pseudoscienc:
https://fs.blog/2016/01/karl-popper-on-science-pseudoscience/
The main component required for science is falsifiability - that a theory has something about it that Could be disproven. A theory that's "always right" or can explain anything (by constantly moving goal posts) , is considered a pseudoscience.
Think of the entirety of the left's favorite boogiemen.