Ancient Apocalypse...

[Ken Gargett]

32 minutes ago, MoeFOH said:

No need to suspect, he openly admits they are. 

Frankly, as I said, I don't care whether his theories are pure fantasy or not. The underlying commentary (from mainstream and alternative viewpoints) he's provided opens up an interesting line of debate that, putting him aside, contains intriguing questions about currently accepted doctrine. The choice is then yours to take it or leave it. I don't care whether it's a Netflix series, podcast, movie, book, essay, academic paper, poem, song, myth, fantasy, etc etc, that acts as the delivery method to open up your mind to a new line of thought. Surely the key thing is to weigh and consider the content presented, do more research if you so desire, and then draw your own conclusions. 

i completely agree with what you say, with a caveat. if the person proposing the alternative viewpoint is genuinely serious or actually has even just a shred of creditable evidence to support the claims. or has some credibility himself. or herself although it does seem that most of the fruitbat stuff comes from blokes. in that case, absolutely.

i read a fair bit of fantasy and thoroughly enjoy it. but i don't read it as possible alternative science. i really don't believe in ents and dragons sitting on piles of gold and so on. but i love the books (and some of the films). so i would fall into the category who does care whether his theories are fantasy or not. 

i really do not see this guy as genuinely attempting to open up a new and serious line of debate. he is in it for whatever attention he can grab (and he has monetised this - good luck to him but if people are so stupid as to part with their hard-earned for charlatans, up to them). others may disagree but this is simply not alternative and plausible scientific theories. it is clickbait and attention-seeking (so i guess he has been successful, on that basis). 

[Chas.Alpha]

 😊

[Lunettesman]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think the guy is trying to convince anyone. He is just giving his opinion. If he is so out of line, why doesn't anybody want to debate him? True talk is the cure to false talk, isn't it? 

People will say if he gets the opportunity of a fair debate he will get more attention. Hence, the reason why nobody of the 'so-called experts' want to debate him. Once again, I can't not mention we have seen that a lot in the last few years, people going against the narrative are just silenced and disregarded. 

Question anything that's mainstream and you're attacked and labeled.

[El Presidente]

12 hours ago, 99call said:

Call me old fashioned, but I choose actual qualified respected scientists. 

I don't call you old fashioned......I may call you naive. 

Qualified and respected?  Definition? 

How about, qualified, respected and independent? 

Good luck finding research that has been spared the whiff of multinational conglomerate sponsorship. 

Pfizer has it's centres of excellence program with  research institutions around the world. Google, Amazon, Meta, BP, Sequoia, etc etc etc all have their claws deep into the finest  universities across the globe. 

Outside of commercial sponsorship (interference?), how hard would it be for a scientist (or simple academic) today to keep their job at a university if he/she trod a different path to the stated university leaning/trope on any subject. How much pressure would they come under? 

I have zero problem calling Petersen, Rogan or any other commercial entertainer (for that is what they are)  to account.

However, I am going to double over in laughter if you expect scientists to receive a pass mark from the same scrutiny. There are enough articles by scientists questioning whether the "peer review model" is any longer fit for purpose.  

When it comes to entertainers (from the Left or Right) or scientists (any) or commercial enterprises of any size, it would be prudent to put them all through the filter of "follow the money". 

[Drguano]

8 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

1. Re ancient history: well, surely it's important that it's correct, right? Otherwise, why have it at all? In the scenario your question poses, accepted logic is just as much fantasy as an alternative theory. Re science: Pluto... Copernicus... to name a couple of instances. 

2. If I was of the mind, by any means necessary. 

Speaking of The Ark…

Kentucky Noah's Ark sues insurance company over damage caused by heavy rains

[99call]

19 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

1. Re ancient history: well, surely it's important that it's correct, right? Otherwise, why have it at all? In the scenario your question poses, accepted logic is just as much fantasy as an alternative theory. Re science: Pluto... Copernicus... to name a couple of instances. 

2. If I was of the mind, by any means necessary.

1, I would prefer the people that are trying to attack and discredit the 'accepted logic' of science are trying to undercut the importance of things like climate change. I.e. if you are able to encourage people to question Ancient history, then is climate science, or vaccine science also on shoddy unproven ground?    I agree with you that 'accepted logic' should never be wholly accepted. For example Einstein's work on gravity was an improvement of Newton's, and now leading scientists feel as if Einstein's work needs to be refined/improved upon. 

I have no issue with the man in the pub (me) wanting to be skeptical, or test or challenge history , science, physic's...whatever. I just feel as if bad actors are using peoples desire to learn and self improve, by pumping them full of BS.   Much like idiots advertising themselves as "Architects" on Linkedin, when they are in fact a 18yr old with an interest in buildings. We need to draw a line, 

In my profession we have over the last 10 yrs have a huge amount of people lie about their qualifications, and have ended up causing huge amount of f**k ups. Spitballing is enjoyable, imagining alternative realities with your mates in the coffee shop or down the pub is enjoyable, but if these noodlings are given some synthetic platform of respect, it just creates a massive mess. Scientist are constantly testing, and re-ripping up their own work and testing it again, we don't need people who also believe in Bigfoot, having their thoughts given an equal degree of respect and platform. 

2, I think podcasts are excellent platform for propaganda. People are in the headspace that they are trying to self-improve, they are actively not wanting to be the dummy, who isn't furnished with the facts, and I think that's what makes it so grim, powerful and effective. People are getting profiled, fed a gruel of lies, and getting entrenched in nonsense

I think some podcasts are genuinely insightful, fact based and informative, which makes it all the more of a shame, that it's seen as very fertile ground for propaganda. 

[PigFish]

11 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I don't call you old fashioned......I may call you naive. 

Qualified and respected?  Definition? 

How about, qualified, respected and independent? 

Good luck finding research that has been spared the whiff of multinational conglomerate sponsorship. 

Pfizer has it's centres of excellence program with  research institutions around the world. Google, Amazon, Meta, BP, Sequoia, etc etc etc all have their claws deep into the finest  universities across the globe. 

Outside of commercial sponsorship (interference?), how hard would it be for a scientist (or simple academic) today to keep their job at a university if he/she trod a different path to the stated university leaning/trope on any subject. How much pressure would they come under? 

I have zero problem calling Petersen, Rogan or any other commercial entertainer (for that is what they are)  to account.

However, I am going to double over in laughter if you expect scientists to receive a pass mark from the same scrutiny. There are enough articles by scientists questioning whether the "peer review model" is any longer fit for purpose.  

When it comes to entertainers (from the Left or Right) or scientists (any) or commercial enterprises of any size, it would be prudent to put them all through the filter of "follow the money". 

Bravo!

Science (in a broad stroke), governments and media have put themselves here as relevance and political power have shaped their positions.

History repeats itself folks. The weapons used by unreformed religions is now on full throttle for same reasons by those ‘people of science.’

History, is more relevant than science! And that is why there is an endless attack, generally from the left to distort and rewrite history.

I will take the world of the empirical over that of the theoretical anytime and any place.

Academia is a joke. Just ask the head of a university to define antisemitism and you will see just how big of a joke it is…

[99call]

17 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I don't call you old fashioned......I may call you naive. 

Qualified and respected?  Definition? 

How about, qualified, respected and independent? 

Good luck finding research that has been spared the whiff of multinational conglomerate sponsorship. 

Pfizer has it's centres of excellence program with  research institutions around the world. Google, Amazon, Meta, BP, Sequoia, etc etc etc all have their claws deep into the finest  universities across the globe. 

Outside of commercial sponsorship (interference?), how hard would it be for a scientist (or simple academic) today to keep their job at a university if he/she trod a different path to the stated university leaning/trope on any subject. How much pressure would they come under? 

I have zero problem calling Petersen, Rogan or any other commercial entertainer (for that is what they are)  to account.

However, I am going to double over in laughter if you expect scientists to receive a pass mark from the same scrutiny. There are enough articles by scientists questioning whether the "peer review model" is any longer fit for purpose.  

When it comes to entertainers (from the Left or Right) or scientists (any) or commercial enterprises of any size, it would be prudent to put them all through the filter of "follow the money". 

God forbid, you have a terrible headache, you learn you have irritating painful growth on your brain. (no it's not called Ken)

Do you want a qualified brain surgeon to remove it? or do you want Barbara from down the pub to place her magic crystals on your temples?? (and no! thats not a euphemism)

The world of jobbing science is a complete distraction. Unfortunately it's an industry, and politics and money control everything,  yes a given. But in spite of how they get directed, scientists have developed a priceless solid foundation of knowledge and practice, and all of a sudden this should be on level pegging and accountable to Nessy hunters?...bollocks. 

I'm glad human kind in general is eager to learn,  but there is a difference between nonsense conspiracy theorising, and actually obtaining qualifications. I can't talk for American Universities (I'm sure Ray will), but that very much still the case in the UK & Europe, and long may it continue. 

 

[99call]

5 hours ago, PigFish said:

History, is more relevant than science! And that is why there is an endless attack, generally from the left to distort and rewrite history.

Have you met many Historians Ray?  I have, quite a lot of them are left wing, and I would argue have been through the ages. They get paid very little, and it not a job that really attracts right wing candidates because of this. They say "history is written by the victors", thats rarely the case, it's usually written my old retired lectures, surrounded by cats.  What publishers and governments allow them to say...that's a different matter. 

So your argument is left wing people collated and recorded history in the first place, and now they want to write is all over again?  Hmmm. really, that's a real headscratcher.

I think your argument is that societies' sensibilities are changing, and people (maybe people you don't like or agree with) are wanting to review, and add to history.  For example Winston Churchill our great war hero, somebody I am hugely thankful for, is lionized and feted in this country and rightly so!. But we are all light and dark. Churchill also had many failures, and troubling racist opinions on India, eugenics etc but he would also swing back the other way as well and contradict previous statements. What is wrong with understanding history as a whole? 

History should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, not designed the protect the soft underbelly of anyone's heros whether they be right or left wing. Despite Churchills failings, I still think he is a hero. He was a real human being, capable of good and bad, quite often in the same day or even same sentence. 

I do not believe in revisionist history in the nature where you rub out one thing to suit a set of people in one echo chamber, in favour of another. But I do support revisionist history, where you include genuine facts about people, that were previously considered 'inconvenient truths'. Why not? We are not babies. Let's see the whole picture. 

 

[El Presidente]

4 hours ago, 99call said:

I'm glad human kind in general is eager to learn,  but there is a difference between nonsense conspiracy theorising, and actually obtaining qualifications.   I can't talk for American Universities (I'm sure Ray will), but that very much still the case in the UK & Europe, and long may it continue.

"The energy company BP has established partnerships with multiple UK universities, such as the University of Manchester and the University of Cambridge, to support research in energy-related fields and sustainable technologies"

Google/Apple/BP they are all there in UK universities. 

4 hours ago, 99call said:

God forbid,  you have a terrible headache,  you learn you have irritating painful growth on your brain. (no it's not called Ken)

Do you want a qualified brain surgeon to remove it? or do you want Barbara from down the pub to place her magic crystals on your temples?? (and no! thats not a euphemism)

That is a banal argument.  Of course most people would want the best medical attention possible. However, even in the case you have raised, the patient has the right of a second or third opinion. It just may be the case that the new wonderdrug/wondersurgery being proposed by Surgeon A is not the one that Surgeon B and Surgeon C recommend. It just may come about that Surgeon A was on a fully paid Majorca conference with his wife when the last "Wonderdrug" was released. 

Qualifications are of course a core component of weighing up an argument. I think it is why the Covid response in retrospect was so distressing/confusing to many. Half truths, straight out fibs by politicians and their medical spruikers (pick your country folks, it was everywhere). It is this callousness with the truth that provides the vacuum for  the tin hat brigade. However, I don't believe they are the majority. Maybe  I am the naive one.

[99call]

3 hours ago, El Presidente said:

That is a banal argument.  Of course most people would want the best medical attention possible. Howeve, even in the case you have raised, the patient has the right of a second or third opinion. It just may be the case that the new wonderdrug/wondersurgery being proposed by Surgeon A is not the one that Surgeon B and Sergeon C recommend. It just may come about that Sugeon A was on a fully paid Majorca conference with his wife when the last "Wonderdrug" was released. 

I think working and middle classes in this Country with the NHS have a slightly different take on things. We love our NHS (despite the chronic attacks to kill it)  I know me, my family and everyone I know cringe when you watch families in foreign films, disagreeing and arguing with their doctors, but we forget, they are paying through the nose for it, so yeah sure get as many opinions as you like. I know in this country, we would just be like, "yes, thank you doctor."

I appreciate if you thought my argument was banal, but I also think trying to debunk anything by highlighting big companies funding scientific or academic research is banal, I get it, but I'm not talking about jobbing science. It happens in education to obviously, my lecturers were largely unavailable ticking boxes for the academic research they had to complete. I'm drawing a line between the funding and execution of scientific research, and what we end up with as a body of knowledge afterwards. For example, anti venoms for snake bites, I couldn't care less if SHELL or whomever funded it...does it work? Yes! brilliant.    Can the knowledge gained be incorporated in the body of accepted science...yes? Brilliant. Even though it's accepted science, shall we continue to test it, and try and improve it...yes! Brilliant. 

In short, I'm just talking about how frustrated I feel, when you have 100s of 1000's of qualified people give their lives work to develop a body of understanding for us...and we are happy to about face, and undermine it because some f-ing idiot says..."yeah man, but what about that advanced Alien science and the Pyramids...you know!". It just makes me despair, and feel like the world is getting thicker and thicker by the day. 

[El Presidente]

3 hours ago, 99call said:

It happens in education to obviously, my lecturers were largely unavailable ticking boxes for the academic research they had to complete. I'm drawing a line between the funding and execution of scientific research, and what we end up with as a body of knowledge afterwards. For example. anti venoms for snake bites, I couldn't care less if SHELL or whomever funded it...does it work? Yes! Brilliant. Can the knowledge gained be incorporated in the body of accepted science...yes? Brilliant. Even though it's accepted science, shall we continue to test it, and try and improve it...yes! Brilliant.

I have a problem when a NYU Head of department came on a recent padcast (Pivot) and introduced herself as XYZ, Sequoia Head of Business School. I think it was the business school but I can revisit. 

To me (in perhaps fairyland) academic independence is key. I want scientists/academics to have the perceived freedom of articulating a dissenting opinion without fear of having their position/tenure jeopardised. They may be proven wrong but that is not the point. There appears to be a "toe the line" thought police within these institutions. 

Now, I am a believer in climate change. However I am not sure how a scientist would fare within an academic institution  if he/she proposed a moderate alternative to the current academically accepted view. Similarly, if an entire university department is sponsored by BP working on a better battery, which brave soul will put his hand up and say, "hang on, we are on the wrong path" ABC technology is where we should be focusing on. BP in the mean time is cornering parts of the world in rare earth minerals. My example is fictional (maybe), but I hope you understand my skepticism when it comes to the impact of corporate / university partnerships.  Follow the money, follow self interest is a genuine concern. I am not saying the academics/scientists are looking to line their pockets, but the "fear" of losing a position by raising a dissenting voice is "self interest" and it is forced upon them (naturally) in the current and ever increasing university/corporate cooperation setups. 

I am not sure the world is becoming, in your words, "thicker". The less informed, less aligned, less engaged, less interested have been part of humanity for the ages. Governments (us) have simply allowed a whole new sector to commercialise them. 

[99call]

2 hours ago, El Presidente said:

To me (in perhaps fairyland) academic independence is key

I think a very strange thing is at play. Because lecturer's academic salaries are pretty shitty (at least in the UK), I don't think you get much interest from rightwingers being involved. But they sure as shit want to control the product and the curriculum. 

I would agree, academia in an ideal world would be independent. Maybe if society valued university lecturers as they do city traders, rightwingers would be more interested in being involved in academia, and not just whining about it. 

2 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I have a problem when a NYU Head of department came on a recent padcast (Pivot) and introduced herself as XYZ

Come on now. Is this just because you didn't like Prince's Symbol phase?.   

[El Presidente]

2 hours ago, 99call said:

I think a very strange thing is at play. Because lecturer's academic salaries are pretty shitty (at least in the UK), I don't think you get much interest from rightwingers being involved. But they sure as shit want to control the product and the curriculum. 

I would agree, academia in an ideal world would be independent. Maybe if society valued university lecturers as they do city traders, rightwingers would be more interested in being involved in academia, and not just whining about it. 

I am unsure how one would define a "right winger". I have a similar dilemma as to how one would define "Woke". 

One could be all for unimpeded expression of personal growth (financial and intellectual) and still hold a respect /empathy/commitment for those who are marginalised/incapacitated in one form or another. 

What would one call those? Do you actually have to label them? God knows the world wants to pigeon hole people into categories but the human condition for most is one where they simply do their best as they try  (at the same time) to  untie the chords of a difficult world. 

No University academic went into their field without knowing the salary limitations (good, bad or indifferent). Same for almost all publicly paid professions. You want to freestyle and roll the dice, the  private sector is the place but there is a "risk". You may not be good enough, you may fail (50% do within 2 years and 30% of the remaining make wages. 20% do well). Meanwhile they employ people, put their house on the line  and stress on the journey while governments screw around on policy fantasies. You rarely see a tear for them. They are the natural base of the conservatives simply because the left want nothing to do with them. 

London/NY traders/VC's/IPO framers  are a different animal. University educated, doing what they do.....making money. They are feted by some and despised by others but they are simply doing what they were trained for in the sporting field that we have provided. 

The pillorying of "haves and have nots" needs to tone down (IMHO). Each requires the other. to succeed/get ahead.  That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a reworking of capitalist structures but it needs to benefit the society as a whole and not torpedo one group over another. 

Great discussion. Thank you 

[99call]

7 hours ago, El Presidente said:

What would one call those? Do you actually have to label them? God knows the world wants to pigeon hole people into categories but the human condition for most is one where they simply do their best as they try  (at the same time) to  untie the chords of a difficult world. 

No University academic went into their field without knowing the salary limitations (good, bad or indifferent). Same for almost all publicly paid professions. You want to freestyle and roll the dice, the  private sector is the place but there is a "risk". You may not be good enough, you may fail (50% do within 2 years and 30% of the remaining make wages. 20% do well). Meanwhile they employ people, put their house on the line  and stress on the journey while governments screw around on policy fantasies. You rarely see a tear for them. They are the natural base of the conservatives simply because the left want nothing to do with them. 

London/NY traders/VC's/IPO framers  are a different animal. University educated, doing what they do.....making money. They are feted by some and despised by others but they are simply doing what they were trained for in the sporting field that we have provided. 

The pillorying of "haves and have nots" needs to tone down (IMHO). Each requires the other. to succeed/get ahead.  That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a reworking of capitalist structures but it needs to benefit the society as a whole and not torpedo one group over another. 

Great discussion. Thank you 

As Luke Skywalker said to Darth Vader "I can sense the good in you" Rob...Ha! I have zero issue with lots of stuff you put down Rob, and agree with lots of it. It's often in 'rightwingers' (sorry) interest to pigeon hole anyone with even the slightest left wing outlook, as wanting to live in some sort of joyless dystopia, where we are all counting lentils. It goes both ways. It's important to work out the common ground, and try and emphasis/celebrate it. 

I am a business owner, doing slightly well than yourself, by I imagine as many '0' as were in Ken's batting career. I really do appreciate the vision of what you are trying to achieve, a fair, high quality product, a positive working environment that encourages and nurtures social mobility and aspiration, even if that means them flying the coupe. It's all excellent stuff that I admire, and stuff that I don't find at loggerheads with many leftwing belief structures. I think my socio-economic beliefs have a lot in common with Victorian industrialists like Titus Salt and Robert Owen, who believed in business, but that it could be rewarding to everyone working within it, and progressive. It didn't require a victim, nobody needs to get fleeced. 

Whenever I attack capitalist models, it's always ones where I believe it's a totally rigged game. Where there is purposeful restriction of social mobility for the lower classes, nepotism, cronyism, corruption, and the very worst, those who monetize people's mystery, grief entrepreneurs who's business model doesn't have a product or a service, but just mine the poor, as they descend through society. 

I think we agree on a lot more than might be first noticeable.

Have a top day Rob, and yes, as ever I've learned something. Cheers

[Ken Gargett]

10 hours ago, PigFish said:

Bravo!

Science (in a broad stroke), governments and media have put themselves here as relevance and political power have shaped their positions.

History repeats itself folks. The weapons used by unreformed religions is now on full throttle for same reasons by those ‘people of science.’

History, is more relevant than science! And that is why there is an endless attack, generally from the left to distort and rewrite history.

I will take the world of the empirical over that of the theoretical anytime and any place.

Academia is a joke. Just ask the head of a university to define antisemitism and you will see just how big of a joke it is…

i intend turning FoH off for the day immediately after this, because as much fun as getting in the middle of all this would be, i do not have the time or energy. but Ray, you want the empirical. fine, but how much of that empirical comes from the people of science?

science is behind so very much of what can be termed empirical. you driving anywhere today? flying? eating something from your fridge (or do you live on pickling and preserves and salted items, although there is science behind all that as well). having a beer or a wine? going to the doctors? watching tv or listening to music? ringing anyone? getting on your computer to involve yourself in a discussion about all this? science is everywhere. sure, like everything, there are tossers involved and bad actors. but they can't change the overall importance of science. to diminish science in the manner you have is beyond short-sighted. 

i think we all understand that science is an ever-evolving pursuit, and that there are plenty who take positions based on where their money comes from - only have to look at the tiny minority of supposedly creditable scientists who are climate change deniers and where their funds come from (and yes, one could point the finger in the other direction, though not quite to the same extent) and sure, i could have used a less controversial issue but where is the fun in that, but where would we be without science and the achievements of scientists? they have shaped every aspect of our lives. 

all that said, i am in agreement with the crucial importance of history and i despair at the vast ignorance around the globe in respect of history and past actions (i only have to look at my own family to see this). you want one small example? a lot of people in a lot of places could do with improving their understanding of the rise of Hitler and the nazis back in the 30s to prevent a repeat. 

have fun and see you tomorrow. 

[Glass Half Full]

On 1/2/2024 at 4:34 PM, Ken Gargett said:

absolutely what i was thinking. cricket games lost to rain and storms. the need to mow your lawn every week. humidity out the wahzoo. 

Wow!  Something's up if Rob and Ken are agreeing.  Nefarious business that 

[Glass Half Full]

...Oops.  I hadn't seen where the Nazis came into the weather discussion.  

In danger of entering the fray, I'll note that, in my observation, those at the extremes -- both those to the far, far right and those to the far, far left (at least in the U.S.) -- I find that they tend to agree with many of the same policies albeit for entirely different reasons.  

In my opinion, it's less of a continuum -- a linear expression -- than it is a circle with the extreme ends touching in bizarre ways.  

For example, I recently had a discussion with my one of my sons (who would likely describe himself as far left), and he said he does not believe in paying so much taxes and prefers a smaller (US) government.  

Oddly, similarly, my far, far right good friend and former college roommate of years ago (with whom I'm still good friends and recently visited), expressed the very same preferences.  (Preferences is a mild word, right?  ...Hopefully not getting me in trouble with anyone.)

To me, sometimes, the extremes are more similar than they are different.  Just a thought.  

[Fugu]

12 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

all that said, i am in agreement with the crucial importance of history and i despair at the vast ignorance around the globe in respect of history and past actions

Yet I fail to see any antagonistic nature or even a mutual exclusiveness (as has obviously been insinuated) between science and history. What’s history without science?! Am I missing something here?! History is an academic discipline!

[Fugu]

Coming back to some points raised in the earlier debate on social media “experts”. For those who may have missed it: Science has ever been open about the possibility of “error”. That’s its very idea and foundation! People who insinuate otherwise, demanding an “unfailing science” or make assertions that science for itself were claiming “infallibility”, simply have no clue what they are talking about. That’s why there is the concept of independent verification of data, of probabilities and statistics. It almost never is all black and white, and it is one of the fundamental scientific principles that the degree of confidence in respective findings is laid open. Open for debate, open to be verified or to be rebutted by peer experts, by the readers of said studies when published to the wild. And lastly by the one eventually coming up with the better data. (for that matter, it’s as much made public as funding and any potential conflict of interest is likewise always obligatory to be transparently laid out as well - it’s no secret, stupid!). Now, today, you see folk that hasn’t got the necessary educational background (I’ll avoid “intellectual capacity“) and that has no clue whatsoever feel free they were qualified to publicly judge on findings, following the naïve pattern - “ha, see, there science was ‘wrong’”, because they believe (or intendedly make us believe) they had found an example that’s not following current findings brought forward by science, and as such that all that, whole in whole were not trustworthy at all in consequence. Or they claim science wouldn’t give a ‘clear-cut’ answer, and thus were failing to meet self-imposed targets. Hogwash! Since most studies and their findings are too complex to be clear-cut per se, too multifaceted (often building on long-standing research) to be intellectually being easily penetrated by the layman, let alone by the self-exclaimed alternative expert that is only aiming to transport an agenda. And then, these very “alternative experts” consider themselves entitled to deny widely accepted scientific findings. I am not meaning to dismiss the controversial debate, not even the taking on of extreme positions. What I am critical about is the unqualified, all too often populist agitation, under the guise of “science”, with no hard facts backing it up. Or even worse, by selectively picking seemingly supportive arguments and intentionally concealing proven counter-arguments. People are all too easily (lazily) confusing charlatanry with a “critical mind”. That’s indeed a dangerous trend which has gained momentum with the appearance of self-appointed experts (mostly without any proven track record in the field - becoming quickly apparent if one just digs a little deeper) mushrooming on “social” media channels.

Now, as for the frequently heard reproach that science would be abdicating from facing up to an open debate with those bringing up “alternative” facts... I am escalating here a bit, but in a nutshell: 1. Active scientists have better things to do with their precious time than to engage in debates on obvious pseudoscience, best way to deal with it is ignoring them 2. It simply is pointless to try debating with tinfoil hats and flat-earthers... 3. It’s not the scientific community, it’s the “alternative experts” putting themselves outside of any academic excursus. That ilk of “Hancocks”, who have never published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Social media has undermined the editorial principle.

 

Problem in all that being, Joe Bloggs isn’t reading “Science”, let alone “Theoretical and Applied Climatology”, mostly not even NYT or The Guardian.... The tube and Tictac it is.

[99call]

42 minutes ago, Fugu said:

missing something here?! History is an academic discipline!

I think the only thing they have in common in this thread is:

- Some left leaning people are suggesting there is an attack on science by the right

- Some right leaning people are suggesting there is an attack on history by the left

I think it's all about control at the end of the day.  Science as disenfranchised religion,  and conspiracy theory, and disinformation is the fightback. 

[Chibearsv]

59 minutes ago, 99call said:

I think the only thing they have in common in this thread is:

- Some left leaning people are suggesting there is an attack on science by the right

- Some right leaning people are suggesting there is an attack on history by the left

I think it's all about control at the end of the day.  Science as disenfranchised religion,  and conspiracy theory, and disinformation is the fightback. 

What if I think is dumb to ignore or wash some history and at the same time also think it's dumb to be proud of some history?  What if I think it's dumb to ignore science because of a literal belief in religious text and I also think it's dumb to ignore religion in favor of government mandated morality?  What side am I on? 

Is there really some grand scheme for control or just some people that realize how to monetize a social media platform by catering to one direction or the other?

[joeypots]

7 hours ago, Fugu said:

Social media has undermined the editorial principle.

And there it is. Everyone now has a way to publish, promote, and explain any point of view that massages their inherent bias. Buyer beware. 

[MoeFOH]

14 hours ago, Fugu said:

Coming back to some points raised in the earlier debate on social media “experts”. For those who may have missed it: Science has ever been open about the possibility of “error”. That’s its very idea and foundation! People who insinuate otherwise, demanding an “unfailing science” or make assertions that science for itself were claiming “infallibility”, simply have no clue what they are talking about. That’s why there is the concept of independent verification of data, of probabilities and statistics. It almost never is all black and white, and it is one of the fundamental scientific principles that the degree of confidence in respective findings is laid open. Open for debate, open to be verified or to be rebutted by peer experts, by the readers of said studies when published to the wild. And lastly by the one eventually coming up with the better data. (for that matter, it’s as much made public as funding and any potential conflict of interest is likewise always obligatory to be transparently laid out as well - it’s no secret, stupid!). Now, today, you see folk that hasn’t got the necessary educational background (I’ll avoid “intellectual capacity“) and that has no clue whatsoever feel free they were qualified to publicly judge on findings, following the naïve pattern - “ha, see, there science was ‘wrong’”, because they believe (or intendedly make us believe) they had found an example that’s not following current findings brought forward by science, and as such that all that, whole in whole were not trustworthy at all in consequence. Or they claim science wouldn’t give a ‘clear-cut’ answer, and thus were failing to meet self-imposed targets. Hogwash! Since most studies and their findings are too complex to be clear-cut per se, too multifaceted (often building on long-standing research) to be intellectually being easily penetrated by the layman, let alone by the self-exclaimed alternative expert that is only aiming to transport an agenda. And then, these very “alternative experts” consider themselves entitled to deny widely accepted scientific findings. I am not meaning to dismiss the controversial debate, not even the taking on of extreme positions. What I am critical about is the unqualified, all too often populist agitation, under the guise of “science”, with no hard facts backing it up. Or even worse, by selectively picking seemingly supportive arguments and intentionally concealing proven counter-arguments. People are all too easily (lazily) confusing charlatanry with a “critical mind”. That’s indeed a dangerous trend which has gained momentum with the appearance of self-appointed experts (mostly without any proven track record in the field - becoming quickly apparent if one just digs a little deeper) mushrooming on “social” media channels.

Now, as for the frequently heard reproach that science would be abdicating from facing up to an open debate with those bringing up “alternative” facts... I am escalating here a bit, but in a nutshell: 1. Active scientists have better things to do with their precious time than to engage in debates on obvious pseudoscience, best way to deal with it is ignoring them 2. It simply is pointless to try debating with tinfoil hats and flat-earthers... 3. It’s not the scientific community, it’s the “alternative experts” putting themselves outside of any academic excursus. That ilk of “Hancocks”, who have never published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Social media has undermined the editorial principle.

 

Problem in all that being, Joe Bloggs isn’t reading “Science”, let alone “Theoretical and Applied Climatology”, mostly not even NYT or The Guardian.... The tube and Tictac it is.

I'm replying on your post @Fugu but this is a general statement, not aiming it at you. 

I can only speak for myself, and I'm not saying I believe Science thinks or promotes itself as infallible just because I point out a time when it was wrong. What I am saying is that Science, being comprised of human beings, is just as fallible as anything else. It's big business, these days, and contains hierarchies and power brokers, etc. As such, it's vulnerable to anything from common inefficiencies to malignant corruption. Putting Hancock and any other outsiders aside, it's well capable on its own, as is almost any field/industry/whatnot, to foster an environment where the protection of the status quo might come before the core principles of the endeavour. A head of a lab may have the likes of published papers, books, students, employees, funding, and so on, to protect. So it is no great leap to understand that emerging divergent theories would be stifled or shut down simply by the nature of the beast, which has nothing to do with the ideals of Science nor the potential merits of the theory. To suggest Science is a golden child devoid of impurities like this is laughable. To use the Moneyball (apt title) reference, stats vs old school scouting, etc: "it's not threatening the game, what you're really threatening is their jobs, their livelihood." 

For me, I don't really care where the dissenting voice comes from. Let it all have to suffer the burden of proof. In the case of Hancock, he has gotten to a point where he has the Netflix microphone in his hand. Maybe his dick, too. In any case, I don't think Netflix is handing out feature series to just anyone. There's a little more to it than that. Is it largely speculation packaged for entertainment's sake, to sell subscriptions, books, etc.? Of course. "Makes no difference to me what a man does for a living, you understand?" And in such a case it should be easy for Science to openly debate and debunk the issue. Not worth their time? Ok, then ignore it. In the past, pre-Internet, Hancock would have gone via the medium of print journalism, books, or tv. Is it the contention that the man in the street has never been duped en masse by these methods? Sure, anyone these days can have a voice on social media, but that also includes those with the greater power and influence to do so. There is no way to escape a need for independent critical thought. The level of intellectual capacity to do so will always exist and will always be subject to the medium of the day. As for labels prefixed with pseudo, I think that carries several dangers against open-mindedness and free speech. To make a thematic analogy, not a comparison of the protagonists, the Woodward and Bernsteins of the world could be labelled as pseudo detectives or criminologists. And all of us commenting on this topic could well be poked at as pseudo intellectuals for daring to voice an opinion. What's far more important than jumping to judgment and labelling is listening to the issue before forming an opinion, followed then by fair minded debate, further research. Or if the topic is not for you, not worth your time, then don't bother with it. But don't dismiss it out of hand before absorbing the content. Surely there's nothing less scientific than that. 

I've learned a lot from reading through this thread, from all sides of the argument. Grand stuff. 

By the way, back to the original reason for the post, please watch the series... Netflix has me on commission.  

[Fugu]

13 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

As for labels prefixed with pseudo, I think that carries several dangers against open-mindedness and free speech.

It’s not simply a “labelling” without reason, Steve. What one needs to understand, and this might indeed be difficult to be seen by the wider audience, people like him aren’t meeting even the most basic scientific standards. What these people so derogatorily call “mainstream” or “establishment” science/history is in fact the evidence-based science they are attacking. And in the particular case of Hancock (I intended to keep my statements more general and not give this particular person the credit of addressing it that much...), he has in fact been dealt with, and his “theses” been widely debunked by science. From an academic standpoint, he’s doing nothing more than pontificating. He is a (sensationalist-) journalist at best, a fantasist and conspiracy mystic at worst. Scientifically, he is a nobody. He doesn’t even call himself a scientist.

For a deeper immersion (even if you won’t care whether science or fiction, as you said ) reading the rebuttal by deputy editor Mark Aldenderfer in Science Advances may be warmly recommended (link below).

The outpouring of ilk like Hancock is not simply “entertainment”, let alone coming from “independent” “critical minds”. As Ken @Ken Gargett already so rightly addressed, one has to very carefully distinguish between fact and fiction. Otherwise, these people, transporting their ideological agenda under the guise of science/expertise - and there are even worse Pied Pipers out there than Hancock - are a threat to our values of Enlightenment and common - not only scholarly - ethics (the few that there are / there are remaining). Don’t fall for it. The Guardian calls it the most dangerous show on Netflix. Either way, one certainly shouldn’t be naive about it. And people like you and me, posting on public forums, are likewise a cog in this system, forming a - though tiny - part of the game and thus bear their own responsibility in this regard. Keep yourself your own critical mind!

Could be said so much more, but I’ll keep it at that.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj8096