The Problem With Science

[Scogan]

A disturbing phenomena is taking hold of the masses that is being perpetuated online on social media platforms:  Their Belief in Consensus SCIENCE.

 

First, addressing the obvious, Science is always learning and until something becomes LAW (the What) or a THEORY (the Why) (such as Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion, the theory of gravitation) consensus has no place in assigning any validity; such as nonsense claims that CO2 is destroying life on earth.  That claim cannot be scientifically tested or observed in the real world as infinite 'things' interact to effect climate.

 

Those following 'scientific consensus' have ascribed themselves to a very limited understanding of the physical world.  They are squashing their own intellect. To visualize what Science actually knows... If the entirety of 'scientific law and theory' could fit in a penny, and that penny were placed atop the Pyramid of Giza, the entire pyramid would be what science cannot explain, is unable to explain, or can only hypothesize in the physical world.  

 

I cite the mRNA jab as exhibit A.  A universal one size fits all jab that can seriously screw you up for life, its long term effects are NOT understood, yet scientific consensus says 'take the jab!'  Why should I, when they possess only a fraction of how this jab actually works.  It's all 'wait and see.'  

 

The next time someone tells you they agree with Consensus Science, tell them you pity their ignorance.  

 

 

[Macnamara]

8 hours ago, Scogan said:

First, addressing the obvious, Science is always learning and until something becomes LAW (the What) or a THEORY (the Why) (such as Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion, the theory of gravitation) consensus has no place in assigning any validity; such as nonsense claims that CO2 is destroying life on earth.  That claim cannot be scientifically tested or observed in the real world as infinite 'things' interact to effect climate.

 

climate 'science' is based on computer models just like the covid lockdowns

 

The output of a computer model depends on what you put into it so if you have a political agenda you can input what you need to input into the computer model to have it tell you what you want it to tell you to support your political narrative

 

Its not based on empirical science. It's based on human bias

[SimonTV]

check out the book Thomas Sowell - Intellectuals and Society.