Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Ancient & Forbidden Knowledge / False History

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 16-02-2017, 02:16 PM   #41
therabidbadger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 221
Likes: 124 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakes View Post


In other words if you do not 'parrot' the 'teaching' you are considered incorrect.

.
Reminds me of a quote from a chemistry professor - 'It's amazing to think of how many people we failed for not knowing something we now know not to be true...' - really sums it
Likes: (2)
therabidbadger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 02:18 PM   #42
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,579 (1,692 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
So don't question anything then, this thread is for people who want to question our current scientific paradigm - not about beer.
Is there a single 'scientific paradigm'?
'Science' is pretty big area.
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 02:28 PM   #43
lakes
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 931
Likes: 739 (414 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
Is there a single 'scientific paradigm'?
'Science' is pretty big area.
I think theres a real ale called paradigm, if that helps the discussion?
Likes: (1)
lakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 02:34 PM   #44
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,579 (1,692 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakes View Post
I think theres a real ale called paradigm, if that helps the discussion?
Habermas ( Frankfurt School) seems to have coined the term 'Scientistic'.. it's a bad thing , according to him...
"The hard, scientistic core of the analytical philosophy was always alien to me. Today, it comprises colleagues who take up the reductionist Programme of the Unified Sciences from the first half of the twentieth century under somewhat different assumptions and more or less regard philosophy as a supplier for the cognitive sciences. The advocates of what we might call "scientism" ultimately view only statements of physics as capable of being either true or false and insist on the paradoxical demand of perceiving ourselves exclusively in descriptions of the natural sciences. But describing and recognizing oneself are not the same thing: decentring an illusionary self-understanding requires recognition on the basis of a different, improved description. Scientism renounces the self-reference required to be present in every case of re-cognition. At the same time, scientism itself utilizes this self-reference performatively – I mean the reference to us as socialized subjects capable of speech and action, and who always find themselves in the context of their lifeworlds. Scientism buys the supposed scientification of philosophy by renouncing the task of self-understanding, which philosophy has inherited from the great world religions, though with the intention of the enlightenment. By contrast, the intention of understanding ourselves exclusively from what we have learnt about the objective world leads to a reifying description of something in the world that denies the self-referential application for the purpose of improving our "self"-understanding."

Frankfurt School 'philosophy' is a tad dodgy IMO.
Best avoided.

Last edited by grandmasterp; 16-02-2017 at 02:39 PM.
Likes: (1)
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 02:36 PM   #45
lakes
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 931
Likes: 739 (414 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therabidbadger View Post
You make some good points here and earlier in the thread about the similarities between science and religion. The way I usually think about it is spirituality vs religion and true science vs mainstream science (or conventional wisdom). In both cases the 'establishment' tries to limit our view of what is and isn't possible.

To be truly spiritual you can't accept all of what any religion says, there may be some truth in there but there will be some untrue stuff also. If you want to belong to a religion you kind of have to accept everything they say, which in turn means that to be truly spiritual you can't belong to any of the religions.

The same can be said for science, a true scientist cannot simply accept everything he is told by the scientific establishment. However, to work in science research, especially within the universities, you have to accept ALL of the conventional wisdom whether you agree with it or not. Hence to be a true scientist you can't work within the establishment. A good example of this was a chap who was offered a teaching position at Bristol University but had to decline it because he didn't agree with relativity. Had he accepted the post he would have had to teach it as fact, which he couldn't do in good conscience. What is interesting in this case is that the MOD employed him and he spent his working life conducting research for them - why weren't they put off by his disbelief of relativity like the University's were?

Further examples of this include global warming caused by CO2 (nonsense) but you would have to teach it as fact as a science teacher. One of my old lecturers even disputes the second law of thermodynamics and he is ridiculed, struggles to publish and finds it hard to gain funding as a result. The reason he disputes it is that he contends that entropy does not exist - his challenge to anyone who says otherwise is 'tell me what it is then'. It's hard to answer that one.... He is still a senior lecturer but has been blocked from further promotion due to his insistence of following the truth as he sees it.

Another problem with science is that theorists are given too much credibility at times. I witnessed many occasions where an experimental physicist would conduct an experiment, the results of which didn't fit the predictions made by a theoretical model - the initial conclusion here is often that the experiment has 'gone wrong' rather than the model being wrong. This is crazy of course, we have to go with what we observe in physical reality over a theoretical model otherwise we get nonsense like the global warming scam gaining credibility. Oh, and that 97% of scientists agreeing that CO2 is the case was based on 77 out of 79 scientists - hardly all of them! Small sample size and very biased, yet we've probably all seen this ludicrous claim at some point. In reality virtually every scientist I've ever spoken to in real life has said 1 of 2 things - 'I don't know, haven't had chance to research it properly' or 'I've had a look into it and it's nonsense!'. However, I haven't spoken to a scientist yet who's career and funding depends on them going along with this, they are the ones who make up the 79 scientists surveyed of course....

Just to add to the above, when I asked people who were studying non-science subjects at the University I attended such as law or politics, they all believed that CO2 caused global warming and they all shouted me down and called me stupid for saying otherwise. So, in spite of the fact that I am a scientist and have actually researched this topic thoroughly all the non scientists thought they knew better than me - why? None of my fellow scientists mocked me for discussing this, as I said above all of those who had actually looked into it agreed with me.
Excellent posting....thank you for time taken.
I will, if I may, print it and show it to others with who I converse?
Likes: (1)
lakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 02:39 PM   #46
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38991983

Lol. Someone must be reading.
Likes: (1)
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 02:42 PM   #47
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakes View Post
I think theres a real ale called paradigm, if that helps the discussion?
Is that because if you drop the bottle it covers a big area?
Likes: (1)
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 02:49 PM   #48
lakes
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 931
Likes: 739 (414 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
In a lot of respects I agree with you. Some people in the scientific community are assholes. Richard Dawkins is the first whom springs to mind. I may agree with some of what he says but he goes looking for arguments and comes across more or less like the Monty Python sketch you quoted.

It's not to say that the scientific facts cannot be altered for the purpose of denying correct knowledge to people.

To be a scientist or test things doesn't require a degree. Yes perhaps you won't have access to most of the modern equipment that exists but simple experiments can be achieved everyday. You only have to look to you tube for that sort of information.

You sound more anti-establishment than totally against science.

In a guardian article last year, I had a go at Richard Dawkins comments towards a creationist whom was teaching her pupils that evolution was not true in her science classes. I accept evolution but again Dawkins was unrelenting as usual soundling like a complete and absolute tosser.

Somewhere along the lines a person said that "Science may get it wrong but at least it can own up to its mistakes. (In comparison to religion) Again, this is not the case. THere have been many mistakes in Science that have had dire concequences. But the truth of the matter is that none of the populations get a vote or an insight into what the science community are doing. Much like my thoughts on illegal human experimentation. It just should not be happening without peoples consent.

However, it does not mean to me that I should overlook the language of science that in a majority of our daily lives serves to help us and also gives me insight to what I understand from my perspective.

You can deviate from whatever path you want, but to be understood you need to explain to people with good evidence how something works. Like Flat Earth. Just saying it exists doesn't make it so. Maybe to you, but if you were gifted a space flight tomorrow, what would you say to people then?
Another well considered and written post. Thanks.

"You sound more anti-establishment than totally against science"

lol....your very perceptive as well!

While within this form I am (to date) only against two things:

Allowance of harm to any sentience.
Use of another for personal gain.

...........and I would take the space flight
Likes: (1)
lakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 04:24 PM   #49
raburgeson
Senior Member
 
raburgeson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 462 (309 Posts)
Default

Real science is good, providing that the science is founded on scientific principal. Most of what you see today is unscientific madness. They have to get the research money, they produce nothing except a hand out for more money. Observing nature and using its processes is not in the mix anymore.

Falsifying data for the answer that is being looked for is in however.

Last edited by raburgeson; 16-02-2017 at 04:26 PM.
raburgeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2017, 04:57 PM   #50
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
noncooperation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe GMT+1
Posts: 4,309
Likes: 620 (404 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therabidbadger View Post
Yes, that's the right link - works for me. Try and google the title if the link still doesn't work - 'No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning'

Odd thing, I just checked again and the link didn't work, so I tried yet again and it did? Weird, lol.
same happened to me, i tried it later on and it worked!
__________________
.
Check out Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride's videos on food is your medicine and MUCH more.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!
Likes: (1)
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2017, 08:55 AM   #51
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 16,716
Likes: 1,232 (969 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
Listen to this!

https://youtu.be/SAZTmp-9FQk

"We have never been to the moon or mars" - NASA's Terry Virt aboard the ISS in an interview where he amazingly slips up and says that "NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN TO OUTER SPACE"
This post is a complete lie and I guarantee you will not withdraw it or respond to this post. NOWHERE in that video does he say either of those two things. Not even close.

He merely quite rightly affirms that RIGHT NOW, NASA does not have the capability to get beyond LEO. That is in reference to developing newer heavy lift vehicles to get these massive payloads into orbit ready for transit. That is the hardest part of the whole process and always was.

Previously we had the Saturn V(a billion a launch in 1972!!).


ETA: In a thread that calls in to question the role of science and scientists, I find it ironic that you post a totally wrong deceptive video and make two provably false claims!
__________________
It is impossible to reason with an unreasonable person. A proper truther will not hold a fixed, immovable opinion. They will assess all evidence, use logic, reason, critical thinking and position themselves accordingly. If new evidence contradicts and better explains their own, they will adapt. A truther is not afraid to be wrong and is certainly not afraid to change their position. A truther does not ignore contradictory evidence. GOT THAT!?
Apollo Proven

Last edited by truegroup; 17-02-2017 at 09:00 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2017, 04:25 PM   #52
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
noncooperation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe GMT+1
Posts: 4,309
Likes: 620 (404 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
Religion is not considered to be factual at all. The Bible for example is not a history book, it is a book of accounts or stories.

The Bible for example has also been altered many times since it was written but not for the sake of new evidence. King James Bible anyone?

Concentrations of opinion agreed by theory? The Bible is not theoretical nor is it opinion, it is a story. Fiction. The only facts would be those which would use reference or to quote Bible text but it does not make the stories themselves fact.

The only things that can change are the views of charaters in the Bible based on new evidence. The Gospel of Judas which was found not so long ago dating to around the first century turned everyones 'opinions' on Judas upside down. It claims he did not betray Jesus Christ, it was a matter of following the instructions asked of by Jesus. But is that version of events now accepted by Christians. Is it now part of a revised Bible? Surely if we are going to compare the criterias of understanding, Christianity is far less driven to assert new evidence and correct itself.

For the sake of turning water into wine, the bible claims a man made it possible, science tells you if it is possible.
You keep saying 'The Bible' but what do you mean by this?

Other researchers i have read talk of all the ancient writings like the book of enoch for example, i think the best bible every would be made up of the most original and unaltered ot edited ancient books.

Personal i class these ancient writing, like the book of enoch, as history books of a type.
__________________
.
Check out Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride's videos on food is your medicine and MUCH more.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2017, 04:20 PM   #53
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
noncooperation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe GMT+1
Posts: 4,309
Likes: 620 (404 Posts)
Default

One of many deceptions scientism is responsible for is lying to the general population into believing wireless communications are not harmful to our bodies and well being.
__________________
.
Check out Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride's videos on food is your medicine and MUCH more.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2017, 05:09 PM   #54
lakes
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 931
Likes: 739 (414 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
One of many deceptions scientism is responsible for is lying to the general population into believing wireless communications are not harmful to our bodies and well being.
Yes I concur....I posted the below as part of the OP in a thread here:

Love, Empathy, Morals and Technology

Quote:
I 'feel' that the increasing loss of morality, especially within the current youth, can be understood by researching our field of vibration and the frequency we have allowed to be formed upon our reality.
What I mean by this....is that our empathy has been and is ever increasingly being limited.
If you consider that even main stream science confirms that 'humans' emit external vibrations, continually, then consider that this is how we are meant to 'feel' others.
If this is correct....then consider the 'sea' of interference (telecommunications) we now swim in.......day in night out.
I feel that we are being 'turned' off from all else external from the singular physical form each of us are and are losing empathy for EVERYTHING ELSE, by which then we also lose our moral compass.
So this could be defined as the greatest and most hideous....divide and conquer.......ever known.
Remove a child from the womb and erase any memory of a mother or any family.... .......
lakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2017, 06:45 AM   #55
whaaat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 107
Likes: 9 (7 Posts)
Default

the florentine academy had all the ancient mysteries of mankind figured out [including the real location of the garden of eden] but lorenzo the magnificent died and his son the pope had them all killed because that was best for himself. luckily leonardo was able to hide the secret in plain site and the 3 texts that they translated still exist..

eu government science is now happy to verify what the academy could not... including but not limited to these guys

16 universities from 7 countries attended the inaugural workshop
whaaat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2017, 07:01 PM   #56
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,650 (822 Posts)
Default

porridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-02-2017, 12:18 PM   #57
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
You keep saying 'The Bible' but what do you mean by this?

Other researchers i have read talk of all the ancient writings like the book of enoch for example, i think the best bible every would be made up of the most original and unaltered ot edited ancient books.

Personal i class these ancient writing, like the book of enoch, as history books of a type.
Appartently there are no original manuscripts that make up the bible. The closest they say you can get are the ones held by the catholic church. The Book of Enoch is primarily Jewish.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2017, 06:31 PM   #58
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
noncooperation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe GMT+1
Posts: 4,309
Likes: 620 (404 Posts)
Default

Maybe not, but the oldest unaltered books of the bible and other ancient rare texts together can make a good basis for research into ancient history.
__________________
.
Check out Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride's videos on food is your medicine and MUCH more.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2017, 09:05 PM   #59
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,650 (822 Posts)
Default

Likes: (1)
porridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2017, 10:45 PM   #60
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,650 (822 Posts)
Default

Likes: (1)
porridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:54 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.