Difference between revisions of "Science"
m (Text replacement - "|WP=https://" to "|wikipedia=https://") |
(basic lede) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ''Not to be confused with [[rigged science]], which is the corrupted counterpart.'' | ||
+ | |||
{{concept | {{concept | ||
|wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science | |wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Science is the study of the natural world through experiment and observation. | ||
+ | |||
==Corruption== | ==Corruption== | ||
{{SMWDocs}} | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
+ | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} |
Revision as of 23:14, 4 November 2021
Not to be confused with rigged science, which is the corrupted counterpart.
Science is the study of the natural world through experiment and observation.
Contents
Corruption
Examples
Page name | Description |
---|---|
Biology | the science of life. |
Chemistry | |
Physics | |
Precautionary principle | Better safe than sorry |
Psychology | The science of mind and behaviour. |
Sociology |
Related Quotations
Page | Quote | Author | Date |
---|---|---|---|
Big pharma | “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” | Marcia Angell | 2009 |
Big pharma | “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” | Richard Horton | 2015 |
Burson Cohn & Wolfe | “It is critically important that third-party genetic experts, including respected authorities with no specific background in radiofrequency, be identified to speak on the following issues:
• Problems with the Lai-Singh and Sarkar studies [on an increase in single-strand DNA breaks in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to 2.45 GHz microwaves, at power levels officially considered safe] • The health implications of DNA single-strand breaks. We do not believe that Motorola should put anyone on camera. We must limit our corporate visibility and defer complex scientific issues to credible, qualified scientific experts. We have developed a list of independent experts in this field and are in the process of recruiting individuals willing and able to reassure the public on these matters.” | Motorola | 1994 |
Matthew Ehret | “[...] The City of London is a very old institution and is has been the center of world finance for hundreds of years. So how were they able to control 400 million Indians, for 200 years, how were they able to do that? When they only had at most maybe 12-13.000 soldiers physically on the ground. That doesn't make sense.
And so it's only when you begin to realize, okay it's a much more multifaceted component, you have intelligence, you have cultural warfare, which is something reserved for the elite, as far as a knowledge of science of cultural warfare. This is not something you learn in community college. This is something which is reserved for a very select batch of young people, who are perhaps of the right family, who have the right inclinations, who are selected, they're discovered, they're provided sometimes, Rode-scholarships as part of their process of reaching upper level management position. And in the course of doing that, a set of experiences is provided to those young people, who go through an Oxford, or another, there's there's a variety of these types of scholarships that are provided, who then are brought into a sense of an understanding of the longer waves of history and how history actually moves, versus how we're taught in popular books you can buy at your local bookstore, which involves controlling the way people are thinking, controlling the way they're feeling, [the interviewer mentions the Tavistock Institute] That's one aspect. Yeah it's the psychological warfare component of the British Empire. [on the question if it is the main component of that kind of operation] Yeah it's an artery, there's also other aspects of it too. There is cultural wars that also involve approaches to science. What method will be permitted in the scientific world, so what sorts of theories are going to receive money, financial support, publications in peer-reviewed journals and which approaches to science are going to be crushed, choked of funding. There's things like that. There's also artistic aspects too. What sorts of artistic traditions will be provided money, revenue to grow, and which ones will be choked off. Why are we producing no more Beethovens, or Mozart's, or Schubert's today, why is that? [interviewer mentions the sub-standard quality of modern music/artists and the propaganda aspects of it] It's kind of like this question of, terrorism foreign and domestic, is: are these naturally occurring phenomenon, or are they artificially created to induce a certain effect in a target society you want to control, through fear and through other things, confusion. And it's the same sort of thing with abstract art, a-tonalist music, scientific theories that are useless. We discovered the god particle 10 years ago, what changed? Nothing! [Matthew Ehret continues that with billions of founding of the LHC an observation was made that had no effect on the world that people experience, it only could unite theoretical models that were not compatible before (since gravity was a force that could not fit with the other four fundamental forces)] Is that a real scientific discovery, if you make a discovery and then nothing changes? No, not at all. A scientific discovery comes [brings] with it, a power of of action, of having an ability to make better discoveries, but also live a better life, to translate those discoveries into new ways of having better technologies, of having more power to move to live a better life [...]” | Matthew Ehret | 19 June 2022 |
Anthony Fauci | “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.” | Anthony Fauci | 2021 |
Mae-Wan Ho | “What makes genetic engineering biotechnology dangerous, in the first instance, is that it is an unprecedented, close alliance between two great powers that can make or break the world: science and commerce. Practically all established molecular geneticists have some direct or indirect connection with industry, which will set limits on what the scientists can and will do research on, not to mention the possibility of compromising their integrity as independent scientists.
. The worst aspect of the alliance is that it is between the most reductionist science and multinational monopolistic industry at its most aggressive and exploitative. If the truth be told, it is bad science working together with big business for quick profit, aided and abetted by our governments for the banal reason that governments wish to be re-elected to remain in ‘power.’” | Mae-Wan Ho | 1997 |
Christopher Langan | “[...] but that's the way it works, it's one giant self-reinforcing system, basically it's run by people with money and if people with money want certain questions to be answered in certain ways, then they make sure that nobody advances in academia who does not parrot the party line, and say what he is expected to say, so this kind of self reinforcement is antithetical to intellectual freedom and creativity. [...] (00:11:10)” | Christopher Langan | 2019 |
Brian Martin | “Science is normally presented to the public as an enterprise based on skepticism and openness to new ideas, in which evidence and argumentation are examined on their own merits. Trusting newcomers who present views that conflict with standard ideas may thus expect that their work will be given a prompt, fair, and incisive analysis, being accepted if it passes scrutiny and being given detailed reasons if not. When, instead, their work is ignored, ridiculed, or rejected without explanation, they assume that there has been some sort of mistake, and often begin a search to find the "right person"; someone who fits the stereotype of the open-minded scientist. This can be a long search! Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked. To have their ideas examined fairly, it is wishful thinking to rely on the normal operation of the scientific reception system. To have a decent chance, dissenters need to develop a strategy. They need to understand the way science actually operates, to work out their goals, and then to formulate a plan to move towards those goals, taking into account likely obstacles and sources of support.” | Brian Martin | 1998 |
Peter McCullough | “I’m deeply worried concerned regarding the future of America and also deeply afraid of loss of freedom of speech and of scientific discourse.” | Peter McCullough | 2021 |
Plastic word | “In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, ‘The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality’, while another writes, ‘The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness’, the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.” | George Orwell | 1946 |
Hugo López-Gatell Ramírez | “There's a powerful public opinion campaign induced by Big Pharma. If one explores the national and international press, and traces recommendations like these, one can perceive an important lack of scientific information to support these kind of recommendations. And by contrast there are statements by Big Pharma executives that already take it for granted.” | Hugo López-Gatell Ramírez | July 2021 |
Related Documents
Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
Document:How Monsanto silences scientific dissent | commentary | 3 December 2013 | James Corbett | |
Document:Open Letter on Retraction and Pledge to Boycott Elsevier | open letter | 4 December 2013 | Institute of Science in Society | |
Document:Retracting Séralini Study Violates Science and Ethics | article | 4 December 2013 | Mae-Wan Ho Peter Saunders | |
Document:Scientific fraud and the power structure of science | paper | June 1992 | Brian Martin | |
File:Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents.pdf | paper | September 2013 | Richard Lindzen | Authoritative opinion from one of the world's leading climate scientists and IPCC member working on the 1995 and 2001 Assessment reports |
An official example
Name |
---|
Cochrane Collaboration |