Tag Archives: Scientific Method

Science: What it Is, What It Isn’t, by Paul Rosenberg

Real science can be incredibly complex, but the philosophical underpinnings of all science is simple and straightforward. From Paul Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:

Science, since it was monopolized by institutions and especially over the past two years, has become something quite other than what it was found to be during the early Enlightenment. That is, what is called science by the mouthpieces of the status quo is not what science was originally.

Children need to be familiarized with science proper, especially right now, or they will think the way things are is the way they’ve always been… because they are the only things they’ve ever experienced. Hence, this installment is dedicated to it… and them.

* * * * *

Let’s begin with this fact: Most of what you’ve heard called science, isn’t science. So, let’s start over:

Science is not a group of schools or laboratories.

Science is not a set of facts.

Science is not a set of laws.

Science is a process – it is a technique for verifying our ideas about the world. Science is nothing more than a way of verifying things. All the other things you’ve heard called “science” were wrong.

Knowledge In The Old World

Our world is always full of smart people figuring things out, but the way it was done in the old days wasn’t very effective. At that time, most people tried to decide based on a big pattern of what the world was like: They thought about the pattern they were taught, then tried to fit facts inside of it.

Continue reading→

“Listen to the scientists”, by Simon Black

“Listen to the scientists” has become code for listen to a lot of nonsense that has no basis in science at all. From Simon Black at sovereignman.com:

If there were a Mount Rushmore to memorialize the greatest scientists in US history, Richard Feynman’s face would almost certainly be on the monument.

He was only 24 years of age when he was recruited into a secret research group that eventually became part of the Manhattan Project, joining some of the other most prominent scientists of his age, like Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi.

Feynman went on to make unparalleled advances in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics. He conceived of nanotechnology as early as the 1950s, and quantum computing as early as 1982.

Feynman also won the Nobel Prize, plus countless other awards and medals; and he was ranked by leading scientists as one of the greatest physicists of all time– alongside Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Galileo.

In short, Feynman knew what he was talking about when it came to science.

One thing that was really interesting about Feynman is that, despite all of his success and credentials, he was the first to admit that nothing was truly certain and absolute, even in science:

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.

According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”

Or, as Isaac Asimov put it, “Science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves.”

Yet now we’re being force fed a narrative that science is absolute and 100% certain… and that, above all else, we must listen to the scientists.

Or, more precisely, we must listen to the scientists they want us to listen to.

Continue reading→

My Feelings About the Vaccine Debate, by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

Doctors rarely question the orthodoxy about vaccinations, and when they do, the consequences are generally unpleasant for them. From Dr. Malcolm Kendrick at lewrockwell.com:

As readers of this blog will know, my primary area of interest is cardiovascular disease, which a big and complex subject, where anyone questioning the ‘conventional’ ideas gets ruthlessly attacked. However, in comparison to the area of vaccination, the battles in cardiovascular disease pale into insignificance. Mere squabbles in the nursery.

I am a member of an on-line doctors’ community in the UK called Doctors Net. Not open to the public. Whenever any story about vaccination emerges, the vitriol, anger and naked rage is quite scary to observe.

Whenever the issue of MMR raises its head on Doctors Net, doctors have stated that Andrew Wakefield should be thrown in jail, and never allowed to earn any money ever again, that he is a crook and a criminal – and those are the nicer comments.

It is clear that, in the medical profession, there is an unquestioned faith in vaccination. That is, all vaccinations, for all diseases, everywhere – for everyone. Anyone who dares to hint that, ahem, there could be some negative issues associated with vaccination is subjected to withering contempt. ‘You will be responsible for killing millions of children.’ You don’t understand science.’ And suchlike.

When it comes to the science, it does amuse me that vaccination began before anyone understood any of the science – of anything to do with microbes and the immune system. It all began, so it is recorded, with the observation that milkmaids were much less likely to get smallpox.

Continue reading