Posted on 02/01/2021 8:45:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind
“It really is not that easy to fool scientists. No one gets accepted into graduate school or has a career in research unless they are extremely intelligent.”
No, you’re wrong about that. In your general claim that scientists are not easy to fool. (First, look at how many scientists believe the global warming propaganda, and how many believe the current mask propaganda.)
Any specialized knowledge always comes with some kind of propagandistic teaching.
The way it works is context. The context is made of adherence to tradition and allegiance to experts in the particular field. These two things are highly trusted by those being educated and trained.
The first rule of propaganda is to establish a trusted source.
Second point you should think carefully about: although it’s true as you say that scientists look very carefully at their work, THEY ARE JUST AS SUSCEPTIBLE TO MORAL CORRUPTION AS ANY HUMAN BEING.
All it takes for scientists to either look the other way or to perpetrate malevolent acts is an envelope of cash, the electronic funding of an account, blackmail or other coercion.
And here’s a challenge to your assertion about the intelligence of scientists: how many of them believe in communism? Or globalism? Belief in the viability or preeminence of either of these political fallacies is an intellectual deficit.
Do you have an insider's knowledge of how many actually believe that climate change is not natural, versus how many include some mention of anthropogenic climate change in their publications and proposals as a way to increase chances of getting their work funded? I have seen many many mentions of "climate change" thrown into completely unrelated work. I admit it's been a while since I looked, but I have seen very little actual definitive evidence published in the scientific literature that humans have some sort of control over the climate.
On the other hand, many researchers have conducted mask efficacy studies. They have studied the ability of masks to block/slow small particles in a laboratory setting, and have looked at real world evidence of inhibition of Covid-19 transmission among real people wearing masks. Yes, masks do reduce transmission of Covid-19.
Any specialized knowledge always comes with some kind of propagandistic teaching.
The way it works is context. The context is made of adherence to tradition and allegiance to experts in the particular field. These two things are highly trusted by those being educated and trained.
Are you talking about advanced education in soft subjects such as humanities or social sciences, which are heavily reliant on opinion and conjecture? In the hard sciences, we are taught to judge based on evidence. We study historical ground-breaking experiments to understand how the processes of logical reasoning and rigorous collection of data (i.e. evidence) lead to scientific advancement. And we spend our careers designing experiments to reveal facts about the natural world. The fact that hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide combine in a 1:1 ratio to form water and salt is not alterable by my opinions on salt.
And in the context of coronavirus, if there were evidence that it was constructed in a lab, it would be as obvious as evidence that a picture has been photoshopped. You don't need anyone's opinion to find whether there is a multiple cloning site, or whether there are sequences from an unrelated virus contained within the SARS-CoV-2 genome, etc. Among the thousands of scientists looking at the SARS-CoV-2 genome, someone would have noticed the signs of genetic tampering if that had been done.
I never said they aren't. There are plenty of examples of scientists manipulating data, fabricating data, plagiarizing, etc., to advance their own careers.
But that is rather outside of the current discussion, which is whether the Wuhan virology laboratory could invent a human pathogen (highly unlikely with current technology) and furthermore, to disseminate it without anyone noticing that it was artificially created. No, the signs of artificial manipulation of a pathogen would be as obvious to an expert as the signs of Photoshop manipulation of a photo.
I didn’t say scientific facts themselves are in question.
My point was that scientists are very easy to fool. Just look at science textbooks. I don’t care if it’s high school or college level. Global warming is standard content. Bias favoring theory of evolution is universal. In classrooms, journals and textbooks you won’t find much in the way of careful or balanced discussion of how money from the political left influences mainstream scientists.
Scientists have tremendous power as an influence group. But they’ve mostly fallen for the lies, and the rest have completely sold themselves out. If they had any intellectual ability to use their collective credibility they would put a stop to garbage like the Paris Climate nonsense and so much more.
“Among the thousands of scientists looking at the SARS-CoV-2 genome, someone would have noticed the signs of genetic tampering if that had been done.”
You talk as though scientific research is like a buffet dinner where all honest participants are allowed to casually stroll by to inspect the entire thing up close. Scientific research doesn’t work that way. Big science has established various kinds of protections and safeguards against free and open discourse. If you’re known as a global warming denier, or one who questions evolution, you’ll never have a seat at the table. Working for research labs and accessing grants is better suited for the weak-minded.
Are textbooks written for PhD level scientists who are the authorities in their fields, or are they written for students who have not yet learned critical thought? The audience for textbooks are NOT scientists, regardless of what garbage might be in them.
The "evidence" for global warming consists of statements of the sort, "We observed X, which we think is happening because of A and B and anthropogenic global warming." In other words, the "evidence" of anthropogenic global warming is contained within throw-away phrases inserted into otherwise sound scientific papers.
As for "bias" about the theory of evolution... it appears that you are biased against science and the scientific method. The multiple layers of evidence of evolution, which span the paleontological record, the geological record, genetics, and astronomy are pretty consistent on evolutionary processes. In fact, trying to talk about biology becomes almost impossible if one tries to ignore the fundamental principles of it.
You talk as though scientific research is like a buffet dinner where all honest participants are allowed to casually stroll by to inspect the entire thing up close. Scientific research doesn’t work that way. Big science has established various kinds of protections and safeguards against free and open discourse.
The reason I talk as if the data is available to anyone is because the data is actually available to everyone. There has been a push towards more openness and accessibility of science going on for a long time. Published journal articles describing studies are available to everyone; many of these articles are free access, so no one has to pay for them. (The researchers actually pay for them to be free access.) Things like genetic sequence data are uploaded into databases, where they are accessible by anyone who knows about the databases. There are computer programs to analyze the data, which are provided online by governments and universities and are free to use. *Anyone* can access the scientific data. Really. They only need to know the website addresses. Search engines know those addresses if you type in a suitable search phrase (e.g. "Covid-19 sequence data"). Since the sequence data is readily available and there are thousands of scientists and DIY biology buffs out there who all have a strong interest in SARS-CoV-2, *someone* would have noticed by now if the sequence looked artificial. It's as obvious to someone who knows what they are looking at as an image altered by Photoshop.
“The audience for textbooks are NOT scientists, regardless of what garbage might be in them.”
The intellectually flawed textbooks are written by PhD level scientists who are considered experts in their field, and who are elevated by the bulk of mainstream scientists, overtly or through passive acquiescence, as thought leaders.
“Since the sequence data is readily available and there are thousands of scientists and DIY biology buffs out there who all have a strong interest in SARS-CoV-2, *someone* would have noticed by now if the sequence looked artificial.”
Scientists have indeed noticed the sequence looks artificial. See Francis Boyle and Judy Mikovitz, for starters. (Use your intelligence to filter out the communists’ attempts to mischaracterize honest scientists.)
Here’s a very concise rule to remember in reference to the evolution debate.
The concept is censorship.
Mainstream science—populated by “intelligent” scientists—reveals its own doubt about evolution in its censorship of the most powerful alternative, on academic grounds, to censorship.
This alternative is the explanation that God created different kinds of animals SEPARATELY but with the same basic parts proteins, and the same DNA sequences.
Remember. It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.
I made an error. Should read “the most powerful alternative, on academic grounds, to evolution.”
Let me see: as far as I can tell, Francis Boyle is a law professor specializing in human rights who has a PhD in political science. FYI, an expert in political science is not a scientist. Nothing in his background suggests that he has any experience in analyzing genetic sequences or in looking for the tell-tale signs of laboratory manipulation. The fact that he was featured by Alex Jones only decreases his credibility on this subject.
And Judy Mikovitz actually did earn a PhD in a relevant science, but began making dubious claims and engaging in scientific misconduct; she no longer works in any scientific field. These days, she goes around preaching various conspiracy theories. Given her shady past, no one in the scientific community considers her an expert on anything. Personally, I think that she has succumbed to a mental illness.
So, as I said, if there were evidence of human manipulation of a virus genome, more than a few of the thousands of qualified scientists who are scrutinizing the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would have noticed.
1) There is no alternative to the theory of evolution that can be validated in a rigorous scientific manner.
2) I am not going to waste time with this. I already know that people who are anti-science are impervious to evidence and facts, and that is something I cannot change.
I regard DNA as intelligent design.
DNA behaves according to physical law. I personally would not go so far as to see intelligent design in the physical behavior of molecules.
However, if you want to see intelligent design in the underlying physical laws that govern behavior of molecules and make the functions of DNA possible, then I have no argument.
Evolution occurs because DNA exists.
Utter nonsense. Boyle is an expert in Bioweapons who wrote major bio weapons policy for the federal government.
If Boyle can’t comment on bioeeapons, then you can’t voice an opinion on your neighborhood bake sale, and you can’t use English because you’re not a linguist.
I now think it’s possible you work for the communists, because you’re promoting their communist tactics in making personal attacks against Dr. Mikovitz.
YouTube and Gloogle have taken down all relevant information about both Boyle and Mikovitz.
You mean evolutionists who believe scientific impossibilities like speciation, and who are unable to understand that a randomly disrupted digital code causes breakdown of the entire system?
That’s a highly intelligent way to regard DNA.
Evolution is a low IQ idea. I don’t think any idea could possibly be lower IQ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.