Posted on 07/31/2017 6:31:52 AM PDT by Lazamataz
In the opening pages of the book "Foundation", written by Isaac Azimov, he describes the beginning of the fall of the Empire. The Empire was a multi-star-system civilization of trillions of people, but it was beginning to rot. One of the key characters observes that a researcher, a pompous Lord of a planet, considered it 'scientific method' to read someone else's work, saying "Why should I travel to another planet? Someone has already written about it." The protagonist thought, "Scientific method, hell. No wonder the galaxy was going to pot."
Azimov was prescient. We find ourselves in a similar time. All the technologic wonders of this era are being challenged by Social Justice Warriors (who, among other things, claim algebra is racist), and by shortcut-taking scientists that purchase or wrangle "peer review" of their scientific work (that is nothing of the sort).
This is the time of universal lying. Consider:
Where does this leave us, when the organs of news no longer adhere to time-honored standards; when science is poorly peer-reviewed; when the fact-checkers need their facts checked?
It leaves us in a time of universal deceit, and as George Orwell once famously said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." America must be based in its entirety on truth. Truth must exist in science and in news, both print and broadcast. Thomas Jefferson warned us, in an 1816 letter, that "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Pomona Students: ‘Truth . . . Is a Myth and White Supremacy’
This can go on your website. :)
‘The Center does not Hold’
is written by and for godless liberal liars because it never does, in the end.
Hold up just fine, naturally, for conservatives.
Orwell was a socialist.
Even went and fought in the Spanish civil war.
Then again, so did Hemingway.
I adore the man.
Animal farm and 1984 are classics both, but to me his biggest treasure trove is all his essays.
Very nice. My comment would be that Asimov, for all his intellect would probably side with SJW folks today. In his love for liberalism, he was quite willing to let reason and science take a back seat for the current dem talking point.
I remember him panning Reagan’s Star Wars speech saying we could not reach for such technology. Imagine that! One of mankind’s biggest promoters of man’s ability to overcome obstacles of science belittling the speech because he didn’t like the speaker..
Best Answer - Chosen by the Asker
This idiom was used in 1542, when the phrase first appeared, “to go to pot” was to be cut up like chunks of meat destined for the stew pot. Such a stew was usually the last stop for the remnants of a once substantial cut of meat or poultry, so “going to pot” made perfect sense as a metaphor for anything, from a national economy to a marriage, that had seen better days. Early uses of the metaphor were usually in the form “go to the pot.”
Never could get into his books, as I dislike his writing style. Also goofiest whiskers since Ambrose Burnside. But my husband was a big fan.
“It leaves us in a time of universal deceit, and as George Orwell once famously said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Our Universities/Colleges are controlled and operated by the Intellectual Yet Idiots, who have been controlling our lives for decades. These Intellectual Yet Idiots control our media and most of DC and many states down to the county/city level.
Nassim Taleb Exposes The World’s “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” Class!
What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.
But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligenzia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence and fall into circularities?—?, but their main skills is ability to pass exams written by people like them.
With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.
But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligenzia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence and fall into circularities?—?but their main skills is capacity to pass exams written by people like them.
With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism?—?in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types?—?those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior?—?much of what they call “rational” or “irrational” comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.)
This is an excerpt. To read or copy the full article go to the link below:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-16/nassim-taleb-exposes-worlds-intellectual-yet-idiot-class
His writing is quirky and inaccessible.
...telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Aw crap. Misspelling his name is a very bad errir on my part.
Bingo !
I JUST realized ... there is a "they" and they don't believe people can be prescient.
It's a very good word and a valid state of some people.
pre·scient
ˈpreSH(ē)ənt/
adjective
adjective: prescient
having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.
"a prescient warning"
synonyms: prophetic, predictive, visionary;
"They" consider themselves the center of the universe and there is no room in the center for any other THAN the center of the universe.
I'll be dwelling on this thought today as I have some roof work to do, which is a great place to commune with God and yourself.
MANY here in FreeRepublic are indeed prescient.
THAT'S why we love this place.
Ah there you are! How was your flight?
Pretty good, but hot. They made me put my clothes back on.
It seems to have originated in the 16th century as an idiom for “die,” because when something died, it could be thrown in the pot for cooking. Now, it simply means “to deteriorate” or to decline in value or usefulness.
Can you beleeve I spelt Eyesick Azamov rong???!?
He deserves it, in my opinion.
Do you need this in HTML, or can you scrape the screen from the source?
Thanks.
I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that our time is not all that unique ... that truth has always been under siege. We just notice it more in our own time since we are right in the middle of all the lying.
Still worth fighting for truth though.
Nah, I loved Eyesick as a child. He is one of the factors that inspired me to right gud.
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.