The Sound Of Settled Science

41 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

1. Will Californian physicians stop using antibiotics to treat stomach ulcers?

   1. Yes, because everyone knows the cure-all for everything nowadays is a VACCINE.

      Vaccines will eventually get rid of all your ailments with a simple surprise heart attack.

2. And thus it starts. Telling the truth or just presenting a valid alternative argument is now a capital criminal offence.

   1. Follow the Silenced.

3. This brings up the question of . Why do politicians who break the law never get sent to jail?
   We see it in Canada where Turd Jr. (deemed illegal by the LOL (left of Lennon) supreme court) iilegally used force to hold people in jail, use banks to steal their money yet still remain free.

   1. yep.
      the precedent held up (pun intended) when mulruin fessed up to the 400 grand plain brown envelope containing consultant fees from herr schrieber.
      oopsie oopsie is the script at that level of power, dun fergot to report it to CRA.
      neverrrrrr miiiiiiind !!!
      curiously tax evasion is just the ticket in ‘mercuh to nab the bad guys.
      isnt that right Mr A Capone of Chicaga ILLinois?

      1. w & l
         When the court found Duff, not guilty, bc what he did was common procedure for politicos. IE doing the same as many do.
         That was a tell, and NO cucks commented on that, another TELL!

4. If this was AGW, there’d be only red stars. With a bunch of red stars poorly edited out and replaced with green stars in pen.

   The powers that be determine the lie they want the people to believe in order to advance their agenda of weakening and impoverishing the populace. Their agents in the media, gov’t, and “globalist” agencies are then responsible for creating the “facts”.

   Those conditioned to swallow official BS swallow these lies whole, aka “the left”. Those who can see through the lies reject the official narrative, but then mostly get hooked by the disinfo put out by other agents on the fake-right. i.e. the Coronahoax is real but it escaped from a lab.

   There are far too many scams being pushed out on a massive scale – the climate change BS and the Coronahoax being the two that immediately come to mind.

   And the people are powerless to stop it – the best they can do is call it out for the lie it is.

   Not partly a lie.

   Not a possibly valid threat that we’re just dealing with poorly.

   A full-blown lie.

   1. I spent years following the “climate change” issue, and came to the conclusion that the advocates didn’t just cherry pick the data, they TORTURED the data until it said what they wanted it to say.

      1. To believe that climate change is a real crisis backed by science, you have to also believe the government has invented time travel and kept that secret from us.

         Most of the change they cite is due not to greatly increasing current temperatures, but instead “adjustments” made to the historical records from up to 100 years ago, and the only way they can do that and claim it is science is if they went back in time and took new measurements.

      2. The infamous hockey stick of Mann-Made climate change involves 1 tree in Siberia…

      3. Tortured data
         As in the famous words of Micheal Mann: “Hide the decline”.

5. The “science is settled” crowd are finally getting their wish. Putting into law their proclamations thus putting a stranglehold on those who won’t submit to their version of reality.
   Smearing them just isn’t enough, some jail time and outrageous jury awards should do the trick. Is there a bigger horse’s ass than Gavin Newsom?
   Further – Quite telling when the internet blows up because a cool headed teacher calmly walks a kid through a critical thinking exercise concerning J.K.Rowling’s supposedly bigoted remarks. Which begs the question: Why aren’t there more of them?

6. I completely agree that “scientific consensus” can be weaponized to suppress certain views or undermine people’s reputation. Consensus — in and of itself — is never a guarantee of truth.

   Having said that, we have seen a rise of internet snake-oil salesmen who are adept at distorting the facts to advance theories that are at best highly dubious, and in many cases palpable garbage. And the public is not generally trained to recognize the distortions and logical fallacies that these BS artists present. Many fall in love with the idea of “rogue” scientists assailing the palisades of established science, as has been presented many times in the movies. That a theory is in opposition to established scientific beliefs becomes, in their eyes, proof of its correctness.

   We have to find just the right balance where the preponderance of scientific belief is the default position, but also recognize which areas have significant uncertainty, and consider and accommodate competent dissent. But the key word here is “competent”. Just because a theory is in opposition to established consensus doesn’t automatically make it credible — the odds are long it won’t hold up to scrutiny.

   1. “the odds are long” (shakes head in disgust) -> “the odds are good”

   2. “We have to find just the right balance where the preponderance of scientific belief is the default position, but also recognize which areas have significant uncertainty, and consider and accommodate competent dissent”

      100% in agreement….and any ‘peer review’ must then consider whether or not any paper based on a scientific study has confirmed that the Scientific Method was actually used in that study. If not, it is USELESS and should not be published.

      I miss the days when scientists couldn’t (or wouldn’t) be intimidated or bribed into supporting a particular position just to keep their jobs.

      1. any ‘peer review’ must then consider whether or not any paper based on a scientific study has confirmed that the Scientific Method was actually used in that study. If not, it is USELESS and should not be published.

         Sure, but almost all peer review — at least in the more scientific fields — already tries to do that. It’s very common for peer reviewers to point out flaws or weaknesses in a paper’s arguments, and ask that they be addressed. And many papers ARE rejected because they are not suitably scientific.

         But I use “tries” above because peer review cannot guarantee that any paper is perfect.

         1. “Sure, but almost all peer review — at least in the more scientific fields — already tries to do that.”

            I hope you are right about that, and that stuff like ClimateGate
            is actually a rarity.

            ” It’s very common for peer reviewers to point out flaws or weaknesses in a paper’s arguments, and ask that they be addressed. ”

            Yes, in an honest peer review that is exactly what should happen.

            “And many papers ARE rejected because they are not suitably scientific.”

            My concern is for the ones that might be rejected not because they are not suitably scientific, but because publishers are afraid of boycotts or censure if they dare to publish scientific ‘heresy’.

            (see ClimateGate reference above)

            1. In my field, I’ve never seen a paper rejected because it was at odds with conventional wisdom. I have seen the opposite — papers accepted even though the editors had reservations about them. They just thought the case should be made.

               But my field is not a political minefield.

   3. Science is never advanced by the mainstream. It is always the work of those outside the mainstream. The best the “consensus” scientists can do is preserve the consensus.

      It has been said science advances one death at a time. It was literally the case for Chandrasekhar’s battle with Eddington; the former had to wait 25 years for the latter to die before his idea of a “neutron star” could be taken seriously. Today it is mainstream.

      Same goes for plate tectonics, and relativity, and in time Thomas Gold will probably be proven correct, too.

      But for every one of these non-mainstream-yet-correct ideas there’s a million that are just plain wrong. Rooting those out of the mainstream is a challenge.

      1. Science is never advanced by the mainstream.

         Palpable garbage. Overturning a broadly held opinion is the dream of every researcher. They all want their names attached to novel (but correct) new ideas.

         Look at Max Plank. He was well within the mainstream — a full professor by the age of 30 — and one of the most respected physicists in the world. And yet even after he became thoroughly established, he overturned a ton of apple carts with startling ideas about quantum physics, and was one of the first to write papers based on special relativity. He helped remake physics into what it is today.

         But he didn’t do it by dissing science or trashing the consensus. He did it using theory and evidence.

         1. “But he didn’t do it by dissing science or trashing the consensus. He did it using theory and evidence.”

            Did he have anyone threatening his future career prospects if he succeeded? Theory and evidence that “overturned a ton of apple carts ” are great IF you can persuade someone to publish your work.

            1. These days there are so many journals that you can always find somewhere to publish your work. The downside is that the journal might be of very low influence.

               But Plank wouldn’t have had that problem. He was a lead editor of the journal Annalen der Physik. At any rate, any journal would have jumped at the chance to publish his papers.

      2. Or James Clerk Maxwell. Again, well within the mainstream and highly respected early on, a full professor by the time he was 25.

         But he was 42 years old before he published Maxwell’s equations, one of the greatest scientific advancements ever.

   4. “But the key word here is “competent”. ”

      I disagree. Competence was never the issue with Covid. All the protocols and methods were created and laid on for SARS the first time around. Physicians and public health officials already had plans in place, ready to go. Which were ALL ignored in favor of whatever politically motivated nonsense was decided upon every week.

      The key word is Honesty. You cannot conduct a scientific inquiry when everyone is lying. False data, false record keeping, false patient charting, false news reporting.

      Example, the dentist mask. They do not reduce the transmission of an aerosol virus. This is well known, it was established many years ago, and it is the reason N-95 and N-99 technology was developed. And all you have to do is read the label on the box of masks to find out.

      What does the government do? Mandate the dentist mask. Why? Politics obviously, because science has nothing to do with it. But they say that it is “Scientific.”

      There are -still- people walking around wearing those things. They were propagandized into believing they’d die without them. That is not science at work, sir.

      1. You’re talking about politicians and administrators, who sometimes use science and sometimes abuse it.

         I’m talking about scientists.

         1. “You’re talking about politicians and administrators, who sometimes use science and sometimes abuse it.

            I’m talking about scientists.”

            That’s why I dislike hearing the term “scientific consensus” constantly applied to climate change: science is NOT about consensus. Politics is about consensus. I don’t care how many people who call themselves ‘scientists’ agree on something…I care WHY they agree. If it is because they can prove their theory using the Scientific Method, fine. If it is because they are being *paid* to promote a specific agenda, that is NOT fine with me.

            I miss the days when I didn’t need to worry about stuff like that.

         2. “I’m talking about scientists.”

            So am I. They are dishonest, the ones we are talking about. Where did all those garbage studies on Ivermectin and HCQ come from so suddenly? “Scientists.”

            1. Ivermectin is interesting because there are a few studies that show it to be effective, but most show it is not. It’s one of the few areas of COVID research where there’s some real controversy.

               Which ones do you consider to be “garbage studies”?

   5. I see you’re still trying to pretend the Replication Crisis doesn’t exist.

7. It’s political ‘consensus’. Gov people (usually not the sharpest, only the loudest) decide what is ‘science’, based on what they want as result. And this goes for many major topics: Climate change = man made, mandatory Covid vaccines = only way, Islam = religion of peace, if everyone goes DEI, we will be all happier and more productive, Socialism is good.

   1. If that were true, then we should see some governments deciding one way, and others deciding the other. Instead we see them all moving in lock step, despite some being kingdoms, others democracies, others communist states, and others dictatorships.

      I submit that all of these leaders are puppets – all following orders. Each may have some leeway as to how they want to spin “their” decision, but they will all land on the same conclusion with just enough difference in the timing so as not to make things obvious.

      The easiest way to control people is to give them the illusion of choice – like with elections. If people woke up to the fact that they have no real choice, they might still not revolt but most would not so readily submit. And those behind the curtain would then have to spend significant resources to enforce their decisions with far less voluntary compliance.

      1. @Watto: Problem is that ALL govs nowadays lean towards the BS ‘consensus’ ideas I’ve listed. For ex, UK’s Conservatives. And if anyone by some accident wins somewhere, that person is attacked and vilified by the rest, globally. And no pb, if elections go to dangerous waters, they have methods to tip the scales to desired result.

         1. It’s no different than Canada’s fake conservative parties. When they win, they are attacked and essentially do what a leftist party would have done. Even though they may have majorities (such as in Alberta) where the attacks could easily be ignored.

            But in democracies, a supposedly “conservative” party has to be seen to win now and then.

            “Conservatives” like Joe Clark. Brian Mulroney. Kim Campbell. Jason Kenney. Allison REDford. Special Ed Stelmach.

            And on and on and on…

8. Ten scientists study whether moonbeams cause male pattern baldness. Nine studies say they do not, one says that they do. Guess which study is promoted by the media?

   1. For my entire life I’ve been walking around at night without a hat, and NOW you tell me this?

9. “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

   When translated from legalese, with the understanding that “standard of care” is set by the governing body of the state medical board, and NOT by physicians, this means “Shut up and do as you are told.”

   The pretense here is that the state medical board is A) never wrong and B) makes all decisions based on the best available information and knowledge, to provide the best possible care for the PATIENT, not to put too fine a point on it.

   And down through the years they have more-or-less done exactly that. If the Board said standard of care was X, it was because that gave the best outcomes for the most people, and it was understood that individual cases might vary, so if a physician strayed from “standard” for a particular case, it was no big deal.

   But now, unfortunately, all that collegial understanding and “best practices” stuff is gone forever. ALL the medical boards in the USA and Canada rolled over for the Covid. They ALL pursued tyrannical stupidity with a zest that shocked us all.

   But now we all know that contrary to the pretense, what they really are is an organ of the State, with no independence at all, and they are willing to say or do anything the State tells them.

10. KM as usual, is obfuscating.

    Physicists who “upset apple carts” with new theories are not challenging the billions in income of anyone, nor are they challenging the pretexts used to gain and hold political power of anyone.

    Doctors and scientists who question the vax or “climate change” are a threat to both profits and power of some very large vested interests, and those with these vested interests will spend money both on propaganda to discredit these people and use state force against them, as we continue to see happen right before our very eyes.

    1. Physicists who “upset apple carts” with new theories are not challenging the billions in income of anyone, nor are they challenging the pretexts used to gain and hold political power of anyone.

       I was responding to the allegation that “Science is never advanced by the mainstream”, a contention that doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Although there are examples of outsiders making critical advancements — Einstein and Mendel come to mind — the list of major advancements by those who were thoroughly embedded in the mainstream of science is much, much longer. The idea of the renegade scientist, working alone and rejected by his peers, is mostly fiction.

       1. Dr. Barry Marshall has entered the chat.

    2. In regards to money and politics keeping an iron grip on research, I’m skeptical.

       Research is done around the globe and funded by countless sources. The logistics of controlling that are monumental. Most politicians struggle to get a bridge built, never mind attempting something of that complexity. Further, many scientists are stubborn as hell, and do not easily succumb to pressure to produce a prescribed result.

       Just because you don’t like certain research results doesn’t make them false.