Sunday, January 4, 2015

There is No Settled "Science"

The late James P. Hogan, whom I knew, wrote that science automatically turns into technology. That's certainly one way to prove that science is reproducible and if it's true or not.

Many books have been written on what exactly "science" is (the most ignorant are the "I Fucking Love Science" retards), so it's not as if it's a settled issue.

Of course, the "pure" science comes first before it can be turned into technology.

And the problem with technology is that no one can tell where it's going to lead.

People have all kinds of opinions as to where technology is going to take us. Almost all of them have been wrong. Who predicted where Gutenberg's printing press would take society? Or computers?

"Expects" have howled for years we are running out of oil. Yet every year more and more is discovered - and now the price of oil is collapsing. Yet some uneducated doomsayers will find something to whine about.

They'll always find something to whine about.

First global freezing. Then global warming. Then one, then the other. These alternating predictions have been going on for over 100 years. Oh, just go to hell.

There are very few people I listen to. One for one thing, they have a consistent philosophy - a model of how the world works - and because of that they can often predict the future in a general way. And they understand ambiguity and are willing to change their minds and refine their beliefs.

Many people aren't willing to do that. They're too busy congratulating themselves on how smart they are and how the science is "settled."

The science is never settled.


Anonymous said...

Yes our models are limited and provisional. Unfortunately the tards will argue that this must allow at least the possibility -absent evidence -of whatever BS metaphysic theyre trying to peddle or want to believe.

Mindstorm said...

And it's a good thing. - a rather interesting read. It illustrates what is necessary for sustaining life in the most hostile, yet marginally habitable environments. Hmmm, what properties are invariants wrt life?

Glen Filthie said...

Junk science is nothing new. Whereas real science makes smart people feel stupid - junk science is about making stupid people feel smart. Hitler did it with his eugenics and Aryan superiority just as Fat Al Gore did it with warble gloaming. When you combine stupidity with ego as the Warble Gloamers and leftists have done...any real science or objectivity is impossible.

I am not disappointed at all because this is how the human race rolls. Most of us live in poverty despite being surrounded by a wealth of resources. For me it is good enough not to be among the 99% of human beings that are uneducable fucktards.

kurt9 said...

I consider the development of commercial technology to be the "proof in the eating of the pudding" of science. I have little interest in science independent of technological innovation. I believe in self-empowerment as the supreme value of the universe. All other values are secondary to such.

Black Poison Soul said...

Spotting bad science:

So we aren't exactly taught that well about what is real and what is junk.

Like this WSJ article where somebody stated that Science increasingly makes the case for God (requires signing in). It was refuted in a letter to the editor of the WSJ - who didn't publish it.

Mindstorm said...

"For sufficiently ignorant, any technology is indistinguishable from magic." - my play on a similar aphorism by somebody else.

Mindstorm said...

Hmmm, what properties are invariants wrt life?

After some deliberation and article search, I found a likely answer:

Mindstorm said... - a more 'digestible' version.

Mindstorm said...

Why "there is no settled science"?