Dr. Fauci, the Scientific Method, and the Ten Commandments
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 апр 2024
- Drawing on their experience as evolutionary biologists and science communicators, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying challenge the notion that either scientific consensus or scientific expertise are synonymous with scientific truth. The scientific method is neither democratic nor authoritarian. It’s an emergent process that, when functioning efficiently and effectively, takes ideas from the fringe and filters them through trials and critical assessment until they self-evidently fail or survive their journey to the mainstream. That, however, does not mean that whatever is mainstream is true. When figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci declare themselves to be literal embodiments of “the science,” you can be sure that the scientific method has nothing to do with it.
Check out the full episode this clip was featured in here: • Bret Weinstein & Heath...
Subscribe and ring the notification bell so you don’t miss a single video!
Follow Dad Saves America on Substack: dadsavesamerica.substack.com/
Subscribe to the podcast: dadsavesamerica.substack.com/...
Make a tax-deductible donation to Dad Saves America: secure.anedot.com/emergent-or...
Watch the Darkhorse Podcast: / @darkhorsepod
Purchase a copy of “A Hunter-Gather’s Guide to the 21st Century”: www.amazon.com/Hunter-Gathere...
Read Heather’s newsletter on Substack: naturalselections.substack.com
_____________________________________
Our Website: www.dadsavesamerica.com
_____________________________________
Dad Saves America is a channel dedicated to celebrating heroic fatherhood while teaching the next generation of fathers strategies they can utilize in parenting their children. We believe strong children come from a strong family. We’ve had many experts in the studio, including Jonathan Haidt, Dr. Drew Pinsky, Troy Kotsur, John Mackey, Ben Askren, and Adam Carolla.
#science #scientificmethod
![BETA SQUAD vs AMP FOOTBALL MATCH [OFFICIAL STREAM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ChEmvP52p0U/mqdefault.jpg)
Nuremberg 2.0 It must be so.
I would offer to pull the lever, but God might have an issue. We'll see. If I'm there, might have more confidence that it's ok. Hopefully I have a dream and it'll tell me.
Im getting kinda tired of "experts" telling all of us that were too dumb to have an opinion
While they go around spreading delusion and committing atrocities.
People with doctorates can lie too. They are no more moral than high school dropouts even if they are smart. Brains and education are not linked to morality. Motives include money and/or prestige. Something the masses keeps forgetting.
We're
@SimiPair I didn't even notice that cuz I'm actually not to bright. Honestly I could careless what his spelling is like. I tyrst the science.
@@SimiPairmaybe "we" got left out and it was meant in a past tense not arrived at through the contraction "we're" meaning we are. Science! Hope you smiled!
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus." - (Christopher Hitchens)
Depends entirely on where the concensus ls found and what it is based on. If there is no concensus on anything we have no society. Hitchens loved snappy oneliners but he was often plain stupid
@@sil8446 Scientific consensus is about science, and always was. Science would be pointless if there were no consensus on scientific matters. That does not mean that science is always right. On the contrary. The scientific method is based on always testing and questioning, and finding flaws in established truths. That does not mean we can do away with consensus. Consensus on stupidity is about stupidity, nothing to do with science. Political consensus can be, but usually isn't based on science
Still have to follow the money.
What about all the books that the people who say it was a set up brought out? Don't you think they were trying to make money from a pandemic?
this. it doesn't matter which side appears to be right, or which seems to have followed ideal practices, you need to look at who's paying for the work, and what biases might exist because of that. Even correct research can be framed later in such a way as to motivate people to do the wrong thing as a result.
Indict Fauci.
For what?
@@pshehan1
You’re joking, right?
@@sassyrobin420 The clueless boosted.
@@pshehan1for being forthcoming and honest not using his position as a weapon. Basing all his recommendations on sound science? For being such an assett to the people he served.
Maybe you can sense my sarcasm here, just a couple of questions we could ask.
@@eliwhitley1878
Not to mention the millions he made.
Oddly, Josef Mengele comes to mind.
I found a conclusion that my sponsors wanted me to find; therefore, the science is settled
... oil industry execs everywhere
I'll never forget Fauci arrogantly declaring, "I am the science!"
I am the soyince 😂
😂😂😂
steal this I shall.
😂
Good one!😂
During the pandemic, what the world deemed, “a kooky group”, descended on Brett & Heather’s channel. We all knew something was off and the evidence was not clear. Having that space was a life saver as our friends and family members descended into Covid madness. We did the logical things to practically deal with a vicious pervasive narrative. Thank you Brett & Heather. ❤🙏🏽
Lifetime fan. Thank you for being the voice of reason in these hysterical times.
Fills a religious size hole.
c19 is the new religion. along with TDS.
The buried lead of our age. You don't get the enlightenment without the universal human dignity revolution of Christianity. You don't get to keep it if you throw the foundational baby out with the bath water.
No. Stands on a foundation impossible without 1 sole religion, Christianity. No rationality without a rational Creator who is true to His Word. Don't make the error of denying that there is something underneath you because you refuse to look down. If you insist on being stubborn about viewing what is holding you up, at least don't claim you are flying.
@@JeffThePoustman nice
When somebody says "Trust the science," what they usually mean is: _"I'm not scientifically literate, and therefore have no capacity to evaluate scientific claims on my own, so all I can do is 'trust' what geeky people in white lab coats say about sciency stuff."_ And what that usually boils down to is: I sheepishly believe whatever the scientific "authorities" say, such as the FDA, CDC, Fauci, etc..
Probably, the only way to be able to fully trust the science is to do the science for yourself. Doable for simple experiments though unavailable for most people when a particle accellerator like in Cern is required for the experiment. Hence when it comes to scientific claims requiring such things most people don't have access to, the acceptance of those findings highly relies on faith/trust in the ones who do have access to this kind of equipment. Problem these days is that we have several people in key positions (those who have access and those who determine who gets access) who clearly have a different agenda than actual science.
It also indicates that they are authoritarians and are order you to fall in line with their perceived heirachy, i.e below themselves.
it means they are clueless and willingly go along with the mainstream who tell them to do the same thing - trust the science. don't go doing your own research, forget about reading. you don't need to do that.
@@wordup897 Not necessarily, it could be people adhering to the prosperity gospel. Reasoning both oppositing claimers have about equal acedemic credentials but one is able to monetize it way better than the other, so the one who gets payed most for it must be right.
It's the same with economics. The charlatans garner all the prestige while the more competent and honest ones are accused of being in the service of greedy corporations and fascists.
The fact that there has been no criminal investigation or anyone held accountable in misleading Science, tells you exactly the intention of their action and narrative goal.
Science is not consensus and consensus is not science.
science is a process, not a result
Scientific consensus decides what is published in text books and taught in schools and universities. It decides what further lines of research will be followed and what technologies are developed. It determines what medical treatment you will receive when you consult a doctor or are admitted to hospital.
The consensus is always subject to revision, but it constitutes the best knowledge we a have at the present time.
@@pshehan1yes, but people use popular consensus, even within a scientific community AS a scientific argument. Keep up, please.
well thats partially true
@@pshehan1
In theory, and in a perfect world, that’s the way it should work. It actually might have been that way at some time in the long past.
But it doesn’t work that way now and hasn’t for quite some time.
When pharmaceutical companies fund the bulk of the FDA, NIH and CDC, it’s difficult to believe that there is no conflict of interest.
The phenomenon of government agency workers leaving to work in the industry they once regulated is so common, it has its own nickname: The “revolving door.”
And doing “Science” isn’t cheap. Pharma isn’t going to pay for studies that make their products look bad. There’s no profit in it. Which makes “following the science” kind of hard. And if an independent study is done that’s not favorable to a product, it’s sometimes difficult to get published in Journals partly funded by pharmaceutical companies.
Seminary trained "Theologian" here. Malthus was a theologian first. And yes, many use "science" as a "religion for people too smart for religion". Some are honest enough to admit that, for instance, "Global warming is my religion".
Knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and the mysteries.... Takes a different kind of mind to deal with it, it takes abstraction ability, and other things that I can't even put into words. As if some dry, narrow minded individual could grasp that? I wouldn't call it religion though. These so-called experts are just narcissists from what I can tell, with a bit of psychopathy thrown in for good measure.
Malthus advocated for population control
How do you question authority when your labeled fringe for just asking questions and then having red flags in your head because the answers don't match the actions ?
This is how it has been for thousands of years with religion.
@@marcozegikniet9301Religion is bogus, while God, is not.
@@eltonron1558
Where is the proof and evidence for the existance of god?
Without proof and evidence the concept of god is complete irrelevant !
Yeah, YOUR concept of God is really irrelevant. Get rid of your straw man before declaring yourself smart.
@@marcozegikniet9301depends. Psychologically God seems to be integral to humans. We didn't get to science without first a belief in something to give us the strength and confidence to approach the natural world. I'm simply pointing out what seems like part of how we got here and something we may not want to ditch wholesale because of bad actors. Have a good day!
Lol. In school, many years ago, they told me science is a hypothesis and therefore to be debated. Something has changed lol
The only thing that has changed is the vulnerability of those who believe science is ever settled as told by profiteers disguised as authorities.
Bloodletting, phrenology, geocentricism, mesmerism...all were once held as scientific truths.
The heliocentric model is now held as a "scientific truth"... and we still can't empirically verify the earth's motion... let alone all the other unverifiable fallacies that "scientists" claim to be fact regarding that model.
"science" is a process... nothing more
Earth is a sphere was once a scientific truth, and that was 3rd C BC. Still a sphere, or close enough to one. Science changes, but something things are close to fact than others. We will learn more about gravity in the future, but we will still use -9.8 m/s^2 and not pretend it is 99 or -200. The problem is that people are taking what Bret is saying, some of it completely nutters like his take on vaccines, and pretending that all experts are wrong but his gut feelings he presents may be correct.
Hey! Don’t knock on phrenology!
The can be useful but we're overrated.
@@kevinwhite7647it has been debunked by empirical observation? Google it bro.🎉🎉🎉
Science is a methodology not an ideology
"Man, woman, child.....up against the wall.....of SCIENCE!!!" - Firesign Theater
I have utmost respect for Heather and Brett for letting America know that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Bravery, courage, and truth will win the day.
“Science is ultimately falsifiable.” Brilliant! 👍
As an aerospace engineer and astrophysicist by education, I became Christian because of the Evolution argument. Uploaded my testimony on it.
i left religion because it lies like a rug.
@@TheShootist perhaps, that sounds more like human behavior. strangely, we have uniquely evolved to specifically grasp intangible power constructs... so somehow, religiosity happens to be genetic and uniquely human... some....how....
Evolution is the biggest unscientific lie ever told 😂
@mw8903 I think evolution is a valid scientific theory; it's simply that people neglect to understand that the scientific method is based on God's consistent and cohesive nature in which he gave us the ability to observe his creation. It's because we are always wrong that we can assume whatever our conclusions are need to be falsified and tested. It's not that evolution is a lie, it's simply humans trying to go through a refinement process to better understand how God gave us what he did with his consistent character seen throughout the Universe which we call the laws of physics. In other words, I don't see it as an either or. I see it is as a directional conversation on perception; one is given to us by God, and one is us trying to reach understanding of how God did it.
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya, it's what ya know that aint so." - Wil Rogers
Science isn't Holy Writ, it is simply a method of inquiry.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." I am not sure who actually said it but it applied in this case.
One of the greatest challenges of the human experience is how far to open the door to your mind. You want to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Heather is spot on. Our secular world has replaced the infallibility of the Pope with the infallibility of the credentialed class; one religion for another.
What a great conversation. Scientific consensus is not necessarily synonymous with scientific truth; There is no final authority; To cling to "the science" as an orthodoxy, is to make it a religion. Most will not admit such things. Kudos to Bret and Heather.
Yes, real science is a bar fight. Some one comes into the bar and says, "I think this, ...." Then someone else says, "Hold my beer", and starts fighting the guy. At the end of the bar fight, the best hypothesis wins.
Follow the money and you will find the Science authority.
When someone who has been indoctrinated into the cult of "authority" finally disentangles himself from the superstition, the first thing that happens is that he sees a drastically different reality. When he observes the effects of the "authority" superstition, which infiltrate nearly every aspect of most people's lives, he sees things as they actually are, not as he had formerly imagined them to be. Most of the time, when he sees so-called "law enforcement" in action, he recognizes it as raw, illegitimate and immoral thuggery being used to extort and control the people in order to serve the will of politicians. (The exception to this is when the police use force to stop others who are actually guilty of acts of aggression-ironically, the very acts which the police routinely commit for the ruling class.) When the recovering statist watches various political rituals, whether a presidential election, a legislative debate in Congress, or a local zoning board passing some new "ordinance," he sees it for what it is: the acting out of delusions and hallucinations by people who have been indoctrinated into a completely irrational cult. Any discussions in the media of what "public policy" should be, or which "representatives" should be elected, or what "legislation" should be enacted, appear, to one who has escaped the superstition, exactly as useful and rational as well-dressed, attractive, respectable-looking people seriously discussing how Santa Claus should handle the next Christmas.
...
All voting, campaigning, writing to one's "congressman," signing petitions, suddenly appear no more rational or useful than praying to a volcano god to grant its blessings to the tribe. One who has been deprogrammed sees not only the futility in all "political" action, but sees that such actions, no matter what their intended goals, actually reinforce the superstition. Just as everyone in a tribe praying to a volcano god would reinforce the idea that there is a volcano god, so begging politicians for favors reinforces the idea that there is a rightful ruling class, that their commands are "law," and that obedience to such "laws" is a moral imperative.
-- Rose, Larken. The Most Dangerous Superstition (pp. 190-191). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
It is the new Lysenkoism, and much more popular too. Popular worldwide this go around.
It declares itself as "the science", or should I say it identifies as "the science".
Not going along with it goes almost as well as not going along with Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union.
But how can all of those highly esteemed and highly credentialed experts who signed off on this "up and down the chain" be wrong?
Arguments From Authority are the main arguments being made here.
That was the biggest tell of all.
Expertism has failed us yet again.
The expert class has failed us yet again.
The propaganda is still working, at this late date, on the mass of men led so easily by the masters of men.
One looks at how easy it was and wonders less how some of the horrors of the twentieth century happened. One can see how easily the magic trick is done. One can see the man behind the curtain.
Haven't seen that name in a while. Glad to know some still know Soviet history.
“A thousand years ago, everybody KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they KNEW the Earth was
flat, imagine what you will know tomorrow "....sumscit up quite nicely i think.
In fairness, civilisation has existed thousands of years before us who were far more knowledgeable, skillful, and wise.
Genuine science is the search for the truth that is the basis of our physical universe, and genuine theology is the search for moral truth. The pursuit of both is a deeply religious act for those who understand that the very of existence of our universe, and the existence of our conscious minds that can perceive it, is miraculous beyond comprehension. It is all truly supernatural.
The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you. - Werner Heisenberg
'Supernatural' just means 'miraculous beyond comprehension' according to you or does it mean something else?
@@BlacksmithTWD Far more than just incomprehensible. Why do you want to know?
@@canoedoc2390
I simply asked what you meant with the word "supernatural" by providing a definition that could possibly apply to the word you used in order to know what you meant with your statement.
Boy did she nail it about religion.
Can't prove a million years ago. carbon dating is not accurate and neither is any other method. Its consensus science, and thay just said that is not science. He looks at her and she nods in consensus.
you be silly.
one. carbon dating is only good for 50000 years not 1million. for 1 million you use lead and uranium.
The problem with "Trust the science" wasn't him saying "Trust the science," but how many Americans accepted what he and the rest of the government were saying. This has been going on for well over a century (e.g. Remember the Maine). There are so many instances in which members of the government and mainstream media essentially said, "Trust us," only to find out later that no, Americans should not have trusted those involved with using our tax dollars to lie and manipulate the public. Yet, this isn't even the worst thing, because the worse thing is, time and again, countless people representing our government committed treason upon We The People, and We The People have proven time and again, we could care less in holding them to account.
thank you Dad Saving America - thank you dear and bright, bright lights 'Heather and Bret', you
(Bret and Heather) you represent so many of us in defiance of the malign deluge upon us . . .
Reminds me of a skit I used to hear as a kid in the 80’s ironically enough on NPR titled “Ask Dr Science”. The opening line was “Ask Dr Science! Remember, he knows more than you do!”
It was a segment made by Ducks Breath Mystery Theater. Here is a sample.😂
ruclips.net/video/nLLUUiThjII/видео.htmlsi=_Lpvujf12l5KMY2D
Here is a darker, but REASONABLE, set of two questions.
--- First Question: Can "Politicians" be "bought" (usually for money)? "Yes" or "No".
--- Second Question: Is it impossible, for a "Scientist" to be "bought"?
Additionally, I have a HUGE problem with "Computer Models" being called "Science".
--- "Computer Models" CAN POSSIBLY PROVIDE VALUE, in very limited scenarios.
--- "Computer Models" CANNOT POSSIBLY PROVIDE ANY VALUE, when studying "Universe".
--- There are ZERO COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS who understand ALL "Universal Forces" at work, outside Earth's magnetic field.
--- Name one programmer, who has developed ACCURATE ALGORITHMS for "Solar Flare", causing many comets to circle the Sun, and emerge relatively intact.
--- Then, AFTER the "Algorithms", what DATA do the Programmers input, to view the RESULTS? When a "New Galaxy" is discovered, do the "Programmers" re-run their "Models"?
Rock Reynolds
(AKA: Roger Reynard)
For climate, would you trust a group of skeptic scientists who use nothing but raw data, are funded by non-government agencies (let's make it Koch Industries for the sake of argument), use their own algorithms, show all work and present it to the world in an open source manner?
What if their results match every single other study that had been performed prior? Do we assume all studies from all countries are wrong, or does such a study as the one I proposed convince you of some science truths.
Science can be bought, but only in vacuum situations like Heartland, the org that promoted smoking and now the opposite of climate science. But with peer review you cannot possibly believe all climate scientists (or all virologists) and bought and head in the same direction. Simple statistically not possible for that many people to lie and get to the same conclusions because they are fighting to be noticed and prove others wrong and/or make a name for themselves.
It's true, unless all metrics are known, it takes quite the powerful mind to know answers. Computer models don't have the other host of information which an intelligent man has, and cannot operate on the same level of abstraction as us.
Those questions get right down to brass tacks! I know because I am aware that I am as corruptible as a politician or a scientist. I am prevented from selling out only because I have nothing to sell. Also because I am 81 and too old to enjoy the proceeds!
Its interesting that his claim that Lyell set science free from the belief that the earth is young was in fact the very initial idea that has brought science to its current deplorable state.
3 letter agencies do Oceans 11 remake. 😂
Science is a method. A discipline. A question to facilitate answers only to invoke more questions. Question the science!
She was made a really great point about how science could be a more sinister religion because there is no foundational text. Within Christianity, you have the tools to recognize bad behaviour like hypocrisy and abuse of power from the ways that Christ and the prophets of the Old Testament specifically call it out. You can critique it within the framework of the religion, but that might not be the case with science which is so wide ranging and complex and means different things for different people. Especially when you have powerful and quite possibly corrupt people who can wield their control over all the grant money and accreditation systems against dissident scientists.
“Now I am become science, the destroyer of worlds.”
Joe Foochi
The 10 Commandments are out of date?
Spoken likeba true progressive.
If the world followed just those rules we would be better off.
Out of date, yet we still struggle with all 10
Exactly. They may be old, but when exactly did they become "out of date"?
Well we don’t stone people for adultery, and I’m guessing you’re not advocating that we start again.
The principles behind the Ten Commandments still hold truth even if we no longer keep them in exactly the same way. Go back and listen to what she said. It’s exactly that.
@atomicsmith the only Stone in the Ten Commandments is the stone it was written on by God's finger... there's no punishments listed on them.
@@FishermensCornerbecause we are not under the law. We are under grace and truth. Where there is no law there is no sin.
What about the 10 commandments is out of date? Adultery, murder, theft? Are those ok now?
And maybe you are all wrong, and the earth IS a young place. (See 'Creation's tiny mystery')
Or maybe you are wrong and time is an illusion. No one actually knows any of the supreme truths but the ineffable.
From my Master\Rebbi: "More than the question needs an answer, the answer needs a question!" ALWAYS question!
Trust the money science THE MONEY!!!!!
Trust the "Political Science"
"This combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces." -- Carl Sagan
"Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe, with a fine understanding of human fallibility." -- Carl Sagan
"If we are unable to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of authority, then we are up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes along." -- Carl Sagan
Wow, I really like Bret's ten commandment analogy. Great observation, Bret
👍
Science is like Creation. They must continue to move forward and progress ❤
Thank God Truth transcends science!! Every thing will fall into place when one follows the “TRUTH” no matter how inconvenient!
"Provisional"...great adjective that should precede all theories.
Follow the money $$$
Brett and Heather helped me so much during the pandemic. I knew from day one it was crap and I would not get a shot no matter what. Listening to them helped me feel supported. I had a lot of people in my life including my children who thought I was crazy and weren’t very nice
Trust no one!
Brilliant, brings us back to Center,, Nice to see real thinkers, weighing in and calling out the bullshit.
Let's cut to the quick:
The *belief system* is 'The Feelings'.
Great video. Excellent content. Thank-you.
Great interview…
Poor unfortunate pagans and their tiny dull world.
"Dad saves ..." far out, nice. "The World"...as though we were seperate from world, Earth too.
In Canada in this great year 10 AJ, after Justin, we followed the science as explained to us by Justin
Interesting. How anyone could sit through entire episodes of this stuff is beyond me but to each their own. These short bits are gold though. Nicely edited and distilled to their essence the performances of these two are…catchy. Most important though is use of the split screen. When these two dig deep into their enormous self-regard and get to their bullet points, in this case Fauci and the scientific “establishment” it’s great to have the visuals of Dad rolling his eyes and smirking just in case, as unlikely as that may be, we miss the point. Some of the best!?!? videos on RUclips.
Authority can also be and often is corrupted and manipulated.
3:00 yes. Religion at least doesn't disguise itself as being science and anti religion.... Trust the science is pretending to be anti religion and it's everything but that. At least religion doesn't pretend to be what it's not in the same way.
Those who present logical thinking (as opposed to logic) as the final authority represent another variety of those who religiously follow the science.
Just received another award ucd 😢
Understanding their imtention makes this conversation a moot point
What “imtention” are you referring to?
@@atomicsmith really?.is that all ya got??
@@Synistercrayon it’s a question.
@@atomicsmith other than it being a smart ass question, what answer are you looking for??
@@Synistercrayon it’s pet simple. You’re claiming that they have an intention that invalidates the whole conversation. What is that intention?
Once they said “the Ten Commandments are out dated” they lost it all.
You don’t want God’s rules? Enjoy chaos, corruption and no reason for anything else.
People underestimate evil.
Brilliant!
La science c’est moi.
I am Charles Koch and I approve this message. Richard Fink and I firmly believe it's well past time to take a new look at smoking. We think "the science" has given Big Tobacco an undeservedly bad name.
I love how the scientist interviewee criticizes the propaganda of COVID vaccines while at the same time defending the unscientific theory of evolution. Pure gold. No wonder the world doesn't trust scientists anymore. Lol
Interesting Brett and Heather think that covid came from the Wuhan lab even though it was scientifically impossible
As a Christian who has good reason to conclude that God exists, I therefore have reason to TRUST God, BELIEVE the Bible is God’s inspired Word, and FOLLOW Jesus’ example for my life. Because if there is an infallible God, then it makes sense to have Faith in his benevolence even when I don’t fully understand his plan for me…so I implicitly Trust, Believe and Follow him in a way I would never place such Faith in any human agent or Institution.
It strikes me, therefore, as very telling that when alleged Science is being used to push a particular political or worldview agenda, the exact same professions of implicit Faith in Science are routinely invoked….TRUST the Science, BELIEVE the Science, FOLLOW the Science…that people of Faith use with respect to their God. It’s as if “The Science” is their infallible authority, and to dare challenge it is a heresy against their religion.
Been since 2020 and never isolated…IYKYK
Science is money.
Officials slipped and stated 55 percent rise in young Alberta ladies still birhs
This is amazing, don’t have anyone to debate the other side. Brett’s be proven wrong time and time again.
The science is settled - is simply a mantra of Scientism.
Trust and consensus are words that have no place in SCIENCE!
Yet since science is performed by fallible human beings they will always be part of the proces. A scientist looking at a measuring cylinder to read how much liquid is being used will rely on trusting his/her eyesight. A scientist repeating the experiment having outcome A nine out of ten times and having outcome B one in ten times may conclude that the consensus of the ten experiments ran points into direction A. So perhaps they shouldn't have a place in science but they are always part of the proses to some degree.
There can only be certainty in mathlike rigorous logic, not in empirical science and certainly not in applied science.
Trouble with mathlike rigourous logic is that it can't go much further than making claims like : " if x then y" trouble is that it doesn't make any claims about whether or not x is the case. And another problem is that most people not well trained in this (including many people having a phd) fail to see this. Make a perfectly logical statement like this and many people will object that 'x is not the case' as if that what was claimed, clearly indicating they didn't understand what the actual claim was. The actual claim was not that x is the case, but the claim was that if we ever get to determine that x is the case, then y must also be the case.
Other people may object with 'but if x isn't the case, then y can still be the case' as if such a thing was stated, but it wasn't. "If x then y" only means that if x is the case then y must be the case, it doesn't say anything about whether or not y is the case when x is not the case.
So trust and consensus may not be desirable in science, but alas the solution is not as simple as you seem to portray it is.
The problem is not with the science, the problem is with politics.
If he only focused on the 9th commandment would have been a different person!
Why do so few of the comments show up. I made one earlier that is not visible.
My comment has disappeared too! It contained no offensive language or links to other websites.
His first point about the Earth.Not being young is kind of ironic because 'the science' is actually now showing that it may actually be young. For example, the 100 plus peer-reviewed studies of unfossilized soft tissue in dinosaur remains That go completely against kind of deep time theory. And the lack off erosion on all of the geological layers indicating they were likely layed down in quick succession.
It's called the Scientific Method not the Scientific Majority. There is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority which is essentially what "trust the science" boils down to.
How oxymoronic is it to be dogmatic on scientific matters?? Should we rename him Pope Fauci??
It's the deification of science. Science is the new God of this age.
It had nothing to do with "Trust the science" It was all about "Do what I tell you and Shut Up" Of course they couldn't say it that way.
The science of groupthink.
Dog's Rules of Science:
1. The greatest opposition to any new theory comes from the proponents of the old theory.
2. Once the new theory is accepted, it's importance and universal application will always be exaggerated.
Example: when Dad was in school, the "settled science" was that matter was never created or destroyed, but only changes form. This arose from a new understanding that when a chemical reaction (such as fire) "destroys" something, the same number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. remain, only combined in a different form. Dad's physics professor mocked him for believing in creation. Returning from WWII to finish college, Dad was quite pleased to explain E=MC2 to his old professor......"settled science" is a contradiction of terms......
This is the Lord's work.
or not.
Back in the covid psyop i felt like i needed to learn the science, not trust it. So I did the best I could and found some voices with credible predictions that were 100% correct. TenPenny, McCollough and Mullis talking about the PCR test and Fauci being a liar know-nothing
Ppl that talk about evolution/chaos theory, as fact, are hopelessly lost- Unless they give up their religion,& see the holes in their theory-
“Mans truth” (science) is subjective, what’s “correct” today is error tomorrow.
Gods Truth is objective, He is Deity (God), a Person (made manifest in the flesh), He is Jesus Christ. He is the Word of God the Father.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Hebrews 13:8.
There is no error in Truth. Truth cannot be debated, because Truth never changes.