Steven Snider, Parapolitical QAnon |529|

I don't think science says that. At best (worst?) it says we haven't found an otherside or beyond...yet. And stuff previously attributed to god(s) have turned out to have other causes...so far.

Scientism says that because we haven't found an otherside...yet...or because we have found non-god-like causes...so far...that there is no otherside or god(s) (using the word "god" as a placeholder). Don't blame science for that. :)
It, scientism, can only make these claims if it ignores certain logics.a certain of fact. Turn the blind eye.
Which are well known to those who have looked.
 
It, scientism, can only make these claims if it ignores certain logics.a certain of fact. Turn the blind eye.
Which are well known to those who have looked.

Science is operating like a religion for sure, but what isn't? I get EllisR's point, but it falls flat on its face like a teenager trying to do tricks with a skate board in front of the local pharmacy. Science not finding evidence of the "other side yet" just means that too many people, who aren't really scientists, have been regurgitating what all the "other side discoverers" already found out. These idiot, modern scientists are fantastic at repeating each and every thing that they have been told to parrot, but are shit when it comes to critical thought and/or experimentation. This EllisR reminds me of that father/daughter PHD duo that Alex interviewed awhile back. What I see in these people, more than anything, is the lust for a Prius and huge TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Science is operating like a religion for sure, but what isn't? I get EllisR's point, but it falls flat on its face like a teenager trying to do tricks with a skate board in front of the local pharmacy. Science not finding evidence of the "other side yet" just means that too many people, who aren't really scientists, have been regurgitating what all the "other side discoverers" already found out. These idiot, modern scientists are fantastic at repeating each and every thing that they have been told to parrot, but are shit when it comes to critical thought and/or experimentation. This EllisR reminds me of that father/daughter PHD duo that Alex interviewed awhile back. What I see in these people, more than anything, is the lust for a Prius and huge TV.
I just think it's reasonable to separate what it is that has been found using the practice of science, from Scientism. Someone can say something dumb, and it doesn't change what the science shows. It just suggests that maybe you should look to someone else to describe it for you. Some people/scientists are better at that than others.
 
I just think it's reasonable to separate what it is that has been found using the practice of science, from Scientism. Someone can say something dumb, and it doesn't change what the science shows. It just suggests that maybe you should look to someone else to describe it for you. Some people/scientists are better at that than others.

This is very reasonable. But only if we draw a firm distinction between science and philosophy. A distinction ignored by many talking heads. Non-overlapping magisteria is a good way of avoiding bad science and mysticism both.
 
This is very reasonable. But only if we draw a firm distinction between science and philosophy. A distinction ignored by many talking heads. Non-overlapping magisteria is a good way of avoiding bad science and mysticism both.
Took me a second to understand, so if I have this correct you are referring to scientists who make metaphysical claims? If so, I fully agree. Its the worst form of intellectual dishonesty by the scientific community. Talking out of their backsides in clearly NON scientific ways about things beyond their areas of expertise while wearing the robes of science. It shouldn't be tolerated by that community yet it seems to be celebrated in many ways.
 
Took me a second to understand, so if I have this correct you are referring to scientists who make metaphysical claims? If so, I fully agree. Its the worst form of intellectual dishonesty by the scientific community. Talking out of their backsides in clearly NON scientific ways about things beyond their areas of expertise while wearing the robes of science. It shouldn't be tolerated by that community yet it seems to be celebrated in many ways.
Yes! Especially among "Skeptics".
 
Took me a second to understand, so if I have this correct you are referring to scientists who make metaphysical claims? If so, I fully agree. Its the worst form of intellectual dishonesty by the scientific community. Talking out of their backsides in clearly NON scientific ways about things beyond their areas of expertise while wearing the robes of science. It shouldn't be tolerated by that community yet it seems to be celebrated in many ways.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying (if perhaps in a somewhat obscure fashion). But I think it works both ways. Mangling quantum physics to support a watered down version of mysticism is also disingenuous and at least as reductionist as anything Dawkins might stick in his pipe.
 
Last edited:
I just think it's reasonable to separate what it is that has been found using the practice of science, from Scientism. Someone can say something dumb, and it doesn't change what the science shows. It just suggests that maybe you should look to someone else to describe it for you. Some people/scientists are better at that than others.

If we listen to this: "Someone can say something dumb, and it doesn't change what the science shows." - Then we might as well all listen to fucking doctor Fauci. The first thing that confuses me is that people believe science is some kind of "practice." If we conflate "science" with "practice," we are assuming that it can be habituated. If we have learned anything from the past two years, tyranny is the result of habituation and bitches. Nobody can "practice" science. You are either finding out original shit or not. Also, this idea of a "scientific method" is fucking garbage. It doesn't matter what you hypothesize, you are either actively doing the work to discover what you know, or you are not.
 
I just think it's reasonable to separate what it is that has been found using the practice of science, from Scientism. Someone can say something dumb, and it doesn't change what the science shows. It just suggests that maybe you should look to someone else to describe it for you. Some people/scientists are better at that than others.
What science shows..? What does it show? In plastics and metals chemicals and the like - very much. Current , volts ,and resistance , man that's high and mighty .. But the big questions, the stuff that really matters, the stuff that keeps one off the dope and hopeful almost nothing or nothing worthwhile. Meanwhile the junkies junk, and questions dig deep in the soul of man saying ,' answer me god dammit'.
As to our friend EllisR , sincerely (because we need your voice), you may say haberdashery , OFFpoint . No I say - right on point.
 
Last edited:
Imagine... sex scandals, prostitutes and the like, all because money is to be made. Not Globalists trying to take over the world...

This is fascinating to me on many levels. I don't think that it discounts globalists forcing agenda's and mandates on people, but rather highlights this kind of truth, be it that they are trying to take over the world or just get off. Nevertheless, why would this kind of story shock anybody? I know it does, but if we build floating tanks that are larger than football fields, then stockpile them with men before cruising them all over the world to blow up random places......then what the fuck do we think is going to happen?

When we look into Fat Leonard's story, was he bringing underaged people into these Navy ships as prostitutes, or was he just supplying a good amount of consenting adults onto the would be floating fortresses? What is worse, having some horny sailor fill a professional with his sea men, or having some scum bag molester, under a pizza shop, lock kids in "dungeons"?

Also, to me, these reporters that interview people like Fat Leonard, only to demonize them, kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth(no pun intended). If they were simply looking for truth and justice, then why the sensationalism?
 
How great would it be for Chris Hedges be interviewed by Alex? His decades career would help provide some corrective medicine.
https://player.fm/series/krystal-kyle-friends/episode-54-audio-chris-hedges

And he's a minister. Then again, listening to Mr. Hedges and co. for a decade or so left me feeling completely cut off from the magic of life. It was like his droning diction atrophied my pineal gland. That and reading too many economics books. It took me a long time to recover.
 
And he's a minister. Then again, listening to Mr. Hedges and co. for a decade or so left me feeling completely cut off from the magic of life. It was like his droning diction atrophied my pineal gland. That and reading too many economics books. It took me a long time to recover.

Well, I didn't think that having credentials suddenly discounted them from being a good candidate for conversation... I guess it's a new year.
 
And he's a minister. Then again, listening to Mr. Hedges and co. for a decade or so left me feeling completely cut off from the magic of life. It was like his droning diction atrophied my pineal gland. That and reading too many economics books. It took me a long time to recover.
Just take the "e-on" out, and you're reading comic books! There are some good ones out there I could recommend...
 
Back
Top