you want a 2 minute introduction the difference between science and academia?
watch this video.
difficult to improve upon.
Peer review is a neat little institutional weapon. Has that Israel study on natural immunity moved past preprint yet?
Bertrand Russell had some choice words about education:
“We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought.”
“Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.”
Allan Savory has done important work around restoring deserts. He says grazing cloven hooves animals improves the health of the ecosystem and sequesters carbon. The Great American desert evolved with cloven hooves animals. Cattle are not the enemy to global warming they say they are.
This is priceless, thank you! My best friend is an academic MD, and cannot (or will not) look outside her lane.
the great breakthroughs in science come from the fringe!
Yeah, that fringe minority with unacceptable views. Go Canada
Allan Savory!! hero of regenerative agriculture, and we'll need his voice in the coming tsunami of climate propaganda.
Do they even teach the scientific method anymore?
The whole point of the scientific process is to prove the consensus wrong, which it usually is in some material way, and our time is no different. The best scientists prove their peers to be comically wrong. That’s the game and the fun of it.
This was an amazing video and explains perfectly how we got where we are with the medical industrial complex in a complete mass formation.
“Peer-reviewed” as used by the mindless drones to which the fellow on the video refers is nothing more than another way of saying “consensus”. Which is all just another way of saying “majority rules”. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with actual scientific inquiry or method. Whenever you start to find yourself persuaded by a “scientific consensus”, review this important speech. Consider it a “vaccine” against the “consensus” virus. https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
After 13 years of university education I have spent nearly 5 decades using that core foundation yet struggling to avoid availability, anchoring, and confirmation bias in my professional and personal life aided, especially, in the past two years, by reading the likes of el gato malo (although I still struggle with the absence of capitalization and punctuation).
If it is not in the religious canon, reviewed by approved priests it is a lie, the work of the devil, and certainly not SCIENCE!
Another buzz-word I've heard is "reputable," as in "reputable scientists" or "reputable scholars." I still remember getting into the standard circular argument with a colleague some years ago about global warming:
He: All reputable scientists agree that man-made global warming is a fact and is dangerous.
I: But many other scientists disagree [here I specified some disagreements].
He: But they aren't reputable scientists.
I: Well, they're all degreed and have worked in the field for some time. So what constitutes a reputable scientist?
He: Those who acknowledge that man-made global warming is a fact and is dangerous.
And round and round it went. Each time I tried to point out that his statements were a circular argument, he just smiled and shook his head condescendingly. You can't get through to these people.
Here’s a 1-minute introduction to science, possibly the finest, most clear, and most concise ever recorded, from my man Rich, a man utterly immune to bullshit. The Covidiots are very lucky that my man Rich passed away a while back. He would have had a lot to say.
Ecological, observational, case control, clinical trials. True science, as the gentleman on the video says, starts from an observation in the field. Not necessarily from a peer reviewed publication. The field can be a forest, tundra, a hospital or a lab. That is where the observation or hypothesis building process starts. There is a core group that feels they are the only valid scientists, that they own valid mainstream science and that any fringe hypothesis is conspiracy or stupidity. While the fringe is pushed out to the periphery or the shadows of science the core reinforces its hold on what is defined as credible science. This is artificial. It includes controlling the narrative thru peer review and the selective funding of research. But the most egregious part of the core is not the distain for the fringe it is the frenetic whoring of their own “valid” data, statistical magic that takes a piece of crap research and turns it into a truth or a theory that they can further build upon. It is why I left medical research. The manipulation of data, the drive to publish, to get those coveted NIH RO1 grants, or the prestige in some cases results in the fraud perpetrated by some of the core mainstream scientists. The word fringe has become the new insult in science. But remember whether you believe or not Climate Change was thought to be fringe, as was the germ theory and Newton versus Einstein’s theories of gravity. There was a time where fringe theories moved from fringe to the core and in reverse. That was open discourse. Now any theory that is not espoused by the mainstream science defined by the core club is banished to the fringe zone. This is not science, or open research, this is the core feeding the core. When science is not open to the possibility that a new exciting therapy or inoculation is not the miracle initially thought and that the data used to sell it to them was flawed that is a sock in the eye of the cores integrity. That none of the core mainstream scientists were willing to look at the Miracle’s flawed data or that they manipulated and temporarily killed the discussion about where the virus came from is evidence that the core is self perpetuating. That core is becoming less science and more a tool of the political machine.
I recently watched "The Electrical Life of Louis Wain" (fabulous flick!) and the standout quote for me was "When it comes to drawing, there’s really only one rule you ever need to teach; it’s to look." The same can be said for science. If you don't get your nose out of the journals and "look" at what's waiting to be discovered, you'll definitely miss the brass ring.
That's a pretty negative view. Lots of Nobel Prizes have been awarded for brilliant academic work. Cryo-EM, which won the 2017 Prize for Chemistry is amazing. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.22738
LIGO gravity-wave detection was the most significant physics advance in decades.
Yes, very true words that resonate strongly with the opinions and videos of Germany's Dr. Alexander Unzicker. I particularly like this interview he did with another scientific "maverick", Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH9h6eXyMcQ
There are truths in that viewpoint about peer reviewed science, but at least in the 'hard' physical sciences perhaps not always against new ideas or concepts. For most PHD degrees you must create original research with original being a keyword. One of my classmates had been working in an area and someone beat him to publication thus scrapping a lot of effort. He picked up pieces of his work and built in in a different direction so it only (only!) cost him another year. Others trying never quite get there after being lab monkeys for a long period. OTOH, a lot of real science isn't in the Universities but it can still take that piece of paper to be able to create new widgets.
But then again I know little about life sciences and what they must accomplish.
Meh. One old codger's generalization about everyone emerging from a college or university doesn't do much for me.