Interview 1424 – Andrea Saltelli on The Crisis of Science

03/06/201941 Comments

What is the crisis of science, and what does it tell us about the interface between science and policy? Is there a way to stop the debate over the crisis from becoming a political battling ground? And, if not, what does this mean for the future of science itself? Join Professor Andrea Saltelli and James Corbett for this in-depth exploration of the philosophy of science today on The Corbett Report.

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / YouTube or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES
Andrea Saltelli’s website

Science On The Verge

What is science’s crisis really about?

Why science’s crisis should not become a political battling ground

Jerome Ravetz on The Corbett Report

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (41)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. zyxzevn says:

    Which crisis? There are so many

    1) The problem of non-exact sciences like psychology that can not replicate most of the tests.

    2) The manipulation of science behind the scenes. The deep corruption of science by money and power.. and prejudice.
    In this case the corruption can create a replication of the tests. But if you test it independently it will fail.
    Here we see Monsanto and other pollution.

    3) New things that can not fit in the established official models. Discovery of old and advanced civilizations. Harm by non-ionizing micro-waves. Large redshift of nearby cosmic objects.
    People who discover these things are being spit on by established scientists.

    4) Phenomena that do not fit in any established scientific model. Like telepathy, auras, etc. A lot of people can experience this, but it does not fit in the materialistic realm. Also most scientists can not experience this, because thinking blocks this type of experience. Gaslighting is used here a lot.

    5) Really weird stuff, where there is still some kind of physical evidence. UFOs, abductions, cow-mutulations can be found here. Today you are not even taken seriously, if you only want to study it.

    The real crisis

    My conclusion is that science is not able to describe reality fully. It can model small parts of it under controlled conditions, which is fine and practical.

    But the real problem is that science can not correct itself!

    That is in every crisis that I mentioned.
    In each sub-crisis you see a self-defense mechanism that stops and even reverses progress in this area.

    A simple example is the sun, which is visible by everyone and has a huge effect on our lives.
    Astronomers claim to understand the sun, but it has at least 9 huge errors which shows that their model is totally wrong.
    And this is plain physics.

    Sidenote: Error 1: The belief that the outside of the sun is hotter than the layers underneath. Error 2: The belief that the sun has no surface. Error 3: The belief that magnetic field lines can bump into each other. 4: The belief that there are no electric fields on the sun. …
    See http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmology/wiki/ @sun
    And this is something that even children can understand.

    Each time I try to explain the problem in a friendly way, I get gaslighted or pushed away. Others get banned from the discussions.
    I looked in almost every answer, but they simply have no explanation for their bullshit science.

    The problems with the sun were introduced 100 years ago. Once it was in their models, it never got out. Even when our observations improved.

    This means that science can NOT correct itself. Even after 100 of years.
    And even when we have basic physics with clear observations.
    It is not even capable of accepting alternative valid models or valid interpretations.

    The same happens with the free-fall destruction on 9/11. It never changes. It never corrects itself.

    And I think that this is the real problem of science.

    • justine.k says:

      This is a such an important topic. I really enjoyed the conversation which was broad and high-level, and very revealing when invoking anthropological observations of scientists. I’m not surprised of the strong pushback.

      I’m mostly in agreement with Saltelli: one point that remained unclear, and I believe that James tried to correct/clarify was the use of the terms “conspiracies” and “fake news”. This is akin to dog whistling for the masses suggesting that loss of trust in science leads young people astray. Thanks James for trying to point out that indeed Saltelli himself describes the exact scenario where lobbyists and money corrupt science and hence the “conspiracies” are indeed correct and justified!

    • justine.k says:

      Agree with Zyxzevn- all good points.
      I too recently have been learning about the ‘standard model of the sun’ and how it doesn’t stand-up to logic and, yes, science.

      On this topic I recommend the Sky scholar YT channel with Dr. Robitaille. Interesting thing about him, a scientist who is not a physicist so hence not vested in the current model. I believe it is these folks who will contribute to rectifying different scientific fields. You need outsiders or insiders who are willing to do things differently- even operating outside the system or risk losing job and reputation.

    • zyxzevn says:

      Links for:

      3) Controversies related to historical errors

      Corbett-report – WW1, WW2, 9/11 etc.
      Halton Arp – Redshift of nearby quasars
      https://arpgalaxy.com/
      Robitaille – Physics of the sun, problems with astronomy
      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL7QIOZteWPpBWBOl8i0e-g
      Graham Hancock – Is the house of history build on foundations of sand?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyfE3IvDWR8

      4) Controversies related to biology/consciousness

      Science non duality – https://www.youtube.com/user/scienceandnonduality
      Dean Radin – Men who stare at photons
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM
      Rupert Sheldrake – The science delusion
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

      5) Controversies in subject (usually paranormal)

      Jeffrey Mishlove (Parapsychology) – many topics
      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFk448YbGITLnzplK7jwNcw
      Zyxzevn – http://www.reddit.com/r/paradigmchange/

      • generalbottlewasher says:

        Z-man , thank for including Shelldrake in your Que. He is a real favorite to be exposed to in my book of life. What a mind!

        • zyxzevn says:

          Exposed?
          He is overly philosophical and too friendly to skeptics, for
          my taste. But he functions as a bridge for many people.

          People are usually scared away with my stuff 😉

          Radin and Mishlove are more practical and come with very good results too.

          Also interesting:
          http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/
          Which shows that many skeptics are just charlatans.

          • generalbottlewasher says:

            Z-man, nah, Im glad that maybe someone could discover and be “Exposed To”,what Shelldrake has theorized. His experiments with animals was compelling. Proofs he has searched for, he gave fair trial to, they line up with what truths of reality I can lay testament to. So Im a fan. I’d be content with Mary Baker Eddy or Ervin Lazslo but R.Shelldrake is somewhere in between. He is philosophical but not overtly, and could be as in my case a bridge from asleep to awake, material to spiritual.
            I hope I find as much in Radin and Mishlove as I do in Shelldrake. Looking forward to something new .

      • justine.k says:

        Thanks for taking the time to put in the links! Appreciate it!

      • 9tH says:

        wondering why you had to throw Hancock between those links.
        I see how he is held up the hands of a huge MAJORITY of people who seek their truths in the fringe.
        He refuses to acknowledge the genius of a rope and tackle, always screaming about suppression, but since he is an economist, i would expect him to know bad publicity is even better, especially when addressing ‘mysteries’. He ca

        I personally see a lot of reason to doubt his words. I can not bring myself to trust someone who worked for the economist and NEVER mentions his former employees.

        • 9tH says:

          Hancock is part of the move to lead people astray.
          And plasma cosmology has been hijacked by the catastrophist psy op.

        • zyxzevn says:

          Hancock gives a lot of a good examples of how historians ignore a lot of evidence.
          I like his findings of a relationship between old structures and the positions of stars. In Egypt this was even documented.
          He also found old structures under water near India, which was predicted in ancient lore. This all seems to coincide with the ice-age when the water level was much lower.
          Then we have the erosion of the Sphinx and the very ancient underground cities. This all shows that the unknown history is far different and more interesting than is shown in the history books.

          There are many others, I picked him, because he is very famous.

          Brien Foerster is a researcher that is much more into archeological evidence:
          https://www.youtube.com/user/brienfoerster
          One of his findings is that the elongated skulls with red hair in Peru have DNA related to people from the black sea.
          He explains how the Inca structures were built on top of older structures. This is according to the Inca history and can be seen in the constructions.

          Some of the older structures were likely made with geopolymers, but not all of them. https://www.geopolymer.org/
          Interesting is that the structures destroyed by ISIS showed that they were made with geopolymers (is like concrete).

          Note: Many of the structures are too difficult for the technology that the historians think they had. Copper saws and drills and clubs. Instead they used much better technology.
          The error that historians make continuously is that they belief that civilization always progresses. In reality we often see declines of civilizations, including their technology and knowledge. In the middle ages we destroyed a lot of the Greek knowledge, and that of the druids.

          • 9tH says:

            Every ancient civilisation that became sedimentary has built its buildings on top of ancient places. What is the meaning of a ‘TEPE’? Every ‘MOTTE’ built in western europe is a similar thing. Look how the vinca culture statuettes were discovered, by blowing up a flattened hill, exposing layers and layers, each with its different shards and artifacts.
            The paracas skulls have been DNA tested by someone who has no credentials at all. Foerster has ‘gathered money’ for years without actually spilling on the beans and people kept paying. The link to the black sea or Varna has been proposed by others just as well. Cranial modification was condusted by people all over the world, in France it was done by a particular people until half way 1800s. The oldest examples do not come from south america but from northern mongolia.
            Brian foerster blocks every comment offering a new view point or questioning his statements. FYI
            He is a businessman, a tourguide. And a fraud.
            I have seen the glyphs in Kuringai with my own eyes. As well as many other glyphs in the vicinity. They are not as old as is claimed, the geological feature, soft sandstone would not allow this. At all. Foerster and the new chronology cultists ignore whatever goes against this fairy tale. Just like they ignore any critical voice on the people doing the misleading.

            Yes, they had better tech, namely metallurgical mixtures that harden copper=arsenic. That is alchemy/metallurgy for you. By running into the funnel where they want you, the real history and especially that which is left out, is left unseen and unspoken. It is the biggest recuperation of history ever and serves only one purpose: obfuscation.
            The geopolymers have been around for a long time indeed, and has been performed very early. More alchemy. But you should check how crude the inside blocks of the pyramids are first. They are not at all nicely cut. There is even a claim that they were poured and then deliberrately roughened, so they fit better in case of an earthquake. This was to make the claim fit the facts.
            I mean, seriously??
            I could go with the proposition of the geopolymere casingstones, but other than that, the larger part of the stone comes from accross the river and is a soft sandstone (hence the smooth features as in sand blowing over these stones for millennia). The shells in a geopolymere stone are burned and grinded. The numismatics in the stones used in the pyramid are whole>natural. The same thing one can observe in soft australian sandstone, containing shells.
            You have to understand that the entire Giza plateau is an open air museum, they NEED AL KIND OF PROP to keep the flow of tourists coming. Pretty much the same as Foerster does.
            Foerster totally lost my intrest as soon as i became aware of his blocking people for critique, no matter how polite. But i never was into the dude anyway, he is a charlatan. An dit shows.

            [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words. -JC]

            • 9tH says:

              OK, pity half of my comment is gone. But i will keep it in mind, JC

              So again, on Hancock..
              He has worked for the Economist, check who theis paper is. He worked for the BBC, same thing. Hancock presents drug-use as if it is a necessity to obtain knowledge.
              He is not censored or supressed, on the contrary. Do a background check on the big publishing houses of the guy. And listen to what he doesn’t say.
              Wally wallington moves a 20 ton concrete block on his own. See YT. There is an oldtimer splitting a 5 ton rock too, try the searching machine.
              2,3 generations ago, craftsmen knew skills using rope block and tackle. And Hancock and Co get away with the ridiculous idea the ancients had no need for that.
              Do a search on what ancient chinese civilisations (neolithic) could do with a simple bow-drill, a quartz bit and some abrasive.

              It’s a cult. And possibly, likely even , a psy-op, just like Fomenko’s work is.

    • Mark K. P. says:

      good post zyx

      The problems with cosmology are REALLY important because its the “Queen of the Sciences” and directly influences every other branch more than any other.

      The petrification of mainstream cosmology is probably tied directly to the complete take over of western culture as a whole by the private money makers in the wake of WW1 ; its the theories of the war epoch and the 20s which have been canonized, with a heavy emphasis on the primacy of English and Jew “knowledge” (Eddington, Einstein and a host of other English-speaking frauds and failures ad nauseam).

      This chronic bias and incompetence is maintained as mainstream because of its complete focus on gravity as the driving force of everything, even though a trivial force about 20 billion billion billion times weaker than the electrical, and in fact one of many artefacts of electrical current flow in space and through planets.
      The key here is that in the gravitational model everything in the cosmos is isolated and doomed ; arming mercenary academia with a suitably nihilistic ideology to educate the intelligentsia into pessimism, materialism and hedonism, but above all irresponsibility and separation from the wider community, in direct conformity with the banksters’ primary goal of malthusian depopulation.

      Science and scientific method hence have nothing to do with how mainstream cosmology (or any other science) is conducted. Conformity to bankster aims and ideology are all that matters.

      Le Maitre, inventor of the Big Bang nonsense, was a theologian before becoming a pseudo-scientist. He once admitted to Hannes Alfven (one of the pioneers of plasma cosmology) that he dreamed up the Big Bang theory (which is ultimately the illogic of omnia ex nihilo, aut ex deo) as a means to accommodate his scientific knowledge to his (deep) religious beliefs.

      The only scientific underpinning of the Big Bang was the absolute unitary assumption that red shifted light signatures must always denote distance from the place of observation. Halton Arp was a leading and completely mainstream astronomer when he discovered the physical connection of several galaxies and their quasars with dramatically different red shift readings, and thus disproved the Big Bang at a blow. Once he published he was ostracized and denied telescope time. His method, which was perfectly good and really quite normal, was irrelevant to the fact that his findings overturned the essential dogma.

      The only current cosmology worth following is the Electric Universe group and its various plasma focused affiliates. These people still do real and traditional science, and their results are very impressive.
      But no official funding because the EU cosmology emphasizes the interconnectedness of everything ; the very antithesis of the gravitational mainstream.
      More than that, several leading EU physicists and philosophers have taken up the evidence from mainstream failure to identify/locate consciousness within the brain and begun to theorize that consciousness is essentially EXTERNAL to the corporate and resides in the aether and electrical currents ; that the brains of humans, animals and perhaps every organic or just self-organizing

      [SNIP – Comments are limited to 500 words. JC]

      • zyxzevn says:

        First it is necessary to wear different hats in these sciences.
        We can look at the same problem from different perspectives, and
        use the same standards and logic in it.

        Some people in the EU try to replace gravity or QM with their own theories. But this is not necessary.

        I have much more concrete and further developed theories about consciousness, which I also apply in therapies. I can remove depression and get people out immediate psychosis. This goes far beyond the ideas of materialistic science and/or EU.
        But the EU idea of the brain as an (adaptive) antenna is a good start.

        But also here I can wear different hats. Everyone has their own ideas about consciousness, and it would be very hard to explain something without connecting with the experience and knowledge of the people themselves.

        I fully agree with the idea that astronomy is the queen of science. It is also the worst science, because I can directly point out problems in their physics or problems with their maths.
        In physics, the astronomy model of the sun is really bad and breaks normal physics.
        In maths, black holes mix up both the formula for relativity and Newton’s non-relativistic formula for gravity.
        And problems like this go on and on.

        But most people can not even imagine that science has gone a wrong way.
        They trust in scientists so much, that even believe the non-sense from big companies or lies from governments.

        And consequently scientists in the area explain me over and over the same old fallacies, while thinking they actually solve the problems. That is because they learned it that way, and are not capable of thinking outside their education. With the sun, they accept that the model is abnormal and far from accurate. But they refuse the simple solution to the problem which means that the original model is wrong.

        In experiments we can demonstrate a redshift of light in plasma. This can be extended to interstellar plasma without problems, so it has immense consequences for cosmology. Yet astronomers do not even want to look at it, and try to explain it away. This is beyond stupid, and shows the psychology of the people in that area: they are really afraid of the truth.

        The same is with 9/11. The consequence of free-fall is immense. But the people go to all extends in their minds to make it seem logical and OK.

        The fear for breaking their belief-system is so large that people are even able to kill for it. Which was shown by the cult of Pythagorean in the Greek world. They were very into maths and believed every number was a fraction. Then a member proved that the square root of 2 was not a fraction. He disappeared soon after that.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sKah3pJnHI (Numberphile)

        • zyxzevn says:

          Now science and astronomy is a modern Pythagorean cult.

          People are really afraid of learning something that breaks with their established beliefs. Especially scientists that have invested their whole lives and careers in one fixed idea and one way of thinking.

          Interview 454 – Jerome Ravetz on Uncertainty in Science
          https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-454-jerome-ravetz-on-uncertainty-in-science/
          Jerome also explains that scientists do not understand or even acknowledge uncertainty in science.

          So what do they feel when they are just plain wrong?
          As scientists they will deal with it rationally and fully deny any possible error.

          My solution

          We all should learn to wear different hats.

      • 9tH says:

        le maitre was a jesuit. Bauval and Schoch are theosofists.

        i take it you have your preferences for the kumbaya type of cult?

        • zyxzevn says:

          You are attacking the messenger, not discussing the message.

          • 9tH says:

            you are aware Hancock worked for a rothschild owned newspaper, that would be when he wrote his books on the African NGOs. With that in mind, who is it he leaves out of the equasion?
            Why would a geologist like Schoch be savvy on something like microflares? Why has this been picked up by EU proponents and is now being propagated as the next coming catastrophe?
            What are the ties of Velikovsky to the zionist re-shaping of our history?
            What is the ties between men like Duardo de Grazia and zionist psy-ops?
            Why are International Science Foundation (soros funded)members inside the TbP?

            What ties Hancock and Schoch? Who owns the Giza plateau? Why did the Casey foundation fund Zahi Hawas’ archeology studies? Who promotes Casey’s ideas? Who promotes the Atlantis/Eye of Africa hoax? Why do i find recommendations in my YT, of Wilcox, Hancock, Jones, Icke and the rest of the supposedly suppressed history bunch, EVERY DAY, although i refuse to watch that propaganda since over a year now?
            If it is all so suppressed, why are they pushed on me every bloody day? Because bad prop is better prop nowadays maybe?
            Why is it, that all those talking and parroting about Tatars and new chronoly NEVER mention the millions of central europeans that have been sold into slavery via Crimea? Oh it never happened. Right…
            Mudflood/Tatar paradise is suppressed, so it must be true.

            When i ask for your preference, it is because the answer might explain why you haven’t done your homework. Other than that, i apologize for being crancky.

            • generalbottlewasher says:

              9tH- valid points to consider, what ever is offered up needs to be scrutinized now. Information seems to have been weaponized. The surface of any subject has become ever so thin. This medium and the device used to access the information is a turnstile in a station platform owned by something without our best interests at heart. It therefore becomes difficult to identify the game that is afoot when you are contently being directed to the train departing away from the truth.
              That’s why I prefer printed matter, imfera is less resistant but by no means wholly immune from malthesant manipulation.

    • zyxzevn says:

      Problems in history:
      Unbelievable Ways The Victorians Caused Their Own Deaths | Absolute History
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Jef7i7v1U
      1. Arsenic in wallpaper
      2. Corsets
      3. Gas (CO-poisoning and explosions)
      (like when the gas is on lower pressure during the night to
      save a few bucks, turning your gaslight into a killer).
      4. Lead painted furniture and toys.
      5. Contaminated bottle feeding (caused by hype)

      In every case, the people did not understand the dangers.
      The companies downplay the hazards.
      The doctors/scientists did not know what happened.
      Governments: UK did nothing, Germany forbade use of certain toxins.
      The scientists that did warn people, where not listened to.

      While we know now what these dangers are,
      not much in the discovery process has changed.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Thanks again zyxzevn.
        There was some fascinating information in that video.
        Also, I found some profound correlations to our current society compared to the Victorian era, and previous eras.

        For example,
        Around the 3 minute mark, the video talks about the term “Standard of Living” which first appeared during this era.
        Conspicuous Consumerism. This continues to plague our society. It’s on steroids.
        Sometimes, I think that consumerism underlies the fabric of our society’s problems. “Keep up with the Jones” mindset. Everyone must do or have what they are told is normal.

        ~~~
        Lead. (around the 45 minute mark, more or less)
        Lead in paint and toys and all over the place.
        The film mentions that finally, in the 1920’s, lead was banned in paint products by countries such as Sweden, Austria, Spain, etc.
        However, places like the UK and U.S. did not get on board about the toxicity of lead until sometime around the 1970’s.

        Currently, I see the same type of lead toxicity denial going on with other substances such as Fluoride and Mercury and Aluminum and many other chemicals in our environment.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Dust on carpets, fabrics, rafters, etc.

          During Corbett’s release of the World War 1 series, I was reading about inventions from around that time period.

          Reading about the evolution of vacuum cleaners, I realized that many homes and public buildings were full of dust. An incredible, unhealthy amount of dust.

          One anecdote:
          “During World War I fifteen Puffing Billys (vacuum cleaners) and their staff were dispatched to vacuum the huge iron girders of London’s Crystal Palace, a huge, glass-walled public building that had been built to house the Great Exhibition of 1851.
          Requisitioned for use as a naval barracks, the building released over 26 tons of dust, accumulated in mounds over six inches high over the sixty years it had been standing.”

          https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hubert-cecil-booth

  2. justine.k says:

    Last comment- I just finish two days ago reading a book called “Anatomy of an Epidemic- Magic bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America” (and other developed countries) by Robert Whitaker. Cannot more strongly recommend it, and totally fits into the “Crisis of Science”. The author also has a website called “Mad in America”.

    James- just a suggestion, but interviewing Whitaker would be great. Cheers!

  3. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Honestly, I had to strain to follow some of the lines of thought.
    James is right. I guess I need to re-listen.
    It did help when James made clarifying statements.
    I’m getting too old. People gotta spell it out for me.

    • justine.k says:

      Saltelli’s accent was a little difficult and it probably helped me to have first-hand experience in one realm of “science”: the pharma businesa & medicine. Helps put everything in context.

  4. generalbottlewasher says:

    Looking back in time I remember a movie by Werner Herzog that had as part of the story line the crisis of science and the everydayman.
    “Woyzeck” = Franz Woyzeck is a hapless, hopeless soldier, alone and powerless in society, assaulted from all sides by forces he cannot control.
    Just last week and this week here in the heartland , a major assault on the hapless citizens by science run muck occurred.
    The difficulty of reporting an occurrence like this is fraught with difficulty in being as accurate in observation and empirical fact.
    Trying to cut through the fog that was layed down here is palatable. Having removed fluoride as humanly possible from our household we have had to endure the regular assault of the scientific community from the air. HomeyR.S. trying to understand the knot in my shoe lasses is not far from the difficulty in understanding what Corbett and Prof. Saltelli are discussing. Carroll Quigley attempted this same subject in no less than 400 pages of T&H and tried to describe or justify the mindset of TPTSB. The hubris of this class , something akin to a priesthood, was artfully defined by Carroll Quigley in “Tragedy and Hope” chapters 16-17-18.
    A Quote from page 836.Chp. 16 .”Rationalization and Science”
    ‘Of course , it must be recognized that rationalization and science are not yet, by any means, central to the experience of ordinary men , or even to the majority of men. But now they almost certainly must become matters of firsthand experience for the majority of men if Western Civilization is to survive. As the novelist of these matters, Sir Charles P. Snow, has said, scientists increasingly play a vital role in these crucial, secrete decisions ” which determine in the crudest since whether we live or die”.
    Im experiencing firsthand the dopey results of science here, now. I don’t smoke dope but feel as if I did. It happens around once a week following the C-134s appearance and the gray curtain drawn overhead. I think science ( it ) has now come to the majority of men.

  5. Octium says:

    September 11, 2001 marked the end of the scientific age.

    The problems with science is much more fundamental than inability to explain complex things going on in the universe like what is the true source of consciousness or what happens inside a black hole?

    I tend to see those kinds of problems as work in progress rather than a failing.

    The more important failure is in area of basic applied science where results are generally repeatable enough for engineering purposes. Newton’s laws might be wrong but no building ever fell down due to the incorrectness of those laws.

    The average 12 year old should have the ability to drop a bowling ball from a hight while recording it on video. Split the frames apart in a computer, plot the distance fallen vs time, work out the change in distance vs time (Velocity) work out the change in velocity vs time (acceleration) and get a result.

    Something that most of the academic institutions around the world forgot how to do on 9/11.

    It wasn’t just a few building demolished on 9/11 it was pretty much every university in the world.

    As for “science” based solely on statistics without any explanation of the results – well that is maths, not science!

    Don’t get me wrong, Statistics can be a useful tool, just like a magnet on a string might be a useful tool if you have to look for a needle in a haystack, but you should never claim that by possessing a magnet on a string you don’t even need to look for the needle in order to claim that you have found it!

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      I don’t know if 9/11 marked the end of the scientific age, but it certainly is very suspect that out of the millions of scientists worldwide only a hundred or so have come forward to correct the official record of what happened to the towers on that day.

      Each and every one of those millions of scientists knows that it was impossible for the towers to collapse on 9/11, yet they have remained silent about it or sold out to TPTB for some financial benefit or other favors.

      Of course there are many reasons most have chosen to be silent, but probably the two biggest ones are fear of losing their jobs and fear of reprisals from TPTB.

      Each of the three towers ‘collapsed’ in different ways.

      The first tower to ‘collapse’ was WTC2, the south tower. For some ‘strange’ reason its collapse was not promoted nearly as heavily as that of WTC1, the north tower.

      This is because the top section of WTC2 started falling off the tower! When it reached approximately a 20 degree angle off of center, its center of gravity was close to the edge of the building.

      And it was from this precarious ‘leaning tower of Pisa’ position that we are told it proceeded to collapse the rest of the building below it!

      Every physicist knows this a complete joke on numerous levels.

      First the momentum of the top section would have kept it falling away from the bottom section of the building, leaving no ‘pile driver’ to point a finger to for ‘pushing’ through the rest of the building.

      Second, even if a miracle occurred and the top section stopped completely in its tracks from falling to the side, it would have rocked back and forth on the remaining bottom section until it either stabilized itself or slid off the bottom section.

      Third, the most ridiculous account, that which we are told occurred, is that this top section that was falling to the side, off the building, pushed its way through floors that had previously supported it for approximated 30 years. And pushed through them as if the top section was now flush with the bottom section, instead of hanging over to the side! And at such a speed that it would have matched the speed of a free falling bowling ball next to the building. LOL!

      This is why science is in a crisis! Scientists are either bought and paid for by TPTB or they are too afraid to speak out in their discipline.

    • CQ says:

      Octium, speaking of dropping a bowling ball, an AE911Truth article tells of a pink-haired video game blogger who defeated a NASA scientist and other contenders in a science-related competition on a reality show called “King of the Nerds.” How did she do that? She stayed up all night researching 9/11 Truth websites: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/188-news-media-events-pink-haired-nerd-beats-nasa-scientist

      Fawlty Towers, good points you raise about how WTC 2 fell.

  6. brian.s says:

    Our science is an activity of the mind and (accepted) beliefs about the mind and its world-view THEREFORE predicate what is given attention, funding and development and what is not – and a narrative continuity runs the survival and development of established power structures as of officially accepted facts unless and until they are called in to question. Then vested interests defend against a sense of threat or loss and are shifted to a defence of dogma as if science depended on it being true. Prophets or scientists who speak truth to power are not supporting the often unconsciously believed dogma and so are generally persecuted as a ‘threat’ to the order of the day.

    The archetype of order being coercively asserted over a denied and feared chaos is an ancient archetype that IS power struggle of the split mind, and a dissociated sense of a fear-defined and thus fear driven identity.
    That this is normalised behaviourally does not make it natural, whole or truly conscious.

    This forceful identification in personal possession and control – (or power and survival in the terms of a mind-dictate) – is our subjective sense in relation to a largely unwatched assertive mental imagination and judgement. Into this ‘order inside chaos’ we learn and adapt to a virtual world or co-created model – operating upon reality – as a filtered interpretation to a sense of self set over and apart from its reality, and that of others and world and yet ‘within’ its sense of a world perceived and judged real.

    So the purpose of define, predict and control, runs the mind of the attempt to control reality – in terms of outcomes but also of presentation or masking of communication in forms of leverage as well as defence – not least as the evasion of loss of face but also of the relative sense of power differentiation set against those who are invalidated, rejected and denied or sacrificed. The power struggle consolidates to hierarchy as control and globalism consolidates to a technocratic dominations as the logical extension of the ‘attempt to define, predict and control’ a reality apart from and outside the mind of the judge – which like an archaeological site is a scientific rationalism built upon religious order set over mythic or symbolic underpinnings to archaic experience of a past we cannot understand – but more importantly – are predicated to deny.

    Ideals of science are like idols is used as substitutions for the true currency of relational communication.
    The pattern of the deceiver is know to be the lure of a self-inflation, the vindication of a self-deserving validation and a greater sense of worthy recognition, the power to finally be victorious over adversities, enemies or evils once believed unconquerable. The fantasy seeming within reach is the lure to an overreach – and the investment in a phished mind in which fighting an evil is now equated with the righteousness that all must align in or be judged unworthy, ignorant or evil themselves – as deniers of truth that must not be questioned – by which the order of a new world is set to be free of the ‘old evils’.

    [SNIP – Comments are limited to 500 words. – JC]

  7. Mark K. P. says:

    Another good talk by Wal Thornhill, leading physicist of the Electric Universe movement ;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUNo2dsLak

    Particular attention ought to be given to Dingle’s warnings published in the 1970s ; not a EU or even plasma astrophysics advocate. Rather so mainstream that he got the job of summarizing gravitational relativity for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, until he got second thoughts about what he was really doing, and what gravitational cosmology was really saying.

    The average Mr/s citizen depends upon independent minded experts like Thornhill citing such important examples from within the scientific community because the MSM is never going to mention them. The point is that a genuine crisis of astrophysics is nothing new in the ranks of its professional exponents. What might be new(er) is that the old misuse and abuse of mathematics there is now ravaging every branch of science

  8. UseLogic says:

    A huge part of the problem is that we have completely fraudulent ‘professions’ that claim the right to pontificate on their supposed area of expertise and demand we listen to them because they have PhD’s. What they really have is an OPINION on a topic that is no better or worse than anyone else’s opinion and their PhD’s aren’t worth spit.

    Let me list just a few of the fraudulent professions: Law, Economics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Psychology, Psychiatry, all the ‘social sciences’ in general, …

    These supposed ‘professions’ for the most part can’t PROVE anything. They have theories that in extreme cases are deployed as FACTS in normal conversation.

    Take for example Astronomy/Cosmology – Black Hole, Neutron Stars, Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, … None of this has the slightest bit of actual evidence to back it up. The ball got rolling when a Belgian Priest concocted Big Bang out of nothing.

    Look at Law – people have been imprisoned for marijuana offenses and today we have companies doing IPO’s whose product is Mary Jane. Speeding is a made up crime to generate revenue. Money Laundering is bogus to allow the state to criminalize financial transactions they don’t like.

    Psychiatry is BS from one end to the other. It almost disappeared as a ‘profession’, but was saved by big pharma as an avenue to dispense drugs with side effects worse than any imagined disease these frauds purport to treat.

    Economics can’t prove anything. They can’t even do a postmortem on an event to say why it happened without getting completely opposite OPINIONS from other economists.

    You get the picture. These are not professions. These are frauds.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top