Quote notes (#67)

Jim on the corruption of science:

The climategate files not only give us reason to disbelieve “Climate Science”, but discredit all peer reviewed science. Peer review means you don’t get the actual evidence, but rather the consensus about what the evidence should show if it was not so wickedly prone to evil heresy. Peer review means that a consensus is quietly established behind closed doors, and then the evidence is corrected to agree with the consensus. This maximizes the authority and prestige of official science, at the expense of disconnecting it from reality. Science got along fine without peer review until the 1940s. The core of the scientific method is “Nullius in Verba”, “take no one’s word for it”. Peer Review reverses that for taking the word of a secret committee of scientists reaching agreement behind closed doors, reaching agreement for secret reasons on the basis of secret evidence.

March 20, 2014admin 11 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , ,

11 Responses to this entry

  • RiverC Says:

    Pre-peer reviewed science wasn’t less insane, it was just less official and magisterial. In the Cathedral of course, Peer Reviewed Science is the Magisterium.

    (Reading John Fleming’s The Dark Side of the Enlightenment and it is very entertaining to see how crazy and crankish science has always been.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 20th, 2014 at 3:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    The emergence of peer-review actually marks a return to those times when if your science doesn’t agree with scripture you get burned at the stake.
    Today’s “racists” are, in a sense, the 15th century’s “atheists”.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 20th, 2014 at 7:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Zimriel Says:

    There are a lot of silly people out there, and there are even more silly opinions (opinions held by all silly people, and most smart people most of the time).

    Peer review serves to screen out the opinions of the silly people. It’s less good at screening out the silly opinions of the smart people.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 21st, 2014 at 3:36 am Reply | Quote
  • James Freund Says:

    in what sense?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If you mean “in what sense” has science been corrupted? — Jim’s post makes the argument. Peer review is unfortunately vulnerable to collusion (whether deliberate or not). It certainly represents a relatively ‘closed loop’ in the marketplace of ideas — as if companies were able to ignore their customers, and restrict their sensitivity to objections made about each others’ products in boardroom meetings.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2014 at 1:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • James Freund Says:

    No, I was referring to Hurlock’s comment – in what sense does he claim that ‘today’s “racists” are […] the 15th century’s “atheists”’?

    [Reply]

    James Freund Reply:

    In my view the typical racist of today has decided to focus on hating other races as a way to bolster their identity and blame an out-group for the problems they face – they then congratulate themselves for the bravery they (falsely) believe it has taken to make this step against the mainstream of anti-racist belief. Whereas your typical 15thC atheist probably looked at the world very deliberately and carefully, and concluded that it was unlikely that God existed – then had to deal with the fact that the Church would probably burn them alive if they expressed this thought publicly.

    [Reply]

    James Freund Reply:

    Therefore today’s racists are not in any important or interesting sense similar to 15th century atheists.

    [Reply]

    James Freund Reply:

    Of course, Hurlock may argue that her inverted commas means that she is not talking about racists and atheists at all – she is really referring to ‘those who today are falsely accused of being racists’ and ‘those who in the 15thC were falsely accused of being atheists’. Obviously, these 2 populations are both much smaller in number than real contemporary racists and 15thC atheists – and they are by definition more complex and more heterogeneous – not least because they are defined not by their own actions alone, but by others’ reactions to them. Hurlock is thus stepping on dodgy terrain in making such a generalization about such internally fragmented groups, whose main similarity may be the fact that they have been falsely accused. Or are we to suppose 15thC people who were falsely accused of atheism when really they were true Christians are really akin in other important ways (apart from being falsely accused) to people who are currently accused of racism but who are not racists?

    Posted on March 27th, 2014 at 4:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    @James Freund

    Welcome to the Neoreaction…

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2014 at 7:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @James Freund

    James, I have two favors to ask. The first is: please read George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language”.

    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

    The second is: please define the word “racism” as you are using it. I’m sorry if I am boring everyone to tears by complaining about fallacies of ambiguity, but I feel like I’m drowning in them.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 28th, 2014 at 12:50 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment