4 ms·

> A large portion of mainstream knowledge that we call 'science' is incorrect. How do you know that? Can you prove it scientifically? > claims that are backed

> A large portion of mainstream knowledge that we call 'science' is incorrect. How do you know that? Can you prove it scientifically? > claims that are backed up by ignorance/delusion In that case, they are not "backed up" > I will not offer to back up my above statements > an individual has to learn it on their own, through ... inquiry May I "inquire" about your reasoning?

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
owenpalmer, as I stated in my side note I will not be explaining myself, my sincere apologies for this. You see there are some things that cannot be taught, or it cannot be easily taught more so for adults i.e healthy skepticism and questioning of statements/facts that come from authority figures ( example:science/religion etc). A person will have to make his or her own effort. External influences especially debates from the heretics will generally only delay that progress. Now, if you're already open to the possibility that mainstream science could be very wrong, I can possibly nudge you in the correct direction. I have explored certain areas of biology (especially nutrition) but not all, each sub area of biology (or any of the sciences really) is vast, I have to rely on heretics who are 'experts' in their areas of specialization.
- timeon 2y ago
  Sorry but this seems like bit longer version of 'do your own research'.
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    No quite, It really depend on what you mean by 'research'. For most people 'research' is just consensus of the experts. On the other hand if by research you mean "test it out yourself" I agree with you. ( not always practical though, so you have to choose a middle ground)
- bashfulpup 2y ago
  I love this, do tell the direction to be nudged in. I wish to experience this new level of understanding.
  - mistercheph 2y ago
    There's two approaches here: Pick one phenomenon in the world that you observe and don't have an account for, and try to come up with an account, assuming nothing except for your own observation and experimentation, of the causes of the phenomenon. Once you're done, follow the trail, reading only original or translated original documents, of the history of human descriptions of the phenomenon, do the "science" of "science" by observing the phenomena of observing and describing phenomena. Go in the woods and read Plato and Aristotle and Sophocles for a year. :D
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    Nutrition is one place where you can start, because it is possible to do some practical experiments. But, be warned, you will easily spend a decade investigating it. I picked the subject, because I'm sure that in the end you will have achieved something of great value: your own relatively better health. (I said relatively, because diet is only one of the factors that influences health, although I say it's an important one) Expanding on the sibling comment by 'mistercheph': 1) Start on a blank slate. have no notion about the subject. This is easier said than done . Un-learning is way more difficult than learning , even for the simplest of topics. 2) Read really old literature on the subject, the likes of Aristotle, the alternative is to listen to people on the internet who have read old literature. Initially do some cross checking to make sure that these people are indeed saying the truth by actually checking the sources they cite. Progressively read the literature to relatively modern times, say up until 100 years back. Many research papers that are over 100 years old are very readable compared to the current ones even for lay people. 3) Experiment on yourself. Come up with your own observations on what is good and bad. 4) now explore the conventional knowledge on the subject. For x amount of time spend on gleaning conventional knowledge, listen to the (1)heretic who takes the opposite stand for x amount of time who says otherwise. 5) do several iterations of steps 1 to 4. 6) Form your own opinion after a decade. (1)= the older credentialed heretic is a good bet. By speaking against the guild that he/she is affiliated with he/she has got a lot to lose : his/her livelihood. Good luck!
pclmulqdq 2y ago
> How do you know that? Can you prove it scientifically? We know it as a point of meta-analysis. If you go read a 30-year-old biology textbook, a lot of what it says will have been proven false by now. 30 years before that, the textbook says a lot of other wrong things that were disproven 30 years later. There is no fundamental reason other than hubris to think that the current understanding of the thing is perfect. There is a huge body of evidence that we are inclined to promulgate imperfect understandings of scientific subjects, though. So in the absence of clear, definitive evidence that something is fundamentally different now, the best assumption is to assume that a lot of current "scientific knowledge" is wrong.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

owenpalmer, as I stated in my side note I will not be explaining myself, my sincere apologies for this. You see there are some things that cannot be taught, or it cannot be easily taught more so for adults i.e healthy skepticism and questioning of statements/facts that come from authority figures ( example:science/religion etc). A person will have to make his or her own effort. External influences especially debates from the heretics will generally only delay that progress. Now, if you're already open to the possibility that mainstream science could be very wrong, I can possibly nudge you in the correct direction. I have explored certain areas of biology (especially nutrition) but not all, each sub area of biology (or any of the sciences really) is vast, I have to rely on heretics who are 'experts' in their areas of specialization.

timeon 2y ago
Sorry but this seems like bit longer version of 'do your own research'.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  No quite, It really depend on what you mean by 'research'. For most people 'research' is just consensus of the experts. On the other hand if by research you mean "test it out yourself" I agree with you. ( not always practical though, so you have to choose a middle ground)
bashfulpup 2y ago
I love this, do tell the direction to be nudged in. I wish to experience this new level of understanding.
- mistercheph 2y ago
  There's two approaches here: Pick one phenomenon in the world that you observe and don't have an account for, and try to come up with an account, assuming nothing except for your own observation and experimentation, of the causes of the phenomenon. Once you're done, follow the trail, reading only original or translated original documents, of the history of human descriptions of the phenomenon, do the "science" of "science" by observing the phenomena of observing and describing phenomena. Go in the woods and read Plato and Aristotle and Sophocles for a year. :D
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  Nutrition is one place where you can start, because it is possible to do some practical experiments. But, be warned, you will easily spend a decade investigating it. I picked the subject, because I'm sure that in the end you will have achieved something of great value: your own relatively better health. (I said relatively, because diet is only one of the factors that influences health, although I say it's an important one) Expanding on the sibling comment by 'mistercheph': 1) Start on a blank slate. have no notion about the subject. This is easier said than done . Un-learning is way more difficult than learning , even for the simplest of topics. 2) Read really old literature on the subject, the likes of Aristotle, the alternative is to listen to people on the internet who have read old literature. Initially do some cross checking to make sure that these people are indeed saying the truth by actually checking the sources they cite. Progressively read the literature to relatively modern times, say up until 100 years back. Many research papers that are over 100 years old are very readable compared to the current ones even for lay people. 3) Experiment on yourself. Come up with your own observations on what is good and bad. 4) now explore the conventional knowledge on the subject. For x amount of time spend on gleaning conventional knowledge, listen to the (1)heretic who takes the opposite stand for x amount of time who says otherwise. 5) do several iterations of steps 1 to 4. 6) Form your own opinion after a decade. (1)= the older credentialed heretic is a good bet. By speaking against the guild that he/she is affiliated with he/she has got a lot to lose : his/her livelihood. Good luck!

pclmulqdq 2y ago

> How do you know that? Can you prove it scientifically? We know it as a point of meta-analysis. If you go read a 30-year-old biology textbook, a lot of what it says will have been proven false by now. 30 years before that, the textbook says a lot of other wrong things that were disproven 30 years later. There is no fundamental reason other than hubris to think that the current understanding of the thing is perfect. There is a huge body of evidence that we are inclined to promulgate imperfect understandings of scientific subjects, though. So in the absence of clear, definitive evidence that something is fundamentally different now, the best assumption is to assume that a lot of current "scientific knowledge" is wrong.