Even harder than telling people all the science of past 100 years is wrong, is telling them that the Scientific Method is wrong.
From Wikicommons
Unfortunately, the Scientific Method is wrong in several of its premises.
Our current science paradigm is that the world is real and observable, separate from the observer. However, this is not the case. The observer is completely intertwined with what he observes. Their mood affects how they write about their observation, AND it affects the observation. Their expectations affect the observation.
A further mistake in the Scientific Method is, we do not think that way. We do not start at point A and move to point B. The graphic of the Scientific Method shows a nice loop, a one way path. But we do not do that. We work from the problem towards the solution and simultaneously work from the solution to the problem. And if the method doesn't encapsulate what really happens, then it is a poor tool for humans to use in general. Or, it is only a tool for a very specific task, not for general sciencing.
The Observer and the Observed
The current paradigm in the western world is one where the world is real and solid.
That it is "out there". That it is separate from the observer. But this isn't the case.
Many, many quantum experiments prove that this is so.
An interesting piece of a quantum computer is that it doesn't run when you press the GO button.
The button is an air tube that activates another mechanism that will run the program at a random time in the future. This is done, otherwise the quantum computer doesn't do its thing, it just returns the value that the programmer expects. Yes, the programmer / computer operator effects the outcome of the computation. So, you have to remove that influence as much as possible.
The double slit experiment shows that an observer turns the photon/electron from acting like a wave, to acting like a particle. What's worse is that this cause goes back in time. If you observe the photon in the future, it will behave as a particle in the past.
And there is studies going on now that suggest atoms do not exist. They only exist when you try to look at them.
Just plain weird stuff. Unacceptable if you believe the world is real and solid and out there.
Dr. Masaru Emoto and Water Consciousness
These water droplets were programmed with thought, prayer, human energy... And then were frozen, creating a crystal to be photographed.
This experiment is very repeatable. Showing that the observers thoughts affect the outcome of an experiment.
The way humans think.
Humans are not really linear thinkers. Although they would like to assume they are.
But we aren't really. If we were, we would all be good with numbers and computations. But we all know that is not the case.
When listening to anyone try to solve a problem, you will find they try to work from the problem to the solution. And then later, they will try to work from the solution to the problem. We use both deductive reasoning and retroductive thinking.
With this in mind, the Scientific Method should be of a form that humans can actually use. We should not have to shut off half of our brain when use the Scientific Method.
We come at things from both sides, and our methods should reflect that.
One disproof is enough to throw out the whole theory... not
The Scientific Method is one where you build a testable, disprovable theory.
So, you can find lots of evidence that shows the theory is accurate, but you find one disproof and the theory is gone.
However, nobody in science uses that.
Einstein: Here is the Theory of Relativity, it says things cannot accelerate to a speed faster than light.
Me: Here is an experiment which shows a thing accelerating to a speed faster than light.
Everyone: Oh no, it must be a problem with the test, or the tester, or you are just not smart enough...
This is actually because of the way humans work.
We really do not make a theory that can be falsifiable.
We don't throw everything out and start afresh.
The human brain just doesn't work that way. There is no "clear" button for the brain (there is really fuck up everything button)
So, we really need a much more complex testing apparatus. A simple true/false doesn't work for any theory that is not just completely stupid. Thus, the Scientific Method needs to provide this more workable structure.
We don't even have words for talking about how to build a new Scientific Method.
Most people do not even know the word "retroductive", one of the most powerful logic tools.
So, we have a long way to go before we will actually have a useful tool.
(unless you are a professor and need the tool to beat up other scientists with)
I am here today to show that this is a necessary step before we can actually get back to doing real science.
And yes, observation notes in the future will include a box about the observer's mood that day.
This has no basis in fact.
Neither does this.
Nonsense.
Sorry, man, but you just postulate things and fall for it.
There's plenty wrong with the scientific industrial complex today, from censorship and corruption, to chasing publication and outright fraud. You're just not reporting data accurately. Wishes aren't horses and beggars don't ride.
Sigh...
All of these things are well documented facts.
But, modern science doesn't like to talk about them... sooooo, the average person believes them to be lies. (mostly because bow-tie wearing actor says they are fallacious)
We aren't talking theories here, but demonstrable facts.
I would love to start talking about stuff that is way off the beaten path.
Like how chance actually operates.
And how time really works.
But these things get weird. Really weird.
And i am not getting traction on the simple stuff.
No. None of them are. Your mood does not affect the sunrise, and it doesn't affect reproduction of bacteria in a petri dish, the power output of a new iteration of laser, or any other experiment involving hard science (not psychiatry or sociology or such).
You could find some fraudulent studies that no one has ever been able to replicate to support your claims, and the problem of replication is indeed a blight on the entire field. Pseudoscience depends on it. You could change my mind with peer reviewed studies that have been replicated, but there aren't any that support your claims.
What's far sadder to me is that the industry is collapsing under the weight of corruption and political propaganda. Journals I trusted sold out to Pfizer and the MIC during the plandemic, and every potentially politically significant metric presents an attack surface that can, and in many cases already has, completely destroy the scientific method.
There is no basis for your statement that scientists aver they're not part of the universe. Neither is there any basis for saying what they want influences what results they get. Many frauds cherry pick data, put their thumbs on their scales, or just plain falsify their results. That does not support your claim.
In fact, it refutes it, because if they could get the results they wanted from their experiments just by wanting it hard enough they wouldn't have to commit fraud.
It's just silly.
Edit: you point to such a fraudulent study about ice crystals.
Yet you supply no citations showing it was replicated. Typical.
Wow
I learnt so much from this