"Trust THE Science", "Do you believe in science", "The Science says...", "The science is settled" - If you know the scientific method these things should have you appalled.

in Proof of Brain2 years ago (edited)

It is time again to revisit something I've written about several times before. I haven't written here in over two years on this particular topic and the reason for writing about it is more extreme than it has ever been.

I was a dual major when I went to college. I was a Physics and Music major. I didn't go through the entire program for either of those as my true interest was Computer Science (early 90s) and the College I went to did not have a degree program in that when I attended it. I therefore, embraced two other loves as my majors.

I am well versed in the scientific method, and how it works.

Early when the Climate Change narrative (then called global warming) was appearing I had klaxons and warning flares going off in my mind as I kept hearing people trying to shut down any challenge by using terms like "consensus", and "settled." Then the propaganda mechanism that is the captive media would kick in and repeat their narrative and demonize and attack anyone that offered challenge regardless of their credentials.


I watched the narrative change from Global Warming to Climate Change. Again alarms went off in my mind. One is very specific with specific outcomes. The new label can literally contain anything and be applied to any kind of change whatsoever. The first is like me saying "It's going to get hot", and yet it was suddenly changed to "It might get hot, it might get cold, it might get dry, it might get wet, and it very possibly can do any of these things and that makes me right so you had better listen to me." That is literally the relationship between Global Warming when compared to Climate Change. They had a very specific set member they were referring to and then they simply changed it to the super set which contains ALL of the sets. You literally CANNOT be wrong when referring to it now. Why? Any change at all is still climate change.

They labeled people Deniers, along with the tired trope of Conspiracy Theorist. They had to assassinate the characters of anyone that dare challenge the narrative.


The problem with that is that if you actually practice the scientific method you NEVER stop asking questions and challenging. Science is NEVER settled. Consensus is also irrelevant. We embrace the models that best describe our observations until we find reason to discard them, revise them, or completely replace them. If it is settled and we are not allowed to question we can not do any of those things. It is no longer science at that point it is simply dogma. It is akin to religion. "Do you believe in science?" is a phrase that anyone who truly understands the scientific method would never utter. The scientific method is a tool. It is a system of techniques we use to try to keep our own biases from corrupting information. By doing this we hopefully can keep revising our truth to better model the reality that surrounds us.

You cannot do this without questioning. You cannot do this if you blindly follow authority figures because they have been given a label, and a piece of paper.

You cannot do this if you blindly follow someone who knows the scientific method but has stopped following it. The fact someone once knew it, and was given a title does not mean they are not human and may decide not to stick to the method later in life if they begin to want a specific outcome or narrative.


"The Science", "Believe the Science"

Those are signs of dogma or a new religion. They are not part of the scientific method.

"Trust X because he is a scientist with a degree from Y"

Is an argument from authority fallacy in critical thinking parlance. It is very similar to "Trust X because he is a priest appointed by the Vatican".

If you need further examples you need only look at the labels that are used for anyone that challenge a desired narrative from these authoritarians:

"Denier", "Conspiracy Theorist", "Domestic Terrorist", "Anti-vaxxer", "Anti-science", etc.

Those are very similar to...

"Blasphemer", "Heretic", "Witch", "Pagan", "Satanist", "Infidel", "Apostate", etc.


The people pushing consensus, settled, denier, The Science, Believe the Science, etc. nonsense are pushing a religion. They most definitely are not practicing the scientific method.

Science is still the same

People will say that science has been destroyed or that it has become a religion. This is not the case. The scientific method is just as valid as it ever has been.

What has happened is the label "SCIENCE" has been hijacked like so many other labels.

They call things Science that don't remotely follow the scientific method.

They call people Liberal that are not remotely liberal at all. In fact they often are the least tolerant bunch of people on the planet at the moment.

They call people Progressive that are pushing regressive ideas.

They call people racist simply for disagreeing with a narrative or challenging someone they consider an ally whether there is any truth to it or not.

All of these words still have their original meaning.

They have simply been hijacked by the propaganda mechanism and the Marxist techniques to redefine things...

It is a war. The war is for your mind. Each time you accept their new hijacked definition you cede territory in your mind. We think in words. IF you allow people with no authority to simply hijack and repurpose words, history, etc. then you allow them to change how you think. This change is not because some reasonable argument made you change it in the face of new information as a person using the scientific method would do. No, this is simply allowing them to remove your ability to think in certain ways because they have repurposed the words that have long had meaning.

If they were honest about their goals they would create new words. Yet that does not control minds. If you can change the meaning of words and people accept it. That is mind control.

Science has not changed.

The propaganda has just been cranked up to 11.

The indoctrination to trust the news, and trust the authorities is being exploited. After generations of conditioning us this way they suddenly removed all restrictions against using Propaganda (aka lying, manipulating, controlling) against the U.S. population. The first restrictions vanished as attachments to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which occurred only a few months before the first appearance of Black Lives Matter and the media amplifying that and saying it was an epidemic everywhere. The final restrictions were removed in December, 2016 in an Executive order from Obama during his last month in office as President. Since that time there have been no restrictions against the use of Propaganda. If you want keywords to research this yourself you can begin with the "Smith-Mundt Act" as that is central to the issue. You should not blindly follow what I say or anyone else says.

Since that time they have been banning books, banning people, banning words, making topics forbidden, and pushing these all as virtuous and good things.

They have been pulling down statues, rewriting history, and attacking people for things they did or said long ago that may not even reflect the person they are today.

They have been pushing the same old control methods that appeal to the low information people due to the emotional appeal. They will shame people by labeling them as selfish, lacking empathy, or not being compassionate if they dare offer challenge.

Yet their view of compassion rests in proxy. If you follow their ideas you'll end up with a system where you yourself are not the one being compassionate. You don't have to be because supposedly this system (of people) you put into place will handle the being compassionate part for you.

Now if you are not selectively shown parts of history, and you do your research you'll find out this is quite a regressive idea. It plays upon emotions, and seeking the easy path where hopefully when it is done you don't have to do anything it just works. Yet someone always ends up in charge.

They'll play you like a fiddle speaking of the "Oppressed and the Oppressors" while you march to war for them. In the end it'll be a few of those playing the fiddles living like Kings and Queens while the puppets and masses are more oppressed than ever. It is almost a push towards the return of feudalism.

The regressives pushing for ideas that ALWAYS fail in history. Unless the goal is power. Redefining and hijacking words is useful for this.

Making people use a tool designed to help us not be biased in a highly biased almost dogmatic fashion is great to them.

They introduce regressive ideas, and yet they are actively corrupting the very tool designed to help see past such things. SCIENCE.

Deniers may not be denying anything. They may simply be doing what the scientific method demands and asking questions. They may be seeking to improve the models. They may see a flaw and question it.

If that makes them deniers then that certainly makes those calling them such far from scientists.

EDIT: Bonus question....

Have you ever voted for someone to be a representative in the United Nations?

I haven't. So if you are a fan of Global Governance have you ever considered that Dictatorship, Oligarchies, Plutocracies, Technocracies, etc. could ALL still occur and be Global Governance. Do you truly like the idea of a group of unelected Oligarchs ruling the world?

I ask this because people blindly push the U.N. People blindly follow their authority. Yet I have never elected a single one of them.

If you want global governance what form do you expect it to be?

I don't see a lot of people thinking or asking about that.

EDIT 2: Received a fairly sizeable downvote from user altleft.

IMAGES: (1) from Wikipedia. (2) mlive.com


Very well put!

I’ve been making these points for decades.

For a long time I argued with people about these issues pointing out the Scientific Method and that I actually have a Science degree while very few of the people opposing my view ever had any scientific education beyond middle school.

Eventually I realised that it was pointless as it had become a religion for these people.

This is the appropriate way to attack this issue. They have religious freedom to believe this unscientific rubbish but they are not allowed to force their religion on others.

Here's another for your collection:


Yeah, that is a good one. I totally would have put something like that into the article if I'd known where a good one was.

Exactly what I referred to above! This is not happenstance. It WAS THE PLAN.
It was the very Reason they created the Programming, uh, Educational Institution... the Store House of Science and Published Papers that politicians then use to advance movements...
and called it Good.
And this is what it turns into.

Excellent article! I wrote one very similar years ago but from the perspective of medicine instead of the watermelon perspective of changeable weather. I concur with all you've said.

Science is never ever settled! Questioning the mainstream narrative is crucial, questioning everything even your own thoughts as they have been molded and conditioned by years of BS programming requires a higher state of consciousness / sharper awareness not many are willing to pursue. The cognitive dissonance battle is a difficult one to fight and conquer. Fantastic read!

Posted via proofofbrain.io

Thank you for this post.
It's become increasingly clear that propaganda has superseded actual science. Your points are well made and 'science', in many ways, is being reduced to inane slogans to stifle anyone who dares to go against the narrative that is being spun.

Going against the propaganda media machine you will be vilified tarred and feathered as an 'anti-science' or 'conspiracy theorist' for simply questioning 'settled' science - an absurd and ironically anti-scientific position.

The problem with that is that if you actually practice the scientific method you NEVER stop asking questions and challenging. Science is NEVER settled. Consensus is also irrelevant.

Couldn't of said it better.

I'm glad that I managed to frame it well. In my writing style (stream of consciousness) sometimes I falter. :)

Have you ever voted for someone to be a representative in the United Nations?
I haven't. So if you are a fan of Global Governance have you ever considered that Dictatorship, Oligarchies, Plutocracies, Technocracies, etc. could ALL still occur and be Global Governance. Do you truly like the idea of a group of unelected Oligarchs ruling the world?
I ask this because people blindly push the U.N. People blindly follow their authority. Yet I have never elected a single one of them.
If you want global governance what form do you expect it to be?
I don't see a lot of people thinking or asking about that.

One of the best write-ups I have read in a very long time....what an awesome post by @dwinblood

Posted via proofofbrain.io

I was surprised when I looked at the user altleft who gave this article a pretty sizeable downvote to see that you are one of their followers and yet they don't post anything with that account. It seems like a big account just designed to downvote things someone with some power doesn't like. Thus, it surprised me to see you following them. If they had actual content I might not have been as surprised.

What's up with that?

I wouldn't have noticed if not for the big down vote on this article from them so I went to see who they were. I have the user sunsetjesus pretty reliably down voting me, but not nearly at the level of the altleft person.

Despite all its contradictory aspects, not even Science can be perfect and bring all the answers we hope for.

This is a very good example of a post with a very thought-provoking theme. Well done, @dwinblood.

Well put! Even in Christianity, those terms you used as analogies have very specific meanings and uses. They are often misused in the same way pseudoscience twists and misuses terms to manufacture peer pressure and doubt.

Yeah, I know those terms ALL have specific meanings. Yet they historically have been used however someone wanted to demonize and silence. This is mainly why I used them.

Hijacking words and using them like "verbal grenades" is something that has happened many times in history.

It works. Unless a person is self aware and really pays attention these techniques usually are sufficient to manipulate them.

Yea, that's what I was getting at. Can't remember who it was I was listening to, but he was discussing the topic of people misusing words. He recommended, instead of getting you panties in a wad, calmly, and sincerely ask them, "What do you mean by that?"

More often than not, they either have absolutely no idea and won't be able to define it, or, their definition is so far off they make a fool of themselves. Worst case scenario, if they do understand what it actually means, you can move on with at least a slightly more meaningful conversation than you would have otherwise. On rare occasions, it changes the tone of the conversation completely.

When you have the opportunity to challenge such use you always should. However, the propaganda system out there is drowning us out. We are fighting against a fire hose, yet we must still fight.

Yes, we must.

Awesome post.
My new favorite saying is, "It doesn't make Science."

The propaganda is out of control and Big Tech and MSM are playing a huge part it shutting down views and beliefs. that they don't agree with. This is totally anti-free speech.

I am a denier and a conspiracy theorist and I don't care.

Posted via proofofbrain.io

"Conspiracy Theory" is another hijacked term.

I wrote about that in one of my many "Word Hijacking" posts years ago:


I think I wrote 6 or 7 posts in that particular series and that one covers Conspiracy Theory. :)

It is so refreshing reading someone who is writing about the scientific method. It frustrates me so much when I chat to really clever people and the repeat the propaganda words of 'consensus' and 'settled'. Yet in all other areas of their professional life the challenge thought and the status quo.

It just baffles me how people do not question more or debate more in this modern world. I do not think anyone actually has the answer, but let's talk about, challenge each other. Even agree to disagree on some topics.

Anyway, huge supporter of the scientific method over here, thank you for sharing.

Posted via proofofbrain.io

Yeah @antisocialist and I are having a big debate/discussion on a post from a couple of days ago. We agree on many things. He calls Capitalism Crapitalism. I am not a fan of Communism. He has asked that I not call it Communism, but to call it anti-socialism. I'm not doing that as I don't consider it historically to have been that.

Yet in all of this. It has been civil, intelligent, and refreshing. We both are friends here on the platform with I'd say mutual respect. Yet this is an area we disagree upon and can debate. I wish the world and people were more like that.

He and I agree in far more areas that we disagree. :)

We both are what I'd call voluntarists. We just have different ideas on how this would be achieved. I am not a fan of communism. He is not a fan of capitalism.

One difference. I don't make up twisted versions of the word when debating it. :)

I did say I could go with Crapitalism if he was doing it to emphasize Cronyism + Capitalism merging because that is a problem. Yet he didn't agree that was his reasoning. I think he just doesn't like it and thus calls it Crapitalism.

To each their own. He is a good and decent guy.

I use crapitalism to emphasize the crap deal I am getting from the trillionaires.

What I am currently offered for staking a major portion of my life to making somebody else richer is not acceptable, it's a crap exchange.
My life is worth more than what is on offer.
To me, anyways.

I glad you caught the mention. :) Or perhaps you just read the replies to my article. I tagged you with @ thinking it might get your attention.

I keep a pretty good eye on those mentions, too often I miss all the fun until days later.

Haha... That is the only mention I made. :)

Here is an interesting point to add to your debate, the word "capitalism" has an origin recorded from 1872, it was used disparagingly by socialists, focusing on the idea that the "concentration of capital in the hands of a few; the power or influence of large capital".

The word had a negative connotation from its inception and among about half the population it will always have a negative connotation.

I very much believe in free trade, free speech and the free exchange of ideas... basically all the things that HIVE offers. I do not really give a title to my beliefs or ideas because they are mine and are unique to me.

The collectivist side of thought, call it communism, socialism, liberalism, whatever -ism you like tends to put big groups of people into neat little boxes, but unfortunately this never works. We are all just individuals who interact with other individuals... if we all remove our tribalism thinking, then suddenly we'll realise that we all have a lot in common and a lot of similarities.

My life motto which has always served me well, treat others as you would like to be treated. Do not try put others in a neatly polarised box, that is pretty much a recipe for disaster. At the end of the day we are all in this together. 😎

I like that. That pretty much describes me as well. Perhaps why I can get along with pretty much anyone if they keep it civil. Also why I like @antisocialist quite a bit. He's a very civil and intelligent guy. I also used the @ sign on the previous comment and this one knowing he'd likely see the mention and tag over here to speak for himself. Which he did. :)

EDIT: I've said a few times that when I refer to capitalism myself I am meaning free trade/market. I am very well aware there are many other views and definitions. Thus, I had to be clear about what it means to me.

However, crony capitalism, or corporate capitalism, or corrupt capitalism those all would fit the label crapitalism in my mind as well.

Crony capitalism is the real plague in this world. If you had to give it an -ism name, fascism is probably the one that fits best.

Yep when Governments and Corporations collude we get Fascism.

The interesting thing is Capitalism itself does not have corporations. Those are additional ideas that get cobbled onto it later.

In fact at one time corporations were only supposed to exist for large but short term projects like building coliseums and such. Things that were too large for a single person to be able to fund.

Citizens United (yes they used words to sucker people back then too) changed that a great deal. It gave corporations more rights than people while simultaneously these artificial constructs do not have the same needs as people.

if you actually practice the scientific method you NEVER stop asking questions and challenging. Science is NEVER settled. Consensus is also irrelevant.

Well said!

Posted via proofofbrain.io

Everything i learned in college science class, i later learned was wrong. EVERYTHING!!

This includes the vaunted scientific method.

You would think that scientific people would be able to held to the scientific method.

A: "The Theory of Relativity is a solid theory that has been well tested"
B: "A benchtop experiment caused a force that exceeded the speed of light"
A: "Well bollox to that theory then"

but nooooooo....

What i get is, that is only one part of the theory, what of this and this and this and this...
You don't know what you are talking about / You aren't smart enough to understand the Theory of Relativity.


People should trust the science just as much as they trust the scientific method. Theories can change and skepticism has always been a part of science.

I don't trust "the science". I use the model that makes the best sense at the time. The scientific method can be applied to any process. Yet that doesn't mean every hypothesis is as far along the path as another.

Part of the problem is we don't publish and share failures. Yet failures are just as important to the process as successes.

We need to know what things were tried, and failed. If we do not then other people will simply try them or a slight variation of the same thing without realizing it has already been attempted.

We must be informed. We must challenge when we have questions. We must not shoot the person who asks questions we do not like. We can and should certainly answer them with a rational and thought out response. We certainly must analyze our own time and unfortunately we may not have the TIME to respond to every challenge. We weigh our time and respond as we can.

However, we should not ever view our lack of sufficient time as justification to shut someone down because we don't have time to answer them. We must not pass them off as a fool, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job, or a denier just because it is inconvenient for us to take the time to explain at that moment.

We also must always consider that we can be wrong. That is an opportunity, not a bad thing. Being wrong is not a bad thing unless we fail to learn from it and are wrong about the same thing over and over again.

There are a lot of problems with 'science' these days. Big/dark money funding, pressure to publish papers, religion getting involved in legislation are a just a couple off the top.

Posted via proofofbrain.io

I only consider that the hijacked version of science. Science itself is the same as it always has been. Yet now they throw it around like a label to silence people when they are not actually following the scientific method. That means what they are labeling science often has absolutely nothing to do with actual science than the fact they called it science.

Similar when they call someone racist when they say something they didn't like that didn't actually have anything to do with race.

I'm pretty sure that the unelected elite already rule the world, in different factions.

For the most part you are correct. Mostly they rule by propaganda, obfuscation, and manipulation. If more of us learn to recognize it, it becomes less effective.

I like to vote extremists and sometimes a conservative might slip in. I also dont vote often but if I do I want to make sure they are either against the status quo or for the status quo of at least 25 years ago, better even 50.

I know I know, I shouldnt legitimize the system by voting at all, but I doubt that just rejecting to vote will actually do anything. They will just say "Oh people dont care about politics and are too lazy to vote"

I vote. I've seen it make a difference first hand. I don't think the higher level votes will make a difference in the U.S. post 2020 steal. They blatantly stole the election, and some other positions and not only did nothing happen, any cases to present evidence the courts refused to actually look at. They didn't even look at the evidence.

Now that this has occurred they can literally make the outcome whatever they want it to be and just run some propaganda cover pieces on the "news" and call it good.

welcome to the new world. I saw a lot of people celebrate Biden/Harris here on hive. I was disgusted and confused.

I didn't look too deep into the whole stole the election thing. I didn't see any hard evidence for something that could have majorly influenced the whole thing. The eveing seemed a little fishy but it was to expect that most postal votes would go to Biden.

There was a ton of evidence and coordinated things that happened simultaneously across multiple states that were unprecedented.

If there is nothing there to find why are they spending vast amount of money and doing everything they can to try to stop any form of audit?

At this point if they find the proof I don't see it being able to change the outcome.


Manually curated for #informationwar (by @truthforce)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation, and Liberty. We are a peaceful and non-violent movement that sees information as being held back by corrupt forces in the private sector and government. Our Mission.
  • Discord, website, youtube channel links here.

Delegate to the @informationwar! project and get rewarded

The University System was created by Legal Charters that defined their purpose.
First was to create an institution the masses accepted as a Knowledge Base. Second was to publish... ‘science’.... that could be used politically towards... certain nefarious goals.
Third was to engage the public... which was triggered a few years ago.
You said you have watched the Narrative change from Global Warming to Climate Change...
I guess I am a bit older, because, before the internet they were scaring us with a coming ice age!

Scientific Method is a tool. It doesn't have anything to do with the Universities. In fact, if you understand the method you can use it with or without a piece of paper.

The degrees and universities have been come argument from authority fallacies.

In reality if a University is good all it should indicate is there is a higher probability a student might have been exposed to certain information. That's it.

Yet that can also be bad as it often is today.

However, they use that piece of paper from these universities as though that is what makes a person a scientist.

It isn't. A scientist is someone who uses the scientific method. That doesn't make them any kind of authority as the scientific method doesn't have anything about authority anywhere in it.

If they published their methodology, data, and how others can collect the data then anyone should be able to attempt to replicate and in the process strengthen the theory/hypothesis, or destroy the same.

Some things of course require certain skills, and access to equipment that not just everyone will have access to. These are areas that Universities can still be quite important.

The problem is the Universities are being corrupted so people are getting a sizeable helping of indoctrination served with the rest of the education.

I am aware of the Ice Age scare as well. People still point that out as a possibility fairly often. Yet now that they've labeled it "Climate Change" they would say they were not wrong if an ice age did happen.

I am 50 years old. That'll give you the time frame for what I lived for. My parents were Hippies so I've pretty much been engaged in "Earth Day" type stuff since it's inception. In fact, I think initially that was a positive movement as is usually the case. It is nothing of the sort these days.