Posts Tagged ‘Conclusions’

The End of Science

by Daniel Greenfield on Monday, March 24th, 2014

This is article 30 of 30 in the topic Science

The reemergence of Cosmos could not have come at a better time, not because it has something to teach us about science, but because are living in Sagan’s world where real science is harder than ever to come by.

Carl Sagan was the country’s leading practitioner of the mythologization of science, transforming a
process into a philosophy, substituting political agendas for inquiry and arrogance for research. Sagan was often wrong, but it didn’t matter because his errors were scientific, rather than ideological or theological. He could be wrong as many times as he wanted, as long as he wasn’t wrong politically..

Science has been thoroughly Saganized. The vast majority of research papers are wrong, their results cannot be replicated. The researchers writing them often don’t even understand what they’re doing wrong and don’t care. Research is increasingly indistinguishable from politics. Studies are framed in ways that prove a political premise, whether it’s that the world will end without a carbon tax or that racism causes obesity. If they prove the premise, the research is useful to the progressive non-profits and politicians who always claim to have science in their corner. If it doesn’t, then it isn’t funded.

“Science” has been reduced to an absolute form of authority that is always correct. The Saganists envision science as a battle between superstition and truth, but what distinguished science from superstition was the ability to throw out wrong conclusions based on testing. Without the scientific method, science is just another philosophy where anything can be proven if you manipulate the terminology so that the target is drawn around the arrow. Add statistical games and nothing means anything.

This form of science measures itself not against the universe, but against the intellectual bubble inhabited by those who share the same worldview or those who live under their control. It’s not a bold exploration of the cosmos, but a timid repetition of cliches. The debates are as microscopic as this miniature pocket universe. Discoveries are accidental and often misinterpreted to fit within dogma.  Progress is not defined not by the transcendence of what is known, but by its blinkered reaffirmation.

This isn’t science or even scientism because it has little basis in the scientific method. Like all progressive authority, it now derives its credentials from membership in an expert class and advocacy on behalf of a victim class. Global Warming research covers both quotas. On the one hand everyone ought to shut up and listen to the scientists, as long as their message conforms politically, and on the other hand everyone ought to shut up and listen to the victims of Global Warming. Connect the two and you have the basis of progressive authority.

The mythologization of science isn’t new. Its chosen hero, “The Man Who Was Right When Everyone Was Wrong”, defying ignorance and superstition with the torch of knowledge is an old archetype. But the mythologization of science has outlived the rationality that once gave this figure meaning. The Men Who Are Always Right aren’t right anymore because they use the scientific method, but because they use science as a priesthood to prove the rightness of progressive policies.

In the collective language of the progressive internet, science has become an absolute. Science proves everything. “Because Science.” “15 Ways Science Shows You’re Stupid”.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Twenty First Century – Enter at Your own Risk

by Rev. Michael Bresciani on Sunday, February 23rd, 2014

This is article 27 of 30 in the topic Science

Bill-Nye-the-science-guy.jpgAfter reading the reviews, publishing some on our website and finally taking the time to listen to every word and nuance of the debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy. The idea of rating one against the other to determine who won the debate melted away like snow in July. After hearing only one single answer from Bill Nye and Ken Ham’s follow-up reply the abject spiritual poverty of modern man became perfectly evident – it was blaring.

Nye offered one of the worst explanations of entropy, sometimes called the second law of thermodynamics, ever heard.  It was as if he was espousing the idea that the law, which states that everything in the universe is decaying, could be overcome simply by the warm glow of the sun.

We almost expected someone, anyone, to stop the debate long enough to remind Nye that the sun is also subject to the second law, it too is slowly burning up and will someday be gone altogether. But Nye’s mesmerization with science magic could not be de-lustered.

Following the flowery notion that simple sunshine could overcome entropy and produce complexity, including inter species evolution, Nye went on to praise technology. He threw emails, handheld gadgets, cell phones and cameras into the pot and after marveling at them all as great advances for the world, he went on to make his final bid at proving the worthiness of science to be admired, adored and yes, perhaps even worshipped.

It was another version of, ‘It’s not the destination that counts – but it’s the journey that matters.’ He repeated the phrase about science being all about the “joy of discovery” several times over as if it was both the cause and the justifiable end to all scientific pursuit. We almost expected him to say that scientists actually do care about finally answering the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Nye’s aura, halo and his momentary golden glowing naiveté was shattered like the switching off of a giant floodlight when Ham replied; “What good is all the joy of discovery when after that you are dead and your life is forgotten.”  In so many words, Ham went on to ask – what is the purpose of any discovery – if man is destined to annihilation and non-existence.

We saw two men, one proclaiming that discovering how everything is made is far more important that acknowledging who made it. The other man was saying that the fascination and the useful result of discovery are wonderful and indeed important, but second only to knowing who to thank.

What we saw in this debate was a question of the age of the planet being used as a summary argument against faith in God. All of God’s revelation of himself throughout the ages is to be dismissed for a single question that scientists say is well – inexplicable under the microscope of empirical observation.

The Old Man and the Prophet – Conclusions that are Not Naïve

As an old man often found in the company of other old men and women it is impossible to agree with a philosophy that says playing around with how things are made takes precedence over why they were made.

Click to continue reading “The Twenty First Century – Enter at Your own Risk”
Go straight to Post

New York Times executive editor disputes accusation of liberal bias…from exiting NYT ombudsman

by Doug Powers on Monday, August 27th, 2012

This is article 346 of 570 in the topic Media

Bonus points: The accusation of liberal bias came from… a New York Times editor:

The executive editor of the New York Times is disputing an accusation of liberal bias made by her very own public editor, Arthur Brisbane.

In his final column for the Times, Brisbane wrote that his fellow staffers “share a kind of political and cultural progressivism” that “virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.” Brisbane even argued that Times reporters approached some liberal issues, like gay marriage and the Occupy movement, “more like causes than news subjects.”

But Times executive editor Jill Abramson says she disagrees with Brisbane’s “sweeping conclusions.”

“In our newsroom we are always conscious that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of the country or world. I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions,” Abramson told POLITICO Saturday night.

All that remains to be said is “please pass the popcorn.”

Go straight to Post

New York Times executive editor disputes accusation of liberal bias

by Doug Powers on Monday, August 27th, 2012

This is article 345 of 570 in the topic Media
Bonus points: The accusation of liberal bias came from… a New York Times editor:

The executive editor of the New York Times is disputing an accusation of liberal bias made by her very own public editor, Arthur Brisbane.

In his final column for the Times, Brisbane wrote that his fellow staffers “share a kind of political and cultural progressivism” that “virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.” Brisbane even argued that Times reporters approached some liberal issues, like gay marriage and the Occupy movement, “more like causes than news subjects.”

But Times executive editor Jill Abramson says she disagrees with Brisbane’s “sweeping conclusions.”

“In our newsroom we are always conscious that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of the country or world. I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions,” Abramson told POLITICO Saturday night.

All that remains to be said is “please pass the popcorn.”

Go straight to Post

New York Time’s public editor: fellow staffers “share a kind of political and cultural progressivism” that “virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.”

by John Lott on Sunday, August 26th, 2012

This is article 344 of 570 in the topic Media

The scary thing is that the staff of the New York Times don’t see the overwhelming bias that invades their stories.

In his final column for the Times, Brisbane wrote that his fellow staffers “share a kind of political and cultural progressivism” that “virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.” Brisbane even argued that Times reporters covered some liberal causes, like gay marriage and the Occupy movement, “more like causes than news subjects.” . . .

But Times executive editor Jill Abramson says she disagrees with Brisbane’s “sweeping conclusions.”

“In our newsroom we are always conscious that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of the country or world. I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions,” Abramson told POLITICO Saturday night. . . .

Go straight to Post

Dr. Drew Debunks ConWebBlog: My Oxy Girlfriend Was a Composite Character in Dreams From My Father.

by John C. Drew Ph.D. on Friday, August 17th, 2012

This is article 13 of 44 in the topic Obama, Who Is He?

I thing it is important to debunk the folks who attack me quickly so I thought I would jot out some ideas here and now.

As you may know Jerome Corsi just published an article featuring my first impressions of young Obama: I thought he was part of a wealthy gay couple. In a world where Obama uses his marriage and family for political gain, I guess it is fair to ask folks like me what we first thought of the sexual orientation of the young Obama. What ticks me off, however, is when the guy running ConWebBlog suggests that I am a “discredited source.” Terry K. writes:

But as we’ve also detailed, Drew — who has cited his encounters with Obama to claim that he was, as Corsi wrote, a “Marxist revolutionar[y]” — met Obama only twice in social occasions, making it highly unlikely that he could have made such sweeping conclusions of Obama’s purported nature based on brief, casual encounters. Further, some of Drew’s details about Obama have been discredited by actual college friends of Obama.

Corsi makes no apparent effort to fact-check anything Drew says.

It seems Drew is nothing more than an Obama-hater who’s embellishing his brief, long-ago encounters to curry favor with fellow Obama-haters. Why? Presumably to sell some books — he’s supposedly working on one. And Corsi is swallowing every word he says.

Let me unpack this for you and illustrate why I have such a low opinion of ConWebBlog.

First, my assessment of Obama’s commitment to Marxist revolutionary thought was not based simply on brief, casual encounters. The girlfriend who introduced me to Obama, Caroline Boss, was so close to him that she became part of the composite character “Regina” in Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father. The very name “Regina” was taken from the real life name of Boss’s grandmother.

Second, I did not have a casual encounter with young Obama. Instead, he and I engaged in an intense, sometimes angry debate about whether or not Communism was a realistic objective and whether or not a violent Communist revolution was or was not a realistic possibility. It was an important debate that – potentially – impacted young Obama’s early career decisions. I remember that debate not so much because of young Obama, but because of how my changing views on Marxist ideology impacted my relationship with Boss. (No one else has provided anything close to the detailed description of young Obama’s thinking as I have provided in various articles.)

Third, many of the details of my story have been confirmed, not discredited including my report on Obama’s GQ style of dress which was confirmed by Margot Mifflin in Remnick’s The Bridge, my report that both young Obama and young Chandoo were in the San Francisco area over Christmas break 1980 which was confirmed by David Maraniss in his book, Barack Obama: The Story, and my take on the lack of African-Americans in young Obama’s social circles is verified by reports which indicate that none of Obama’s supposed African-American friends from Oxy attended his wedding to Michelle even though his Indian and Pakastani friends from Oxy did attend his wedding to Michelle.

Click to continue reading “Dr. Drew Debunks ConWebBlog: My Oxy Girlfriend Was a Composite Character in Dreams From My Father.”
Go straight to Post

Will Believers Tip the 2012 Election?

by Rev. Michael Bresciani on Saturday, April 7th, 2012

This is article 618 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

boxcars-(2).jpg

Andy Andrews, the author of ‘How Do You Kill 11 Million People: Why the Truth Matters More Than You Think’ was a guest on the Mike Huckabee show recently. As expected Andrews was asked to explain the title of his book and to give a succinct summary of the answer to the question his title imposed.

Like many people Andrews spent years pondering the question of why and just how 11 million people would become so docile as to actually look complicit in the planning and execution of their own deaths. Why would so many line up to be hauled away by the Nazis in crowded boxcars, without putting up great resistance or a fight to save their own lives.

Andrews uses no deep philosophical construct to answer the question. He offers the simplest answer and under any level of reasonable scrutiny we suddenly know he has hit the nail squarely on the head. His answer in all of its glorious simplicity is, “They were lied to.”

They were told that they were going to work, be repatriated or sent back to their respective places of origin. They could not in their wildest imaginations believe that they were being herded to their own deaths.

If applied to the direction of America today and the upcoming presidential races; is it possible, reasonable or within the very scope of our wildest imagination to apply Andrew’s answer to the socio-political climate of our nation today? The answer to this question is also blaringly simple. The hands down, straight up answer is; an unequivocal – yes!

Many Americans who were born during or just after WWII have known for a lifetime that the Jews were lied to about their true destination. This generation is full of opinion and debate and history courses in today’s academia will hardly raise the question; much less come to the right answers. This takes nothing from Andrews’s conclusions but it is only half the story.

How the Jews were deceived only explains the mechanism by which they were rounded up by the millions, it does not explain why. Understanding the nature of how God deals with nations and his own peculiar people (Israel) offers the only legitimate explanation that satisfies both sound theology and any accurate historical context.

The entire calling of Israel, followed by the giving of the Mosaic Law and the temple system of worship, was predicated on the fact that God wanted Israel to show the Savior of mankind to the world. Their rejection of Jesus Christ was caused by their failure to see that prophecy did not promise them a political Messiah but a Redeemer. He will fulfill the role of the political or ruling Messiah only at his second coming.

The Jews could not reconcile this dualism, so some rabbinical schools actually concluded that there must be two Messiahs. Not only could they not see that Christ had to deal with sin and salvation first, but even if they could see that, they were not willing to wait for the vast church age between the first and second coming of Christ. They wanted political salvation now.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Did Obama Start Blogging at the Daily Kos?

by Doug Powers on Sunday, January 8th, 2012

This is article 205 of 570 in the topic Media

Here’s the title of a completely serious post at the Daily Kos:

null
*****

My first thought was that our nation’s super-modest leader must have started blogging there, but then it occurred to me that if that had been written by Obama, he would have been a little more humble and only claimed to be the fourth best president ever.

Here’s what is probably the most hilarious part of the Kos post, which was written by a user named Troubadour who hasn’t lost the tingle of Hope:

I have little trouble stating the following conclusions – Barack Obama is…

1. The most liberal President ever.
2. The most accountable President ever.
3. President of the most transparent administration ever.
4. The most committed to civil rights and equality ever.
5. The most committed to science and technology ever.
6. Either the most, or tied with the most, competent and intelligent President ever.
7. The hardest-working President ever.
8. The most globally-respected, loved, and feared (by our enemies) President ever.
9. Either the most, or tied with the most, politically courageous President ever.
10. Most, or tied with the most, honorable and honest President ever.

If I had the next week or so completely free, I’d dissect that list a little bit. That isn’t necessary anyway since you probably did it yourself as you read it and possibly shorted out your computer after doing a laughter-induced “spit-take” all over it.

(h/t Tim Graham at Newsbusters)

Go straight to Post

Then Again…

by Larry Wilke on Saturday, September 3rd, 2011

This is article 56 of 143 in the topic Democratic Party

The election of 2012 will hopefully prove more than just a few things. One of them will be just how dangerously delusional the left is. Then again, it is either a dangerous delusion or it’s a dangerous deception.. Then again, within the demented Democrats, it is probably an even split between both of these conclusions..

As crazy as this sounds, (then again, when speaking of the Democrats, “crazy” comes up within the conversation with too great a frequency..) the OWEbama angle up until now has been to attempt to bump off EVERYONE, including members of his own party by “blaming” the all-inclusive “Congress”. Then again, it isn’t all that “crazy” considering the Marxist megalomania that is part of the OWEbama DNA. Initially, the “blaming” of the Republicans wasn’t gaining traction, so OWEbama “pivoted” to this distraction of “Congress”. In theory, blaming the few “Republicans” won’t make for a better “conspiracy theory” as opposed to blaming nearly five hundred members of “Congress”..

This proves that as the election draws nearer, the liberals surrounding Obama are just too anxious to remove the stains of responsibility for their failures. The left sometimes forgets just exactly who it is that they are dealing with and the lunacy that they will willingly swallow. They need not look any farther than the “shampaign” of 2008 as the prime example that supports this theory.. They sometimes overlook things like “The Population Explosion” and “the impending Ice Age” and of course, today’s “Globaloney Warming” and just how seamlessly their indentured servants embraced such nonsense..

Liberal “logic” primer: If you wait around long enough, your prognostications will come closer to coming true, but then again, with the left, the “truth” and their proximity to it isn’t important.. Sometimes the left themselves forget that the element of truth isn’t necessary when it comes to promoting their propaganda. What is of the utmost importance is simply the number of times that the “impartial” media repeats the gibberish.. The liberal base is easily programmable so the “Pavlovian” bell ringing of the “impartial” media does ALL of the heavy lifting for them.. The “burden of proof” isn’t applicable within the world of liberal politics, so why not let out all of the stops?

The left ALWAYS gets into trouble when they try to deal with “timetables” and as well, they fall into Dutch when attempting to infuse specifics into their sophistry.. If the left would just say that there is a “crisis” with “Globaloney Warming”, blame the “crisis” upon capitalism and leave it at that, they would have less trouble. When they take their hilarity to the point of claiming that it will happen within a certain timeframe, they find themselves having to “pivot” to something more vague like “climate change” or “institutional racism”.. Then again, the use of a “timetable” enhances the effect and impact of the “crisis”.. Hoist upon their own progressive petard, I suppose..

Then again, it might not have been “anxiousness” that caused the liberals to toss out the dual “blame strategies” of the Republicans and so soon thereafter to then “blame” Congress.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Why the progressives must be purged from government in 2012 …

by Stephen Levine on Thursday, March 17th, 2011

This is article 24 of 196 in the topic Liberalism

I have been thinking more and more about the political craziness in Wisconsin, California, Arizona and elsewhere in the United States. And my conclusions are simple and rather startling.

The progressives are at the root of most of the social and economic chaos in the United States. Even while pointing a finger at the opposition, it takes very little effort to see that the progressives are attempting to use our own laws against us, miring us in an ever-expanding world of artificial complexity that criminalizes or prohibits many of our day-to-day activities.

The reason for this continuing antagonism against business is relatively simple. It is based on the premise that the bounty of the Earth, like the amount of money contained within the financial system is limited and that we have already stretched the system as far as possible – creating an ecological deficit by consuming more of the planet’s resources than can be replenished and creating a continually expanding deficit that can never be repaid.

That these deficits have risen to such a level as to require intervention of a strongly motivated and empowered ruling elite to set us on the course of repairing the damage to the planet and our financial system.

That the government and the media must create a sense of urgency that will allow the ruling elite to assume power over us without provoking a civil insurrection by people who believe that individualism trumps the type of collectivism that is found in European-style socialism.

And the way progressives plan to achieve this power is twofold: one, to create an entitlement class whose growing numbers will allow for the ruling class to cite “majority rule” when taking action; and two, to silence any form of dissent by limiting access to free speech or criminalizing such speech as being “subversive.”

Based on a false premise …

When examined carefully, the entire premise behind the progressive’s plan is not just flawed, it is patently false.

Nature’s biodiversity and ability for adaptation is ill-understood by even those who proclaim to know the subject matter best. Most experts function only in narrow fields of expertise and combining their findings into a single hypothesis does not make the hypothesis correct. Especially if the findings exist only in computer models which confuse correlation and appearance with causation. Because of the vastness of the planet, there is little or no probability that we have come anywhere near to exhausting our natural resources or that science and technology cannot assist us in creating alternatives.

Consider, at this point in time and with all the learned experts, that we do not know how oil is actually made. Compressed products of decaying plants and animals is only a hypothesis and nobody knows how nature performs the trick of cross-linking molecules into petroleum products. And even if our natural oil supply was finite and nearing exhaustion, one merely needs to consider the boundless nature of radioactivity and the ability to generate unlimited energy using nuclear sources.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin