Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Aristotle’s physics and naturalism dominated ‘Western’ philosophy and science for some 1800 years. A millennium of Relativity philosophy and non-science has been upon us for a while, its roots dating back to Galileo. The apostle of the cheap tricks and magical imagery, that all must bow to, is of course Einstein or Einstotle, who merged maths with philosophy (Einstein + Aristotle).
But what if all these little wizards and the maths-philosopher Einstotle are wrong?
The problem statement: How could the Universe rotate around the Earth?
An impossibility declaims the bien pensant! Absurd declare the priests of physics and astronomy! Only a relic worshipping, toothless, shoeless, medieval peasant, who has never read Copernicus or Galileo believes that, bellows Professor Quack Quack!
But…what if this is indeed possible? Is there scientific justification for such a belief? Sadly, for the Relativists, there is plenty of justification for such a model. No one is ever taught such things of course. Philosophies, ‘consensus’, money, paradigms, political control, power, prestige, endless degrees and all that. More here
Sir Ein of the Stein, Lord of Relativity and all he surveyed, died in 1955, having accrued a mere U$14-15 million in net assets in today’s money. This is poverty you understand for the ‘greatest scientist evah’, who never invented a single mechanical device, never performed a single physical experiment, and whose theories have been destroyed more times than a nose-ring, needle pushing, anti-white-racist, purple-haired lesbian has howled at a MAGA hat. Einstein’s estate is however, by any considered calculation, about U$12 million too wealthy (see below).
What is never discussed is the Jewish Einstein’s very close relationship with the Jewish Rothschild family. Both were ardent Zionists and both were committed to Jewish intellectualism and ‘scientific’ achievement. Cue the cries of ‘racism’! A claim Einstein used himself to disarm his hundreds of critics in the 1920s.
When Neil Armstrong died in 2012, his estate was worth U$15 million or more. The actor-naut never worked, retiring after his famous film production. There is no evidence of great investments, speaking tours, or other largesse from work or paid engagements. Yet the massive estate was somehow concocted. A good saver. A prudent investor. His wife was very smart you know and invested in that fruit company Apple. Real estate appreciates with time the true-believer intones.
As with ‘The Einstein’, surely men so capable, intelligent, other-wordly, and even godlike can turn water, or even nothing, into green? Or perhaps Armstrong was paid by the CIA and NASA to shut up and stay quiet? So who financed ‘The Einstein’? More here
Fraud means ‘Science’. Or rather $cience and $cientism.
20 years ago John Ioannidis Published, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in PLoS Medicine (2005). It is still relevant, even if it understates the issues by half. Ioannidis highlighted problems which have only blossomed and flourished beyond all control in the last 2 decades:
Small sample sizes: Many studies purposely use very small sample sizes, which distorts the data and provides false positives (the skew theme).
Small effect sizes: Small sample sizes will produce ‘small effect sizes’, which indicates that they are unreliable and statistically invalid (the stats fraud theme).
Large numbers of tested relationships: When many hypotheses are tested, the likelihood of finding a spurious ‘significant’ result increases (the shallow-analysis and misdirection theme).
Flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes: This allows researchers to ‘p-hack’ or selectively report findings that meet statistical significance (the ‘confirmation bias’ and significance fraud theme).
Financial and other interests and prejudices: Conflicts of interest obviously distort and bias research outcomes. How many reports have you read which state the author(s) biases, worldviews and funding (the corruption theme) ?
Publish or die: In competitive fields, there's pressure to publish narrative supporting ‘studies’ quickly, which leads to fraudulent or flawed research (the race-to-the-bottom-theme).
All of the above saturate ‘The Science’. The priority is of course money. When you follow the funding, you will find the ‘science’, much of it fiction. More here