The natural world exists with or without humanity’s interpretation of it. As observers, and users of symbols, it is easy to mistake ourselves for the creators and masters of what we are trying to explain.
And this from Michael Crichton
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Consensus is the business of politics….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
A lot of it comes down to hubris, we do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is. The way the world actually is, is an enormously complex interrelated organism.
To modify F.A. Hayek, “The curious task of (todays scientists) is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
With that "specialisation has made people stupid" point, it makes me think about what we know about 'Experts': they know more and more about less and less until they know everything about...nothing! :-D
Excellent post Robyn, refreshingly honest and mountains of food for thought. I shall be reading more from Steve Patterson. (Indeed the Earth is round, just not spherical)
Apr 30, 2023·edited Apr 30, 2023Liked by Robyn Chuter
Well said.
1. Israel, Hans, Ruckhaber, Erich, Weinmann, Rudolf (1931) "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." Apparently Einstein appropriately retorted — "to defeat relativity one does not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact." (se non è vero, è ben trovato.)
2. "We live in a technological dark age," (1972) Professor Gian-Carlo Rota during a dinner conversation.
Brilliant article, I will be looking at Patterson's work, thanks.
This is a quote from Heather Heying's substack
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/natures-prose
The natural world exists with or without humanity’s interpretation of it. As observers, and users of symbols, it is easy to mistake ourselves for the creators and masters of what we are trying to explain.
And this from Michael Crichton
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Consensus is the business of politics….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
A lot of it comes down to hubris, we do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is. The way the world actually is, is an enormously complex interrelated organism.
To modify F.A. Hayek, “The curious task of (todays scientists) is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
Anyway, we can be reassured that "experts" the ABC always quote on health matters would not be part of the dark ages :-)
With that "specialisation has made people stupid" point, it makes me think about what we know about 'Experts': they know more and more about less and less until they know everything about...nothing! :-D
Excellent post Robyn, refreshingly honest and mountains of food for thought. I shall be reading more from Steve Patterson. (Indeed the Earth is round, just not spherical)
JP explains how modern science works.
https://youtu.be/oFzDye5yGp0
Well said.
1. Israel, Hans, Ruckhaber, Erich, Weinmann, Rudolf (1931) "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." Apparently Einstein appropriately retorted — "to defeat relativity one does not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact." (se non è vero, è ben trovato.)
2. "We live in a technological dark age," (1972) Professor Gian-Carlo Rota during a dinner conversation.
the singular litmus test for holistic moral and intellectual integrity is naming or refusing to name those that shant be named... very, very simple
Excellent post Robyn! Looking forward to reading more from Steve Patterson. Loved it!
Hi Sadly we have been dumbed down for the last fifty years so much so that the majority of people do
not question anything.
The coming of Artificial intelligence will all but destroy thinking and we will enter a time whereby you will just use the internet.
Anthony C