Views on Science/Scientists/Scientism (Split from Is the MCO Real?)

[Taomeow]

On 10/25/2025 at 2:27 PM, Mark Foote said:

... Regarding nutrition science:

 

a prostitute who puts out for every client willing to pay.

 

When margarine was invented, scores of 'nutrition scientists' were tasked with proving it's healthier than butter.  For one example, around the 1980s all recipes collections and cookbooks got rewritten with margarine replacing butter in them.  

 

The French didn't buy it.  But I do remember cooking with it in my younger years when I didn't know better.  Live and learn. 

 

I believe nutrition as a science hardly exists.  For starters it's too complex and mysterious -- the most magical transformation in existence, turning assorted not-you things into you, not-me into me...  sheer magic.  And to make matters worse, it pretends people didn't eat for a million years before sedentary agriculture, let alone before "nutritional science" -- and step very carefully around facts.  Trying not to stumble and fall into, e.g., those fire pits that Native American tribes used for 25,000 to 40,000 years in one place (tribes coming and going, the fire pit being used continuously).  They roasted their bison and buffalo whole in those.  No wonder nutritional scientists of today give it the widest berth -- imagine falling into something like this and all your margarine and cereals stuffed in your learned pockets going up in smoke in an instant...  

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

a prostitute who puts out for every client willing to pay.

 

When margarine was invented, scores of 'nutrition scientists' were tasked with proving it's healthier than butter.  For one example, around the 1980s all recipes collections and cookbooks got rewritten with margarine replacing butter in them.  

 

The French didn't buy it.  But I do remember cooking with it in my younger years when I didn't know better.  Live and learn. 

 

I believe nutrition as a science hardly exists.  For starters it's too complex and mysterious -- the most magical transformation in existence, turning assorted not-you things into you, not-me into me...  sheer magic.  And to make matters worse, it pretends people didn't eat for a million years before sedentary agriculture, let alone before "nutritional science" -- and step very carefully around facts.  Trying not to stumble and fall into, e.g., those fire pits that Native American tribes used for 25,000 to 40,000 years in one place (tribes coming and going, the fire pit being used continuously).  They roasted their bison and buffalo whole in those.  No wonder nutritional scientists of today give it the widest berth -- imagine falling into something like this and all your margarine and cereals stuffed in your learned pockets going up in smoke in an instant...  

 

 

''   And, forasmuch as meat and drink are transmuted in us daily into spiritual substance, I believe in the Miracle of the Mass. ''

 

https://sacred-texts.com/oto/lib15.htm

 

 

[Haribol]

[Apech]

On 10/22/2025 at 10:06 PM, Sanity Check said:

 

 

Eh.

 

In the year 2025, science is disappointing.

 

I think most would agree with me on this.

 

But to each their own.

 

There is a big problem in Theoretical Physics which is the heart of science's examination of the nature of reality.  When the heart dies so too does the head.  This lady seems to understand:

 

 

[Taomeow]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

There is a big problem in Theoretical Physics which is the heart of science's examination of the nature of reality.  When the heart dies so too does the head.  This lady seems to understand:

 

 

 

The first thing she offered as "a clear example of  pseudoscience" is "arguments from naturalness." 

 

Spoiler

They're all too far gone.  Critics and apologists alike.  I don't know why I listened to the rest of it after that blanket dismissal of naturalness as something unworthy of science's attention, awareness, interest, anything...  The takeaway -- she's bitching for the sake of bitching because that's what bitches do.  

 

[Nungali]

It looks like someone else has realized that  a lot of contemporary science 'theories' were made up so as to be able to 'solve'  difficult equations . 

 

' I know .... if I postulate 'multiple universes '   , the answer might lie 'out there somewhere' .  Meanwhile, any Charlie and his dog will be using 'multi universes ' as any lame excuse ( especially the mentally disturbed will like that one  ) . 

 

Anyway, good on her for 'coming out'  .....      Maybe there is another Universe exactly identical to this one , except you have a mustache in it  ..... now thats science !    

 

I wish she would talk more about the 'failure ' of super symmetry  ( and putting ' G' on the other side of the 'equation for everything ' ) .... ahhh, the good ol days when I could talk on here to Brain about that stuff . 

[Nungali]

8 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

The first thing she offered as "a clear example of  pseudoscience" is "arguments from naturalness." 

 

  Hide contents

They're all too far gone.  Critics and apologists alike.  I don't know why I listened to the rest of it after that blanket dismissal of naturalness as something unworthy of science's attention, awareness, interest, anything...  The takeaway -- she's bitching for the sake of bitching because that's what bitches do.  

 

 

I think 'naturalness' for us  is contained within 'size range '   When we get to the 'microscopic ' ( and beyond ) or the 'telescopic '  (  ie. astrophysics ..... the very small and the very large  .... things get 'bendy' ; just like they do with the VERY hot or very cold . ) 

 

- I think most will not care though .....  '' I got an electric scooter ! ''    

[Taomeow]

23 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

I think 'naturalness' for us  is contained within 'size range '   When we get to the 'microscopic ' ( and beyond ) or the 'telescopic '  (  ie. astrophysics ..... the very small and the very large  .... things get 'bendy' ; just like they do with the VERY hot or very cold . ) 

 

- I think most will not care though .....  '' I got an electric scooter ! ''    

 

It depends on who those "us" are.  Real science, if it existed*, would be based on a unified theory and nothing in the universe would be left out in the cold (however cold) or crash and burn encountering that phenomenon (however hot).  I don't just mean a unified theory physicists are pining for (those who care about physics among them, that is, rather than grants and tenures and publications).  I mean science as a whole -- where physicists and geologists, biologists and chemists, astronomers and linguists would have an underlying common ground, a common base whence to have a meaningful dialog, a meaningful set of shared fundamentals so they could actually communicate and -- unbelievable as it presently seems -- understand what it's about.  Understand it on the level of that unified view, unified theoretical premise they would all share. 

 

A science that would have that would be self-consistent across the spectrum of all human endeavors -- not self-contradictory, not weaponized against itself by having skipped that crucial initial step of harmonizing its countless branches by tracing them to a common root.  Funny thing is, technology would never be as all-powerful if this kind of science existed.  There would be deterrents built in...  

 

*It does.  It just takes a much longer, much more dedicated study, is not part of any current institution's curriculum, and has empirical outcomes not readily caught by currently accepted/available methods and models. 

 

Its time will either come or we're toast.  

 

53 minutes ago, Nungali said:

I everything ' ) .... ahhh, the good ol days when I could talk on here to Brain about that stuff . 

 

I miss him too.   

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

I think 'naturalness' for us  is contained within 'size range '   When we get to the 'microscopic ' ( and beyond ) or the 'telescopic '  (  ie. astrophysics ..... the very small and the very large  .... things get 'bendy' ; just like they do with the VERY hot or very cold . ) 

 

- I think most will not care though .....  '' I got an electric scooter ! ''    

 

 

Just for clarity:

 

"In physics, arguments from naturalness refer to a heuristic principle used to evaluate theoretical models, particularly in particle physics and quantum field theory. It suggests that a theory is more plausible or "natural" if its parameters (like masses, coupling constants, or energy scales) do not require extreme fine-tuning to match observations.

 

Core Idea : A theory is unnatural if it needs highly precise cancellations between unrelated parameters (often to many decimal places) to produce physically reasonable results. Conversely, a natural theory has parameters that are of similar magnitude (typically within a few orders of unity) without artificial adjustment."

[Taomeow]

38 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Just for clarity:

 

"In physics, arguments from naturalness refer to a heuristic principle used to evaluate theoretical models, particularly in particle physics and quantum field theory. It suggests that a theory is more plausible or "natural" if its parameters (like masses, coupling constants, or energy scales) do not require extreme fine-tuning to match observations.

 

Core Idea : A theory is unnatural if it needs highly precise cancellations between unrelated parameters (often to many decimal places) to produce physically reasonable results. Conversely, a natural theory has parameters that are of similar magnitude (typically within a few orders of unity) without artificial adjustment."

 

Thanks for clarifying.  

 

Looks like in physics "the argument from naturalness" also had (and we can only hope will have again) its champions who hardly meet the criteria for "a clear example of pseudoscience."  E.g., Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist regarded as one of the great ones, expressed this sentiment in a 1960s article titled "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature":

"A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data. God is a mathematician of a very high order..."  He often reiterated it in his lectures as, ""If a theory is not beautiful, it is probably wrong."

 

       

[Lairg]

It may be worth distinguishing public science from military-related science.

 

It seems the first human-made anti-gravity craft flew in Germany about 1927.

 

Meanwhile:

 

At this time, 12 kinds of exotic-technology human-constructed antigravity aircraft and spacecraft are known to exist, all incorporating extraterrestrially-derived antigravity or reduced-gravity technology. These 12 vehicles are: the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, the F-22 Raptor advanced stealth fighter, and its successor the F-35 Lightning II advanced stealth fighter; the Aurora spaceship; Lockheed-Martin’s X-33A saucer; the Lockheed X-22A two-man antigravity disc; Boeing and Airbus Industries’ Nautilus spaceship; the TR3-A Pumpkinseed craft; the TR3-B Triangle reduced-gravity craft; Northrop’s ‘Great Pumpkin’ disc; Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical’s XH-75D Shark antigravity helicopter; and the Northrop Quantum Teleportating Disc. 

 

https://www.ufodigest.com/article/12-kinds-of-antigravity-and-reduced-gravity-u-s-crafts/

 

Too hard?

 

 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

It depends on who those "us" are. 

 

Those that dont care because ......   '' I got an electric scooter !  ''  (not only that , its shaped like a ball !  ) 

 

 

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Real science, if it existed*, would be based on a unified theory and nothing in the universe would be left out in the cold (however cold) or crash and burn encountering that phenomenon (however hot).  I don't just mean a unified theory physicists are pining for (those who care about physics among them, that is, rather than grants and tenures and publications).  I mean science as a whole -- where physicists and geologists, biologists and chemists, astronomers and linguists would have an underlying common ground, a common base whence to have a meaningful dialog, a meaningful set of shared fundamentals so they could actually communicate and -- unbelievable as it presently seems -- understand what it's about.  Understand it on the level of that unified view, unified theoretical premise they would all share. 

 

So not just 'fitting ''G'  in  '' ?  

 

You know .... anthropology 'fits' all that in    ..... except for physics       ( without stretching things too far )  .

 

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

A science that would have that would be self-consistent across the spectrum of all human endeavors -- not self-contradictory, not weaponized against itself by having skipped that crucial initial step of harmonizing its countless branches by tracing them to a common root.  Funny thing is, technology would never be as all-powerful if this kind of science existed.  There would be deterrents built in...  

 

I can imagine if that 'science' existed  and it was anthropology, the deterrent  would be ; ' does this help humans to thrive healthily and holistically  ?   .... as a real anthropology would conclude things 'overall', not just the current , 'all ruling' , econo-rationalist , developmental expansionist bullshit, viewpoint .   

 

 

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

*It does.  It just takes a much longer, much more dedicated study, is not part of any current institution's curriculum, and has empirical outcomes not readily caught by currently accepted/available methods and models. 

 

Its time will either come or we're toast.  

 

I think the toaster might be turned on now . 

 

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

 

I miss him too.   

 

 

 

 

 

.... he was  not 'just a naughty boy ' 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Lairg said:

It may be worth distinguishing public science from military-related science.

 

It seems the first human-made anti-gravity craft flew in Germany about 1927.

 

Meanwhile:

 

At this time, 12 kinds of exotic-technology human-constructed antigravity aircraft and spacecraft are known to exist, all incorporating extraterrestrially-derived antigravity or reduced-gravity technology. These 12 vehicles are: the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, the F-22 Raptor advanced stealth fighter, and its successor the F-35 Lightning II advanced stealth fighter; the Aurora spaceship; Lockheed-Martin’s X-33A saucer; the Lockheed X-22A two-man antigravity disc; Boeing and Airbus Industries’ Nautilus spaceship; the TR3-A Pumpkinseed craft; the TR3-B Triangle reduced-gravity craft; Northrop’s ‘Great Pumpkin’ disc; Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical’s XH-75D Shark antigravity helicopter; and the Northrop Quantum Teleportating Disc. 

 

https://www.ufodigest.com/article/12-kinds-of-antigravity-and-reduced-gravity-u-s-crafts/

 

Too hard?

 

 

 

Yeah but them TR3-B Triangles  spew mercury and black gravity out their exhaust pipes !