STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Why People Don’t Believe in Science
By Daily Bell Staff - May 18, 2016

In November the magazine published an issue devoted to climate change. Susan Goldberg, editor since 2015, says that afterward she received a congratulatory note from [Rupert] Murdoch, saying he’d “gathered his family around” to read through the important issue. She says he’s made only one editorial suggestion to her. “James is an environmentalist,” Goldberg says. “He said, ‘I wish we could do more stories about why people don’t believe science.’ ” –Bloomberg

So the new head of Fox, James Murdoch, wants to find out why people “don’t believe in science.” (See above excerpt.) We can help him.

Climate change, gravitational physics and vaccines have all come under intense attacks in the 21st based on easily available ‘Net information.

Falsehoods have been established and promoted: That’s the real reason.

People’s energy-use, for instance, has to be supervised because of global warming. Yet for every “fact” regarding global warming, there is another one that contradicts it.

People’s health habits have to be tracked by public entities to ensure that they receive the correct vaccines. Yet it has become clear over time that vaccine proponents are covering up studies showing vaccines cause autism and other life-injuring conditions.

And certainly human insignificance has to be impressed upon people through the preaching of gravitational physics. Yet Nikola Tesla’s electrical version of the universe seems in many ways a good deal more persuasive than Einstein’s gravitational one.

James Murdoch’s question actually mirrors a statement by Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s CEO who sat down in April with CNN for a wide-ranging interview.

“The thing that drives [me] a little bit nuts, and is the frustrating piece in this, is it’s such a polarized debate and I don’t think it should be,” Grant said.

Hm-mm.

Maybe because Monsanto’s Glyphosate, the cancer-linked herbicide that is an essential component in the expansion of GMO crops, is already being banned around the world over safety concerns.

And the Internet has exposed that.

In the short-term, Murdoch’s strategy for National Geographic will probably work well.

His video-version of National Geographic is “blowing up” into a big deal as it merges HBO-style production values with new and improved editorial fare.

More from Bloomberg:

[National Geographic’s] development slate is brimming with boldface names. Alex Gibney is producing a miniseries about the global water crisis. Brett Morgen is making a biopic of Jane Goodall. Scott Rudin is developing a series about the events leading up to the nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl.

But in the long-term informational trends may militate against it because Murdoch’s programming approach is “more of the same.”

We can see clearly that he accepts the shibboleths of modern science and its scarcity propaganda.

The programming mentioned in the Bloomberg article is focused on the weary warnings of modern science. The underlying idea is that humanity is running out of the basics – food, water and energy.

The corollary to this increasing scarcity is the advance of increasingly international facilities operated by the UN that will provide the appropriate bureaucratic antidotes to man-made scarcity.

In fact, free-market competition is the solution.

This is one reason free-market disciplines like Austrian economics were apparently suppressed prior to their break out on the Internet.

The world’s economic system itself is infected with faux-science justifications. Central banking is nothing but price-fixing and as such is extremely injurious to society.

But around the world in mainstream media, academic and business environments, it remains difficult to find anyone who will fully explain just how destructive central bank procedures really are.

Times are changing however.

Through the Internet people are now exposed to a variety of opinions and are able to get direct access to facts themselves. They no longer have to accept the single narrative approved by the scientific elite.

Many intelligent people now believe that science is growing increasingly untrustworthy.

So as the issues of vaccines, global warming and gravitational physics are being challenged, much else can similarly be questioned.

For instance, there are increasing reports that many of the ancient dinosaurs and other creatures promoted in movies and the mainstream media may be made up.

Dinosaurs only began to be discovered around the time that Charles Darwin was proposing his controversial theory of evolution. Is it possible that much of the dinosaur evidence was manufactured to support Darwin’s theory?

Today there are entire companies specializing in supplying “dinosaur bones” to museums. One of the biggest, reportedly, is in China.

Since museums never exhibit the actual bones, only plaster casts, it is impossible to know what is real and what may be fake.

Perhaps some of the more dramatic dinosaur finds are supposed to distract us from the vast emptiness of human history that occurs past the neolithic.

The Internet crackles with information about a 10.000 year-old civilization that may have existed around the world. But none of the speculation or potential archaeological discoveries even seem noted by mainstream science.

One can of course propose that the authorities making various technological claims are trustworthy. But the trouble is that the ‘Net in particular has revealed an opposite trend.

In the US, supposedly only six percent of those surveyed believe that the media can be “trusted.”

When even the most authoritative claims are fact-checked, it turns out questions arise. At the same time, “far out” theories seem to be gathering credibility, at least for some.

Conclusion: Much of modern science has come under scrutiny thanks to the Internet. And portions have been subject to serious debunking. It is likely this will continue and strengthen – with all its attendant ramifications. Over time, even James Murdoch may begin to understand why “people don’t believe in science.”

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • John R Hanson

    This is real easy. I hope he doesn’t spend too much money on this question. Science is no longer believed because scientist have been caught lying over and over again. In order for Science to come to a conclusion there are certain protocols that have to be met. For example, mankinds influence on Global Warming. Science has never followed any established protocol to make this assertion. People don’t know who to believe any more. Take the Science Guy Bill Nye. Is he a real scientist? Does he even have a degree in any field of science? People are tired of being lied to by people of his ilk. Again if we know that global warming exists and we also know there is a eddy containing millions of tons of plastic in the middle of the Pacific Ocean why hasn’t the United Nations spent some of the billions of dollars they’ve collected for global warming to clean up the mess. Why haven’t we forced the plastic’s industry to reformulate plastic to make it bio-degradable? Why are we telling school kids that paper bags are NOT a renewable resource when all the wood in a paper bag is from trees grown just for that purpose. More lies upon lies and now what do you get? You quit listening to these idiots and start calling even valuable science “JUNK SCIENCE.”

  • michaelrivero

    You are not supposed to “believe” in science.

    • Bruce C.

      Good point, but it depends how you define “science”. If science today is inextricably linked to politics then you have to separate that from the scientific method.

    • Praetor

      Excellent!!!

    • Mr. Rivero is the founder of WhatReallyHappened.com

    • That’s also why fervent belief in science seems like a religion. It takes faith to believe as many do.

  • Bruce C.

    Good article, DB. (So are your others but I sometimes forget to congratulate you.)

    Anyway, another aspect of this subject is that an ever increasing number of people are “educated” or have been educated, which by that I mean they have learned how knowledge is acquired and how the scientific method works.

    For example, any graduate student (especially doctoral candidates) in the “hard sciences” have direct experience with obtaining data and analyzing it and drawing conclusions. They learn brutally how difficult it is and how much error there is. Even bachelor level meteorologists know how laughable it is to talk about temperature and temperature changes on the earth, so to them “climate change” is a joke. Furthermore, almost all grad students in the sciences have to use statistics to analyze their data and so they understand how imprecise that is. The point being that everyone educated in science knows how dicey scientific knowledge and predictions are, so they are naturally very wary of knowledge and conclusions declared with certainty, especially when doing so has such vast consequences.

    • Centurian

      The entire point of science (I was trained in chemistry, geology and medicine) is that nothing is ever certain and that everything must be questioned. Real science is never “settled” and cannot ever be final. It is all dealing with working hypotheses that cannot be really proved or disproved. They can only be shown to be our best educated guess. Nearly everything we scientifically knew about medicine 100 years ago has been superseded with new ideas. In some cases the old ways may have been better. In a lot of others, we have done better since. Did you know that there has never been a double blinded, placebo, controlled and peer reviewed paper that establishes that aspirin can help pain? Yet if you have a headache, does it help? Science is and should be an exploration of the world, not a basis for regulation.

    • Thanks.

    • WalkingHorse

      Precisely. One may usefully think of the scientific method as an active filter designed to identify and tag bright ideas that turn out to be nonsense. Most of what comes into the heads of human beings is crap, and science is one way to inhibit the spread of falsehoods that humans might act upon. Those ideas left standing at any point in time, even if they might be useful, have only provisional credibility that is utterly destroyed should a counterexample come to light at any moment. What some refer to as “scientific facts” are always subject to refutation.

  • mike

    I certainly believe in evolution. Around the time of Darwin the technology and had advanced sufficiently to enable scientists to be able to recognize dinosaurs as such.

    • Brosky

      Don’t. It’s a giant, deadly cult based on lies.

  • autonomous

    “Over time, even James Murdoch may begin to understand why ‘people don’t believe in science.'”
    Don’t hold your breath. For most of the last six thousand years, most people were convinced that God created the universe. Science, so-called, has been convinced tor the past five or six centuries that nature accounts for itself. For the past one hundred years, science has had the same stranglehold on schooling as religion held before. It may well be that science’s stranglehold will last as long as religion’s.
    It is at least as vicious as religion’s was, at least as militant, at least as impervious to reason’s. Naziism, communism and humanism have combined in the murder of hundreds of millions people in just over a century, and are poised to murder the rest of humanity in the next. Until recently, it was common to speculate that science would take us to limitless heights, now it appears more likely that it will take us to the brink of extinction. Hope and change has brought us to hopelessness. Suicide is on a trajectory to overtake murder.

  • Praetor

    How can anything that is based on lies, Theories, suppositions, maybes and could be, have an credibility. The more there are new discoveries, the more it shows they no nothing!!!

  • David Mowers

    Science based on the profit motive can only lead to tyranny.

    • Brosky

      Science based on the government motive can only lead to tyranny.

      • David Mowers

        Checks and balances, checks and balances…

  • dsaulw

    In school, we are taught about the Scopes monkey trial and how it was a great victory for science in the education system, against the dark forces of religion and superstition.

    I bring this up not to debate the merit (or lack thereof) of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. But this Progressive Era event turns out to be an important one in shaping our national consciousness. It set in motion the idea that government can and should determine what is or is not true in the scientific realm.

    So we should not be surprised today when we have global warming, vaccines, HIV, etc. declared as settled science and skeptics of these stories trashed as ignoramuses and dangerous people.

    The same Progressives who shudder at the thought that the Church might establish scientific dogma have no problem with corrupt government bureaucrats doing the exact same thing.

    • Jim Kluttz

      Yes. It is heartwarming though that after a hundred years or so of progressive public education some people are still skeptical. I think Mr. Murdoch’s problem is two-fold. First, most so-called “science” is funded by government (and therefore politicized); and, since many people don’t believe anything government says, “science” is painted with the same brush. Secondly and more specifically for Mr. Murdoch, anybody with a brain knows he gets large amounts of advertising from the drug companies and others of that ilk. Therefore, his entertainment and propaganda outlets are known not to be the least bit objective. Unsurprisingly then, some people don’t believe anything he presents as “science” either.

    • spdlf

      The Scopes Monkey Trial was entirely faked right? Its even admitted on Wiki.

      Google Miles Mathis Scopes Monkey Trial

  • alaska3636

    The discoveries from the application of the scientific method seem to have stalled since the advent of a professional class of scientists. Amateur scientists are the bedrock upon which all of our modern technology rests; but, seldom is it noted that these rogue individuals, self-funded, lacked most of the credentials needed to vie for the public funds that drives modern science.

    Unfortunately, there seems to be a serious issue of diminishing returns in public-funded endeavors. In science, the distorting effects of federal money seems to turn scientists into little more than priests of technocracy: looking into their cauldron and seeing whatever it is they think they are supposed to see. This effect appears to drive both the replication crisis and the explanation crisis: the inability to reproduce scientific results and the inability to explain discoveries outside the context of an accepted narrative.

    Indeed, one of the most glaring assumptions of archaeology is the precise date of the dawn of civilization, pegged at about 3000 B.C. Before this time, we are to believe that societies consisted primarily of hunter-gatherers. The dating of megalithic structures in Turkey at Gobekli Tepe at 9600BC and the controversial work of John Anthony West in dating the Sphinx and great pyramids in a similar time-frame, are not arguments that I have seen dealt with satisfactorily. Their work is lambasted as pseudo-science and their claims are never directly confronted.

    On the other end of the scale are compelling theories about geological catastrophism and the embedding of esoteric knowledge in ancient myths using strict reference points in advanced astronomy as elucidated by Santayana, the old MIT professor of history of science, and carried on by Graham Hancock in his recent series of books. Their work rests on an assumption that man and his advancement of civilization is much older than the standard 5000 year timeline. The arguments are compelling if you seek out the work and tap an intuitive logic that is missing from the currently, soulless framework and hubris of evolutionary gradualism.

    • Rich Faussette

      “Embedding esoteric knowledge in ancient myths” – it’s been done – they were doing it 2,500 years ago. You can understand the world and reconcile science and religion by reading Genesis from a Darwinian perspective:

      https://www.academia.edu/3257519/The_Book_of_Genesis_from_a_Darwinian_Perspective

      or understand why some human groups are smarter than others:

      https://www.academia.edu/9965748/The_Biblical_Significance_of_the_Sons_of_the_Gods_and_the_Daughters_of_Men

      Enjoy. Learn.

      • DonRL

        To read Genesis with a Darwinian perspective is to deny the obvious meaning of Genesis.
        “In the beginning God created” and “In the beginning there was matter and it evolved” are mutually exclusive.
        One cannot read Genesis which states clearly that there was a spiritual beginning when God specifically created all that is in six literal days (day and night, evening and morning, light and dark) and reconcile that with a materialistic, mindless, random billions of years evolutionary concept. They are truly incompatible! In trying to reconcile them one must be compromised. Usually it is Genesis that is compromised. You would have to deny the six days, God’s plan, intelligence in the design, even God himself and eventually all physical and moral laws and eventually any puposesince all is evolving. This has led to horrors like Hitler’s purging of all that he deemed to be hindering the evolution of the “master race”, not to mention racism and other absurdities.

        • Don Duncan

          Nothing happens by “random” in a metaphysical sense. “Random” is an epistemological word, referring to the speaker, who is ignorant of the cause. In other words, there are unknowns, but no unknowables.

          Framing evolution as “random” is creating a straw man case. It is saying there is no cause/effect working. That is impossible. It would be a metaphysical contradiction because it makes knowledge impossible, the if that were the case how could we have knowledge of it? We will always have incomplete knowledge because we are finite, but we can know what we know, or knowledge would not be possible.

          • DonRL

            Those who believe in evolution state that it is random. If it were random there would be no order in the universe. There would be no species or phyla, etc.
            For evolution to be random would be self defeating and so it is. Such materialistic supposition and imagine does not explain the origin of all that is.
            Only “In the Beginning God created… is a sufficient cause and the only rational origin.
            Without God there is no beginning, no matter, no anything.

  • Brosky

    I realized mainstream pseudo-science was a fraud when I finally woke up and saw through the lies of the evolution cult. Man did not “Evolve” from monkeys that came from slime that came from rocks. In fact the idea is totally ridiculous and unsupported by a shred of evidence. Once you realize that, you realize that the “Science” (TM) establishment is nothing but a giant expensive hoax in the service of lies and the father of lies.

    • James Clander

      Re – — Man did not “Evolve” from monkeys etc etc

      So – do you believe in fairy tales instead ?

      • Earn nest

        Science believes in miracles too, James. Are you angry at your faith being attacked just as Brosky is? We have faith that under the right conditions there are laws of nature that initiate life from energy and matter. to me that energy and matter even existing is miraculous. I also believe they are fundamentally the same thing.

        • DonRL

          To believe that man evolved from monkeys is to believe in fables! Evolution is the invented origins doctrine of those who have rejected God and consequently become materialists. Viz
          “In the beginning there was matter and it evolved”. This is the big lie and as you say a fairy tale?
          The Bible is true history as revealed by one who was there at the beginning. Evolution is supposition and assumptions of those who were not there and have a vested interest in maintaining their materialistic philosophy.
          To say that there is not God, which you must do if you believe in evolution, is to not be dealing with reality. Have you looked everywhere? Would you recognize God if you found Him? What if He is hiding and has evaded all you attempts to find Him? Have you even looked? Have you demanded He reveal Himself and since He has not you assume that He does not exist? Perhaps He does not bow to your demands. Perhaps He has sufficiently revealed Himself and you have not accepted His revelation and evidence. Would you then accept further evidence or revelation? You would not so why bother?
          You must change your mind give up your materialistic philosophy in which you try to make yourself your authority and accept His revelation and provision for you!

          • drtim

            I think the gnomes should take a closer look at religions and what a massive fraud they perpetuate.
            It is sad they won’t because apparently for some strange reason there are religious supporters on this site.
            The Daily Bell should at least recognize evolution as a scientific theory, the most accurate description of how life works.
            Sheer idiocy and naivety of the magic flying carpet and other fairy tales believers is truly amazing.

          • DonRL

            The real massive fraud is the materialistic philosophy of evolution which has no support in fact or real science. Those who think evolution is science are fooling themselves. They are trying to find a reason for the universe without God.
            Name calling and imaginary suppositions will not do. Believing in evolution without any supporting evidence is truly a fairy tale and it is amazing that anyone would believe it. Obviously you did not answer my questions about God because if you did you would be found out to not have any rational for you rejection of God.

          • Samarami

            Life is a scientific theory as far as that goes.

            I tend to look at funding. Who funds “religion”? (quotes intended and necessary) Who funds “science”? (quotes intended and necessary) What are the agenda of each individual lobby lurking within these two definitions, or classifications, that make quotes necessary???

            “Covert coercion” should definitely have earned a page in the “Daily Bell Glossary” (which was so abruptly terminated with nary an explanation — shortly before “DB Definitions” were also sacked).

            “Clandestine Lumping” should also have been honored.

            In academe, if one questions global warming (now “climate change” to divert attention from obvious “spin”), s/he is “lumped” into a specific camp of one or another pejorative designation. “Evolution” fits that category also.

            “Denier” is one of those descriptors that nicely accommodates this obfuscation. This collectivist boilerplate eliminates need for use of the steps of the scientific method.

            No questions necessary. None welcome.

            DB has done nice work over the years by opening dark corners to scrutiny. Sam

          • Thanks.

          • DonRL

            Obviously you did not answer my questions about God. If you would have you would discover the obvious fallacy in your thinking about God’s existence.
            I agree that religions perpetuate fraud. They all assume that one can receive some benefit from their god by doing some good works or performing some religious act. All these suppositions are fraudulent because not one can be blessed or saved by their own works.
            God sent Jesus to be the Savior for those who all mankind because we cannot save ourselves. Jesus accomplished for us what we cannot accomplish ourselves. We can be saved from the wrath to come by putting our faith in what Jesus has done for us.

          • Pilgrim

            Evolution is NOT a “scientific theory” for two reasons:
            A) “Scientific theory” is an oxymoron, the very word “science” refers to that body of facts proven to be factual by the scientific method. The scientific method is to test “theories” to demonstrate their factuality. Since evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method, it can never be called “science” . . . ever! It is an untestable theory that fails on every level of evidence.
            B) Evolution theory has been debunked:
            http://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Natural_Sciences_Know_Nothing_Of_Evolution.pdf

          • S Johnson

            You do know that the bible was written by men and not God… Right?

          • DonRL

            Did you know that God dictated the writing of it so that it is His word and not the word of men?

          • Don Duncan

            He would claim, as those men did, that “God” spoke thru them. However, this is a fallacious argument. To claim your words have the authority of “God” and therefore can’t be challenged is to hope the listener does not remember it is still a man-made claim, and can be challenged as such. Is “God” too weak to speak for “Himself” that “He” needs to always use men?

          • DonRL

            God did become a man, Jesus, and did speak for Himself. Many of those who heard Him believe Him but many did not.
            God has used many men to give His message to and told them to write it down and share it with others.
            Many have claimed they have God’s word but do not.
            The test is that if something is prophesied and such prophesies are always 100% correct then this is God’s word.
            The Bible is such and si 100% correct. Many prophecies of things to come 100’s and even 1000’s of years ahead which have come to pass exactly as prophesied.
            33 of those prophesies were fulfilled they day Jesus died and He fulfilled all the prophesies about His first coming. There are prophesies of His second coming yet to be fulfilled.
            There is sufficient proof in the creation and in God’s word the Bible to believe in God so that there is not excuse.

          • Don Duncan

            What is “sufficient proof” for you is not for others. For example the claim of the return after death was not unique to Christ, it was common to dozens of men claiming to be god, demigods, or prophets. Their followers testified as to their “return”. So, is Christ just one of many real life examples of resurrection? Or one of many frauds? His life story was similar to many previous ones also, Was He the only true storyteller, or were they all genuine, or none? Why believe just one common narrative? Why not all? There is nothing unique to Christ, except his name was used by more rulers, and they popularized His doctrines, modified to strengthen their rule. A thousand years hence Christianity may be just as obscure as Taoism or forgotten completely. Religions rise and fall into disuse, based on how useful they are for the rulers. When rulers no longer exist, we will probably see no religions either. These two superstitions will die together.

          • DonRL

            Creation is not sufficient proof “for me” it is God’s proof for all as the Bible says.
            Was there prophecies regarding others whose followers claimed they rose from the dead?
            Since sin causes death, death cannot be overcome except if sin is removed. Jesus died and took away sin so He could then rise from the dead. No one else has ever done this. Jesus Himself said He would rise from the dead after three days and HE did. I believe the preponderance of evidence. The Bible proven to be true and reliable by its histories, wisdom and prophecies is the basis of my beliefs. What is the basis of your belief, your own unproved, unreliable, unsubstantiated, vain imagination? I have a firm foundation on the rock of God’s word and is firm. Your foundation is on the sand and will not hold up.
            It is true that rulers have used religion to control their people because they have to administer the benefits of that religion and so keep people loyal and ignorant.
            Jesus, on the other hand, has provided eternal life which is sure and absolute to all who believe. When one has eternal life that is sure and absolute no one can keep them under their thumb because they are free from such control. Christianity, not being a religion, is not oppressive so cannot be used to oppress or control. No matter what, those who have life in Jesus are secure and cannot lose what they have in Him. Christianity has survived and even thrived under the most oppressive governments. Christianity has, for the most part, not been used by governments and cannot be unless it is corrupted by them for the very reason I have stated. Jesus said “If the Son makes you free you will be free indeed”. Rulers know this and so they suppress Christianity and try to replace it with their own oppressive religion.
            Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be delivered from vain imaginations by which you profess to be wise but have become unwise. God’s bridge for mankind to come to Him is still in tact and still available to you. Are you too busy building you own bridge you cannot see what God has done? Are you so invested in your bridge that your pride will not allow you to see or admit God’s way is better? There is a way that seem right to those who use their own imagination but the end thereof is death.

          • Don Duncan

            When you say “change your mind” and “give up…yourself your authority…”, you are asking people to not think for themselves but leave that to “His revelation”. My mind is my primary value. It is the source of my self confidence, self esteem, and worth.

            I have not been able to understand the concept of god since childhood (8) when I first started Sunday school. At 73, I find no meaning or benefit in superstition, quite the contrary.

          • DonRL

            I have said change your mind. You decided that you would not accept any God or authority over you. Since you decided that you can decide to change your opinion and suppositions. Without God you only have the value you place on your own mind. Your value is only in your mind so you have no intrinsic value. Your confidence is in your self and you are not willing to give up self confidence for confidence in God. Your esteem is in yourself and so have no esteem for God. Your worth is what you have assigned to yourself. Without God you are self centered and have nothing in reality only what you have decided in your own mind.
            To put ones faith and trust in God is to find ones self. You are not giving up your self you would be accepting God’s authority and his revelation in the areas where you by thinking cannot arrive at a conclusion. Knowledge comes by experience or revelation. You have rejected revelation and only have your experience. If someone tells you about something they have experienced and you accept what they have said then you also know about that experience, that is revelation. Have you ever accepted anything someone else has told you that you have not experienced? It is foolish to never accept anything but only what you have experienced rejecting all revelation. Did you go do school and were taught by someone who knew things you did not know? Did you accept anything they taught you?
            There is no meaning or benefit in superstition. Using only your own mind and accepting no revelation you can only have supposition and superstition. Without revelation you can only know what you have personally experienced and only suppose about what you have not experienced.
            You sound like a person who driving down a road encounters a bridge and says “I will not accept that, what ever it may be, I will build a bridge myself”. This would be psychotic.

          • Don Duncan

            “The belief in ‘authority’ which includes all belief in ‘government’ is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in ‘authority’ is the arch-enemy of humanity.” – Larken Rose, page 2 of “The Most Dangerous Superstition”.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Why People Don’t Believe in Science

          • DonRL

            Authority is a reality to not believe in it is to reject reality. Governmental authority is a reality. Governments tend to over step their authority this does not make them nonexistent, i only makes them wrong. Without authority there would be no justice and no deterrent for the criminal.
            Society would destroy itself as it did before Noah’s flood so God instituted Government with its foundation being capital punishment. See Genesis 9 Since Government is run by mostly Godless men who think they have the answers in themselves and they do not need God’s rules Government has become destructive. Law making becomes a never ending battle to plug the holes and try to put thing on the right road. Since God has been left out the right road has been left behind many years ago and we are hopelessly wandering around making more and more rules; let’s go this way. Oh no let’s go this way. God’s rules would put is back on the right road but there are those who continually think they are right and can fix the problems without God and that is the biggest problem.

          • Don Duncan

            I have said change your mind. You decided that you would not accept any God or authority over you. Since you decided that you can decide to change your opinion and suppositions.

            (Incomplete sentence)?

            Without God you only have the value you place on your own mind.

            True.

            Your value is only in your mind so you have no intrinsic value.

            If you mean no outside verification, no person telling me I’m correct, then I agree. I don’t need someone else to tell me what is valuable and what is not. Do you?

            Your confidence is in your self and you are not willing to give up self confidence for confidence in God.

            True.

            Your esteem is in yourself and so have no esteem for God.

            Your word “god” is incomprehensible to me. How can I “esteem your fantasy if you can’t define it without contradiction?

            Your worth is what you have assigned to yourself.

            True. I don’t ask others to tell me what I’m worth.

            Without God you are self centered and have nothing in reality only what you have decided in your own mind.

            Where else, what other location, should I “decide”? Why is my mind outside reality?

            To put ones faith and trust in God is to find ones self. You are not giving up your self you would be accepting God’s authority and his revelation in the areas where you by thinking cannot arrive at a conclusion.

            I have no such “areas”.

            Knowledge comes by experience or revelation. You have rejected revelation and only have your experience.

            If I ever heard a voice, I might seek professional help, but I don’t suffer from hallucination or delusion. I reject your claim of knowledge by revelation, which you admit is not something I experience, or can experience with you.

            If someone tells you about something they have experienced and you accept what they have said then you also know about that experience, that is revelation. Have you ever accepted anything someone else has told you that you have not experienced?

            Yes, based on the person and other circumstances, subject to change, but if the “something” is extraordinary, they need extraordinary proof, not just words.

            It is foolish to never accept anything but only what you have experienced rejecting all revelation.

            Why?

            Did you go do school and were taught by someone who knew things you did not know? Did you accept anything they taught you?

            Yes, and yes, subject to verification.

            There is no meaning or benefit in superstition.

            We agree.

            Using only your own mind and accepting no revelation you can only have supposition and superstition.

            My mind is all I have to know with, to suppose with. I don’t hear voices, but I have thoughts.

            Without revelation you can only know what you have personally experienced and only suppose about what you have not experienced.

            That’s all I need to acquire knowledge.

            You sound like a person who driving down a road encounters a bridge and say s “I will not accept that, what ever it may be, I will build a bridge myself”. This would be psychotic.

            WTF? Where did that come from?

          • DonRL

            Your answers are void of understanding.
            You think that all there is, is in you mind and nothing exists outside your mind. You are in error on this.
            You have made decisions to accept only what comes from your own experience thinking and not from any revelation from anyone else. God is not a fantasy simply because you have decided not to believe on Him and ignore the evidence of creation. God has revealed the fact that He is God by His creation. He has also revealed the power He has by what He has created.
            Why don’t you make and honest inquiry to see whether God is. Such as, “God if you are there I truly want to know, so would you make me to know that you are?” You can do this without any admission as to whether God exists or not.
            By the way, my sentence is not incomplete. You have made decisions by only accepting certain facts, you can reevaluate and make new decisions if you will. Do you think that you are always right in every thing so you do not have to verify anything? Do you ever ask for any council from anyone? if not you are incredibly arrogant.
            Since you cannot comprehend the wisdom of receiving council and revelation you cannot be reasoned with and cannot have a rational conversation.
            The bridge is an example of something being provided and one who encounters the bridge rejects it and tries to make their own bridge. You have rejected God and his provisions and think you are sufficient to make you own way. You are not.
            Don’t you understand that if someone tells you about something that you have not personally experienced this is revelation and you can know about that thing without actually experiencing it yourself. If someone who lived years ago writes of their experiences, which you do not and cannot know from experience, you can know them because they have told you. This is revelation and is another way of knowing.
            Without God’s revelation about how this world and this life works you can only reason and imagination, and you conclusions from reasoning and imagination may or may not be correct. Do you ever read instructions on how to operate a piece of equipment or on how to assemble something you have never seen before. This is also revelation.
            God’s word the Bible is also revelation. It reveals that God is, which you have been unable to discover or comprehend with reason. You have clearly stated the truth of what I am saying. You cannot know God without His revelation and you have rejected His revelation so you do not know God and have not made an honest inquiry. If you had you would know.

      • Brosky

        No, I believe in evidence.

      • Samarami

        Ignoratio elenchi fallacy. http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/irrelev.htm

    • Christopher Snittle
  • I think observing doctors and the medical system has contributed to people “not believing in science”. When one sees that science fraud is actually marketing science, things look very different.

    • Randy

      Yes, when science is hijacked and used to further political or monetary ends, it gets a very bad reputation indeed. This is why logic and mathematics probably should be the only mandatory subjects taught in schools. Engineers don’t build buildings and bridges and other things out of straw bales only because they don’t like the looks of them, those are not good building materials. It is proven out by the results one gets.
      No one has to “believe” that 2 plus 2 equals 4, we can prove it is so quite easily. When some pseudo-science is used to control people, and tells them that 2 plus 2 can equal 5, if they want it to be the answer, it gives real science a big black eye.
      Modern day “economists” are no better than witch doctors with their voodoo incantations about markets rising or falling. They have no actual science to back up anything that they may say.

    • S Johnson

      Al Gore has a big part in science and scientists loosing cred.

  • hvaiallverden

    I belive in education, but not hammered into humans, but lett it evolve naturally, we arent like any one of us, non infact, and thank god for that.
    I was fortunate to have read thrue some tonns of books in various tems, and hehe sizes, to book about renecanse painters, and I even have the fasinating book called the Human De-evolution, an reality acording to Ancient Vedic texts, why arent this ancent texts more known.
    Weird isnt it, regarding its complexety and answers to a lott of what I belive in.

    Letts use an analogy.
    You are an quantum computer, living light, but to read the nett, the moment you where turned on, have Two seatch engines builded in its hard core, the living ligh, an duality, matter and energy/infromation, the easy to use, matter seatch engine is the first we learn, while we evolve from childhood to adult, the second program, is forgotten, or have slipped back into your own consiousness, alianated by your own belives and thinking.
    To acses that program, one need to gett ridd of the noice indused by the envirioment from where matter is dominant, to the reality where your energy/infromation is the dominant.
    Whether one goes to another universe entrily, or is captured into some feild, where several feilds are interwoven, and our mind have its “frequeny”, and our energy, its.
    I belive, there is an sertain amount of locked realitys interwoven into eatch other, go thrue the gate and the unverse chamges totally.
    Thats the Only explanation I have, I have done it my self, the location was somehwere else entrily, howering beside an large planet (you dont neeed to breeath, boys and girls, you are pure light/energy/info), from the to the bed, in an hartbeat, thats doe to the entanglement, between matter and energy/info.
    Capice.
    I meet nobody.

    But we arent alone, the universe is packed, keep that in mind, static entetys may have highly energetic souls, and so on, I have encountered them, but stopped it my self, 20 years ago.
    I almoust shit my pants, no joke.

    I call it the forth gate.
    I have meet them, and belive me, its shook me profoundly, and thats everything I needed to know, we have it all, we dont know how to use it, that is lost, just fragments left, some ancient texts but thats not anouf, we simply have litle to go on.
    And why drule about seltement when we dont even know what Consiousness is.
    Do enlighten me, what morphes matter to life.
    huh
    And for the helth. incl mentally, an Reefer a Day, keeps the Doctores abay.
    And do eat an aple to.

    peace

    • Earn nest

      Everyone needs the three r’s but I believe we’d be better served by making education available more to those desiring it than those just receiving a forced indoctrination. I believe young minds need best to follow their own interests.

      • Randy

        EXACTLY!!! People learn easiest and fastest when they are pursuing knowledge and skills that THEY want to learn because they find them to be interesting and fun! Learning is best done, and is most exciting, when it is a game that we can win at. When the whips and chains and rulers are brought out to beat an education into someone, very few good products result. You just get a bunch of automatons, drones for a society. Creativity suffers, and the society degrades into oblivion once more. Just look around you now, need I say more?

        • Don Duncan

          You just made an argument for (implied) a paradigm shift in education. It was the firm belief of my mentor in 1957 when I was 15 that no knowledge/skills should be taught in the early years. Harvey Hiddleston believed children should be taught to think, then allowed to chose how, when, where to apply their cognitive tools. He was 74. At 73, I have no doubt he was correct.

    • ExpatRiot

      my God! I have NEVER seen such atrocious spelling in my life!

      • S Johnson

        Give him a break. Probably typed on a cell phone.

  • DrGod

    As a geologist I have found dinosaur fossils. I have found close to have a whole skeleton as we excavated in a remote part of Alberta for an oil well pad.

    I guess they were planted. But Anythony Wile was accused of a massive pump and dump of a gold stock that found none of the gold he sold his clients on.

    I guess that was a conspiracy against him. Or maybe someone with history of making stuff up continues to do so…

    https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2007/lr20407.htm

    I guarantee I am banned from posting here with in a day.

  • Henry Balfour

    Anything, I mean ANYTHING, that comes out of the mouth of a Monsanto executive makes me back up and reach for my revolver.

  • Earn nest

    Journalism isn’t actually science as the climate change dealers would have us believe. It doesn’t actually require absolute honesty either as does scientific investigation.

  • Joseph Scanlon

    Love is, like, the only true thing. Even hate (which comes in a close second for me) is based on my biased view of limited experiences with a “total dickhead”. I don’t have the faintest glimpse of the suffering of the person I hate. I’m pretty certain of the love I have for my children, though. The rest is just good for teh lulz.

  • Wow! You guys have the most fascinating theories I have ever read

    I don’t even know what to say beyond that

  • MetaCynic

    Science and history are by their natures big businesses of a rarefied sort from which many people draw paychecks and are awarded perks and recognition by their peers for contributions to an established body of knowledge. Just as in the everyday business world where the players compete to make sales and grow market share, scientists and historians hate competition. It’s only human. Where competition exists so does the possibility of loss of income and status, and no one wants to lose these things.

    Unlike the often emotion driven world of everyday business transactions where closing the deal is all that counts regardless of the parties’ reasons for doing so, science and history deal with knowledge whose protectors claim to have timeless truth on its side. Its players want us to believe that they are dispassionate and objective people driven by the search for truth. In the everyday business world, newcomers can swoop in, manipulate fickle customers’ feelings and quickly take away market share from established players. The losers are not happy, but everyone recognizes that such outcomes are possible in emotion driven consumer markets.

    Science and history are not supposed to be emotion driven, but they are controlled by emotional humans who don’t want to have their hard earned reputations overturned and their turf stomped on by newcomers. So the established keepers of knowledge will do whatever it takes to keep out competing ideas even if they know that the knowledge they are protecting is deeply flawed. Where do professors and researchers go if their life’s work has been discredited by new knowledge? The mere thought of this is too painful for them to contemplate!

    Maybe this is what we are now witnessing in the science and history worlds. Paradigm shifts generated by the internet are putting pressure on the gatekeepers of orthodoxy to turn to government to use force to preserve their paychecks and status. As always it’s about money. The ordinary public recognizes this and is withdrawing its respect.

  • Curious_J

    “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet” — Abraham Lincoln

  • Don Duncan

    Science, the systematic collection, organization, and thereby understanding of the material world is doing what humanity has done from the beginning, however, not so haphazardly. It was a giant leap forward by Aristotle. It gave us technology and material wealth. Without it, we would be still be stuck on this rock when the sun went nova.

    Religion gives us ethics and a social system based on authoritarianism/hierarchy.

    Philosophy took over religion by applying a more rational approach to the same questions. It was successful with metaphysics and epistemology, but until the 20th century failed to improve on a flawed ethics of religion. That changed with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Building on Aristotle she gave us a new ethical system based on our biological nature as humans. She freed us from an arbitrary, irrational, contradictory ethical system based on “commandments”. She did it by questioning instead of having faith.

    We can follow her example by questioning scientific theories, adjusting them as dictated by experimentation, not politics. Politics is special interest oft corrupted by fraud for short time gain at the expense of truth.

    Religion is not just another way of discovering reality, it is the opposite of science. It relies on authority, and is therefore corrupted by faith, by unquestioning belief. It can’t be trusted because it can’t be modified by facts. It serves the few, at the expense of the many, just as govt. benefits an elite by parasitism.

    • Rich Faussette

      Religion is not the opposite of science. The parasitic collective elite rules through religion which is wholly based on science, but unfortunately, religion has two modes of expression – the esoteric and the exoteric. The esoteric is the explanation for the elite which you inadvertently invalidate with your comments. The exoteric is the meaning for the masses which you critique. The exoteric explanation for the masses is not based on science, because the masses are superstitious and need more accessible methods of apprehension.
      Here are 3 examples of the science in the religion:

      https://www.academia.edu/3257519/The_Book_of_Genesis_from_a_Darwinian_Perspective

      https://www.academia.edu/9965748/The_Biblical_Significance_of_the_Sons_of_the_Gods_and_the_Daughters_of_Men

      https://www.academia.edu/7658814/Niche_Theory_Population_Transfer_and_the_Origin_of_the_Anti-Semitic_Cycle

      • Don Duncan

        We agree that superstition is the norm. We don’t agree that it is needed for accessing knowledge. I gave my explanation for why that won’t work. You didn’t explain where I erred. You gave me links, all of which I read. I am not a biblical scholar and found the references to hidden science incomprehensible.

        But the details are not important. I was not clear. My bad. My contention is that no knowledge is certain unless a person works it out in their own mind. Taking someone’s word is risky at best, but may be based on past experience that the speaker has always been correct, is a scholar, or expert on the subject, and is honest. If that is the case, no violence, threat thereof, or fraud is needed to impart knowledge. Only those who exploit revert to such tactics.

        The superstitious hold many beliefs for which they know not the origin. They may believe because they are intellectually lazy, or go along with the majority as a bad habit. They may have decided at an early age that curiosity is trouble, being punished for asking questions. Conditioned to obey, they look to others to advise on everything. This distain for using their mind is unnatural. It is not how one is born, as infants universally demonstrate.

        When I was 8 I first encountered the concept of god. I found it hard to believe, as I had the concept of Santa at 4. I had not believed my parents told me the truth, and investigated until I was certain I had the truth. I stayed up and late and caught them putting the presents out. When I asked if god was real, I was told I should make up my own mind, because this issue was extremely important, too much so to take anyone else’s word for it. My parents respected me, and told me they would tell me their view after I had formed mine. I was taken to Sunday school where I was taught Genesis. I only got one side of the god question, so you might expect I would become a believer. Wrong. I found it preposterous, just I had Santa & the Tooth Fairy. Only this time it took 3 months of pondering. It was a big question and I sensed the gravity so I took my time thinking all day sometimes. When I reached my conclusion, I no longer needed to know my parent’s opinion. I was firm. It was settled. I found the bible entertaining, and I enjoyed the stories, but the concept of god as my creditor, an entity who I owed my life, my allegiance, my obedience, was extremely offensive. I wanted to live life on my terms, making my way as I determined by myself, not following another’s commandants, under threat of eternal torture, even if I could get eternal bliss for obeying. It was not worth selling myself, my own mind’s judgement, nothing was. At 73 I have never doubted my decision to keep my sovereignty. I can’t imagine any other way to live because my life is too precious to forfeit.

        • Rich Faussette

          Don wrote:
          “We agree that superstition is the norm. We don’t agree that it is needed for accessing knowledge. I gave my explanation for why that won’t work.
          You didn’t explain where I erred. You gave me links, all of which I read. I am not a biblical scholar and found the references to hidden science incomprehensible.”

          Rich wrote:
          Religion is not the opposite of science. That’s where you erred. You then proceeded to invalidate your own remarks. You said: “I am not a Biblical scholar and found the references to hidden science incomprehensible.”

          But your contention is that “no knowledge is certain unless a person works it out in their own mind.”

          So then your knowledge is not certain is it? Your objectivism fails when you can’t understand the things right in front of you. So, you’re not superstitious and you don’t have certain knowledge because that’s incomprehensible for you, but I took the same path you did. I didn’t believe that what I was being taught was true. Instead of believing that Darwin and religion were at odds, I worked it out in my own mind, but you look at it for a few minutes and determine it is incomprehensible. So, where is your argument?

          Here’s mine. It is impossible for men to engage in a suite of behaviors and beliefs for thousands of years without their being adaptive aka scientific.

          As for superstition, it doesn’t have to work. I never said superstition was necessary for accessing knowledge. It just has to generate fear. That’s how you get the masses of people behaving correctly at the same time the truth of what they’re doing is incomprehensible for them.

          https://www.academia.edu/3257519/The_Book_of_Genesis_from_a_Darwinian_Perspective

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.