Daily Wire's Michael Knowles: “Science is mostly fake” - “The [scientific] endeavor, that reality is fundamentally physical ... is flawed"

[essentialsaltes]

But then there is the even deeper level that I haven't heard a lot of people acknowledge, which is, this is yet another reminder that science is mostly fake. And not that scientism or the politicization of science or whatever other squishy language the more centrist, kind of, people want to grant. But the whole endeavor, the whole endeavor of the scientific revolution, the premise of which is that reality is fundamentally physical, that is flawed. It's not true.

He goes on to thumb his nose at a roomful of strawmen, while generally eroding the concept of objective truth.

 

[public hermit]

Who is this fella? My goodness, he blames everything on science except broken plumbing. Maybe he didn't think of that. He's blaming science for a metaphysical assumption, i.e., all reality is physical. You would think a Yale graduate (per wiki) could tell the difference, but that kind of nuance is probably lost on the audience to which he is pondering. That's deceptive and not a very good Catholic at that.

 

[Servus]

When it comes to talking about science these days, it's mostly about the science of an imminent man-made global climate catastrophe via prognostication models, and biology being completely redefined.

 

[essentialsaltes]

When it comes to talking about science these days, it's mostly about the science of an imminent man-made global climate catastrophe via prognostication models and biology being completely redefined.

So then, would you agree or disagree with the thesis of Knowles that science itself is a fundamentally flawed program for learning about the world around us?

 

[Servus]

So then, would you agree or disagree with the thesis of Knowles that science itself is a fundamentally flawed program for learning about the world around us?

I think most everyone agrees that science isn't perfect. Therefore the question isn't if science has flaws, but rather how extensive those flaws are and why they exist. To answer your question more directly, when it comes to certain newer branches of science, and older branches being newly redefined, I think there are indeed some fundamental flaws that should be corrected rather than continued.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who is this fella? My goodness, he blames everything on science except broken plumbing. Maybe he didn't think of that. He's blaming science for a metaphysical assumption, i.e., all reality is physical. You would think a Yale graduate (per wiki) could tell the difference, but that kind of nuance is probably lost on the audience to which he is pondering. That's deceptive and not a very good Catholic at that.

Who is he? A failed actor turned political commentator. So obviously* knows a lot about science.

*this is scarcasm.

 

[Servus]

How about attacking the position the person is maintaining rather than making ad hominem attacks on the person himself for a change?

 

[keith99]

How about attacking the position the person is maintaining rather than making ad hominem attacks on the person himself for a change

It seems his whole position is based on a falsehood. He claims science starts with saying everything is purely physical. That is an outright lie. Science is a process of testing to try to figure out how things work. That can lead to a position of science only being interested in the physical. Even that conclusion is flawed, as the scientific process can be applied to some non-[hysical areas.

But his conclusion is where it gets beyond strange. He asserts, without any evidence that it is patently obvious that there is more than the physical. Basically the flip side of the coin. Assuming either that there is or is not more than the physical world is a wild guess and he commits the same error that he falsely accused science of committing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How about attacking the position the person is maintaining rather than making ad hominem attacks on the person himself for a change?

He clearly has no idea what he is talking about. He has no experience. Etc. He opinion on the functioning and accuracy of science are worthless and when he speaks of things he knows nothing about he invites attack lest anyone think his opinion has any value in the slightest.

 

[juvenissun]

But then there is the even deeper level that I haven't heard a lot of people acknowledge, which is, this is yet another reminder that science is mostly fake. And not that scientism or the politicization of science or whatever other squishy language the more centrist, kind of, people want to grant. But the whole endeavor, the whole endeavor of the scientific revolution, the premise of which is that reality is fundamentally physical, that is flawed. It's not true.

He goes on to thumb his nose at a roomful of strawmen, while generally eroding the concept of objective truth.

The value of science is to know useful information which logic methods can or can not give, and valuable information which only illogic inspiration can give.

To focus on the true or false information given by science is aiming at a wrong target.

 

[Ophiolite]

How about attacking the position the person is maintaining rather than making ad hominem attacks on the person himself for a change?

The education and experience of the individal making any statement are relevant to their competence in the field the statement references. Pointing out a weak and irrelavant background is not an ad hominen attack. Suggesting his comments should be disregarded because he had red hair, or bad breath would be ad hominen.

 

[Servus]

The education and experience of the individal making any statement are relevant to their competence in the field the statement references. Pointing out a weak and irrelavant background is not an ad hominen attack. Suggesting his comments should be disregarded because he had red hair, or bad breath would be ad hominen.

What specific background is required for or excludes someone from being a commentator? If there is none, then it's irrelevant.

 

[Frank Robert]

When it comes to talking about science these days, it's mostly about the science of an imminent man-made global climate catastrophe via prognostication models, and biology being completely redefined.

It is not an imminent man-made catastrophe it is a present and ongoing catastrophe. Last year 62,000 people in the EU died from record breaking heat and this summers heat, worldwide, is breaking all records.

 

[Ophiolite]

What specific background is required for or excludes someone from being a commentator? If there is none, then it's irrelevant.

Nothing excludes someone from being a commentator. However, if they wish to have their comments valued by their readers and listeners it behoves them to have a background in what they are commenting on. The more critical they are of the current consensus view the greater the requirement that their background be sound and extensive. (It's fine to think outside the box, but only if you have an intimate knowledge of the box.)

For example, I am happy to remarl that Ons Jabeur, who will contest the Ladies Wimbledon Championship tomorrow, is a skilled player well deserving of her current ranking. My experience as a tennis fan is sufficient to make that call. However, if I go on to assert that her cross court backhand is the best in the game then it would be reasonable to ask what is the full extent of my tennis experience. Not that extensive. That's why I don't publicly make that assertion though I sometimes think to myself that it may be true.

 

[Servus]

It is not an imminent man-made catastrophe it is a present and ongoing catastrophe. Last year 62,000 people in the EU died from record breaking heat and this summers heat, worldwide, is breaking all records.

So now it's heat instead of covid.

 

[Ophiolite]

So now it's heat instead of covid.

It was heat when you brought it up in post #3. It was heat when covid struck. It will be heat when all the many other outbreaks of war and pestilence strike through the coming years. It is - presently - as far as an intelligent, diligent, hard-working, focused sub-set of humanity can see, the largest threat to humans and other life on this planet. You appear to disagree, or is the sound of a grinding axe coming from another source?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So now it's heat instead of covid.

On behalf of the scientific community, I apologize for troubling you with the trivial deaths of one million Americans.

 

[Frank Robert]

So now it's heat instead of covid.

You hit the nail on the head. Both are/were unnecessary tragedies due to political bungling, uneducated public, conspiracy theories and led by the richest country in the world.

 

[Servus]

You hit the nail on the head. Both are/were unnecessary tragedies due to political bungling, uneducated public, conspiracy theories and led by the richest country in the world.


View attachment 333300

The darkest ones are the hottest places in the country with July and August temperatures averaging 105 F. I've lived and traveled in most of those areas going back nearly 45 years. There's nothing unusual about it.

 

[Servus]

On behalf of the scientific community, I apologize for troubling you with the trivial deaths of one million Americans.

The leading causes of death in the US are:

1. Heart disease
2. Cancer
3. Unintentional injuries
4. Chronic lower respiratory disease
5. Stroke and cerebrovascular diseases
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Kidney disease
10. Suicide

Most of the people who died of covid had one or more of those diseases and were elderly.