I am reading again of Immanuel Velikovsky, this time of his public interactions with Carl Sagan, widely regarded as a go-to source in the field of astrophysics. I am reading a book by Charles Ginenthal, who apparently had low regard for Sagan. I have read much of Sagan’s popular work, and would not call him a fraud. However, he did not put actions behind his words, and that is Ginenthal’s complaint, as will be apparent below.
Ginenthal published Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky in 1995, and so knew of the transparency of the Sagan figure long before I even knew of Velikovsky. I take heart that Sagan, who died in 1996, must have known of Ginenthal’s work, published a year earlier. But of course, being Sagan, he would have smugly set it aside. (Ginenthal has also written Stephen J. Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky and Newton, Einstein and Velikovsky. Hallelujah! I’ve been dying for fresh reading material.)
What interests me most in the Velikovsky matter is how few people accessed him directly rather than via Sagan and others. We are dealing with the phenomenon of reliance on authority figures. It is understood that the general public runs to supposed experts to form opinions on everything from astrophysics to zoology*. The news of our day is littered with “experts” called to weigh in on every subject. Hardly any are truly expert, so that the regime of so-called experts is nothing more than another means by which the public is kept in a state of dark ignorance.
In the Velikovsky matter, Sagan took a front and center posture, and it wasn’t just the public that hid behind him. It was the scientific community as well. Velikovsky was viciously attacked by prominent people who had not read his work and would refuse to do so. But most relied on Sagan to put him in his place.
The Velikovsky figure has caught my attention not because of his work, most of which I have read. I am not qualified to pass on it, but I have also read those who are so qualified. The work has withstood a lot of criticisms over time and many of his theories have been shown to be reliable, such as the temperature, rotation, and surface features of Venus, and the fact that even today it has a comet’s tail, though it is not visible to us. Further, Earth and Venus appear to be tidally locked, that is, when they reach their closest points in their respective orbits, we always see the same face of Venus. That means, I am told, that they were once very close.
That is all above my pay grade, but I love the intrigue. The truth is that Velikovsky appeals to me because of his contrarian views. He’s my kind of guy. I don’t truck with the ‘go with the flow’ crowd, never have.
Looking back I now see that Carl Sagan was set up to be the voice of science, given wide public exposure via the means most often used to control the herd, television. His Cosmos series caught the public mind. The images and science of that series is so deeply ingrained now it is regarded as the ‘real’ science of our existence in space. This was the Great Sagan at his best.
That shows me that much of science is a confidence game. I have come to know and understand that Stephen Hawking, the real man, died in 1985, and was played for decades thereafter by actors. Why? At least in part it is because the Hawking name had a Snopes quality about it, a place where people would go for the “final answer.” (Snopes is fake too, I know.) When Stephen Hawking spoke, the world listened. They needed to keep that image alive, and so kept the man alive in our minds.
Here is a story that has been bugging me for some time now:
“At the end of the day, he drove me back to the bus station. The snow was falling harder. He wrote his phone number, his home phone number, on a scrap of paper. And he said, “If the bus can’t get through, call me. Spend the night at my home, with my family.”
I already knew I wanted to become a scientist, but that afternoon I learned from Carl the kind of person I wanted to become. He reached out to me and to countless others. Inspiring so many of us to study, teach, and do science. Science is a cooperative enterprise, spanning the generations.”
[Neil deGrasse] Tyson eventually went to Harvard for his undergrad, but he says: “To this day I have this duty to respond to students who are inquiring about the universe as a career path to respond to them in the way that Carl Sagan had responded to me.”
Tyson, with the help of Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow, has redone the Cosmos series, though I do not sense it has caught on like the original. He has also become the public voice and face of science. He proudly proclaims to all within shouting distance that “I am an astrophysicist.” Such bravado is, to me, off-putting. I wonder why he is so assertive about something that is well-known about him. Hmmm.
I have long wanted to delve into the deGrasse Tyson figure, as I suspect that like Sagan, he is more a public voice than a public mind. I don’t question that he has the education and credentials he is cited as having. That would be too cynical. I don’t doubt that, like Sagan, he has a high IQ. But the story told above about snow and a bus stop and Sagan inviting him to his home that night … reads like apocrypha. I don’t buy it. I don’t think it happened. I think it is merely a means by which DeGrasse Tyson supplanted the late Sagan as the public face of science, a connection dreamed up by writers to assist Tyson in stepping into Sagan’s shoes. It is a tale written as back story to give him credibility.
The following from a Quora thread by a fellow named Mark Eichenlaub, listed only as having studied at Johns Hopkins. Credentials aside, I loved his ability with prose.
“Tyson is a science popularizer, and one of the few good ones active today.
The main job of physics popularizers is the same as it is for any celebrity: get more famous. Most do this by finding increasingly mindfucky things to say that are just barely justifiable in modern physics, if you turn your head and squint hard enough. So you get sound bites from Brian Cox saying that when he moves some crystal around, all the electrons in the universe respond instantaneously and the whole universe is all one big connected web, or Lawrence Krauss telling us there’s definitely no God because the whole universe popped out of nothing, or Hawking declaring that philosophy is dead, or Michio Kaku saying that cyborg hypercube superhumans will mindmeld with topological aliens made out of dark energy Calabi-Yau manifolds (or whatever he’s talking about these days). Theoretician popularizers who refuse to go down this road (Steven Weinberg, Sean Carroll, Scott Aaronson, Kip Thorne) don’t seem to reach the same level of popularity.
Tyson finds his voice elsewhere. He’s effective at talking about science. He stays on top of astronomy and planetary science news, understands the fundamentals of physics and astrophysics, and is good at explaining them. However, his message is not primarily about the content of scientific discoveries. Instead, it’s rooted in science as a shared human endeavor. Tyson tells a story of cooperative discovery and exploration, like Sagan did. He recounts history (accuracy of Cosmos notwithstanding), talks about modern space exploration, and looks towards where we will go next. That tack separates Cosmos from the endless modern physics documentaries with the fundamental message “Shit be trippy, yo!”
I’ve taught astronomy to teenagers at a summer camp the last two summers, and they all knew and liked Tyson. He inspires children and young adults, advocates for science in society, and is a strong voice on the issues of equity and access for people from all backgrounds that science struggles with today, and will continue to struggle with for a long time. (see Neil deGrasse Tyson on stereotypes, societal expectations, and women and minorities in science). He’s grounded in a time when so few others are, and he makes it work.
I saw Tyson speak sometime when I was in college, maybe a decade ago. He wasn’t a household name at that point; I didn’t know who he was. It was only some time after he became one of the leading American science popularizers that I realized I had seen him speak.
At the time, I found his delivery offputting. He walked out from behind the podium during his talk, bent over at us with his hands on his knees, and practically shouted when he wanted to emphasize a word. The level and delivery of the talk didn’t fit the setting, but ultimately he was effective. I don’t remember what the precise event was, who any of the other speakers were, or what they said, but I remember Tyson. He said huge expensive projects like going to the moon or building the pyramids have always been driven by war, religion, or insane dictators. Since there’s no war right now, religion doesn’t want to go to Mars, and the US doesn’t allow insane dictators, we won’t be going to Mars. He was almost right, but what he didn’t see coming was Elon Musk privatizing insane dictatorship.
I don’t see much point in evaluating Tyson as a research scientist, although I understand it’s inevitable that physicists will do that. Physicists aren’t his audience. He doesn’t have Nobel-worthy technical chops or the sparkling creativity of Richard Feynman or George Gamow (or Randall Munroe, for that matter), but that’s not the role he’s trying to fill. He’s a public figurehead for astronomy and space exploration, and he’s doing it very well.”
In my view, considering that we have yet to reach the moon, talk of going to Mars is but another scam to loot the public treasury. Public scams need popular advocates. John F. Kennedy must have known in May of 1961, when he made his famous statement about putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, that he would by then be a fallen hero whose words would create enormous public support. He was part of the scam.
I digress, as always. Eichenlaub did not like the way Tyson presented in public, found him off-putting. I find him to be glib and easy and well-spoken. He has a sense of humor, and can own a room. This does not fit with my image of a scientist, as the nerdy Sagan did. He is more like a master of ceremonies cracking easy jokes between boring speeches.
Carl Sagan had remarkable skills in use of language. He was not funny, but he was skilled in wrapping words around ideas, polishing the science of his time and giving it credibility due to gravitas of his verbiage. Take, for example,
“Scientists, like other human beings, have their hopes and fears, their passions and dependencies – and their strong emotions may sometimes interrupt the course of clear thinking and sound practice … The history of science is full of cases where previously accepted theories and hypothesis have been entirely overthrown, to be replaced by new ideas that more adequately explain the data. While there is an understandable psychological inertia – usually lasting about one generation – such revolutions in scientific thought are widely accepted as a necessary and desirable element in scientific progress.” (Broca’s Brain, a quote I clipped from Ginenthal’s work.)
This is where I have the problem with Sagan – not that he was not an effective public salesman for science, not that he did not write and speak with eloquence. The question here is not the validity of his statement, which is dead-on. It is whether he lacked self-awareness, or was knowingly providing window dressing for his colleagues. In the Velikovsky matter he was the leading force in suppressing the new ideas, the revolution that is only now (and slowly) gaining more traction.
The problem with Sagan, and perhaps Tyson as well, is that in performing their duties as public spokesmen for science, that they, whether knowingly or not, give us the wrong image. Science is not at all as they preach to us. It is not open to new ideas. It is a club that is hostile to outsiders. Sagan only softens that notion with his words a above. Scientists went to great lengths to destroy Velikovsky because he was not in the club. As Ginenthal points out in the pages of Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky, Sagan went beyond mere unfairness, and introduced misrepresentations and even outright lies into his attacks on the man. He cannot be both the the man who wrote the quote above and the man that so scurrilously demeaned Vilikovsky. He was not genuine.
That shit not be trippy.
36 thoughts on “The Great Sagan”
Quite literally the best thing I’ve read of yours.
Correct, and telling, in so many ways.
Och, Brian Cox, the ex-popstar-cum-boffin, who’s strike me as just another BBC puppet scientist. They even have a large black woman talking sound bites waffling on about nothing and looking self-satisfied (a BBC-type giveaway).
“Brian Cox smugly pointed to a NASA graph, and said that it must be accurate because it was made by the people who put men on the moon. He said that anyone who disagreed with him probably didn’t believe we ever put men on the moon.”
On Neil DeGrasse Tyson; I never felt he was intelligent or insightful and I highly doubt he is trained as an astrophysicist. Maybe some introduction classes and then trained to become the actor he is. I am Neil DeGrasse Tyson, b*tch!:
Note that ODD is a Flat Earther, unfortunately, but apart from that I like his material and how he approaches things, this video summarizes what a masonic actor Tyson is.
John le Bon also made a video interviewing people outside a venue in Australia where DeGrasse Tyson was speaking for an attendance fee of like 50 Australian dollars or so. A good video too, only accessible for (free) foundation members.
“The Great Sagan” I have seen much less of, before my time, but he was obviously pushing the alien agenda and the Global Warming-now-rebranded-as-Climate Change BS.
A “degree in nothing with special honors”, how does that work? And since when do Bachelor and Master degrees take just 1 year? Well, scripted (masonic) actors of course get them handed on a plate like that.
I imagine such a thing indeed may have happened by accident in 1959, it is the “40 year anniversary publication” that is the controlled narrative I think. Reinforcing the Nuke Hoax too, as if his Space Travel, AGW and SETI stuff was not enough culture creation already:
He was admittedly jewish on both sides, which is not necessarily a problem, but his curious family name comes from Zagan. His jewish family, completely shown on Geni, came from western Ukraine and Poland and I suspect the surname hails from the tiny town of Żagań.
That village looks very suspicious, for a small place it almost has the status of a Cambridge (but then without university) or Langley…
Curiously, the last Peculiar Plot “happened” in… Zagan! From “The Great Escape” to “The Great Sagan” in just 2 clicks…
And who spent the last 2 years of his life there? Astronomer Johnny Kepler, what are the odds!?
Also, the last member of the powerful Hohenzollern dynasty in Europe was born in the castle of Sagan/Zagan and “LGBT activist” Ilse Kokula, Nazi Richard “Club” Kunze and illusionist (“magic artist” in German) Wiljalba Frikell were also born in this spooky town.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow! Great addition to this post.
Regarding the video, it is unfortunate that he is FE, as it ruins his credibility with me, but then, take what is good, discard the rest.
I hesitated to attack Tyson, the man, because he is black. There, I said it. In the same manner Obama was able to advance so much of the agenda of the corporations and the right wing because he was black (Democrats, feeling themselves above mere mortals, refused to take him on and went along because he was black). So I feared that if I went after Tyson as having a fake education and being just an actor, I was setting myself up for accusations of racism. So I left it be.
I am wondering, however, as Sagan, Tyson, Hawking are all hiding something, maybe in the case of Sagan and Tyson, unknowingly. Hawking we know to be an actor. What is it? It is not that the earth is flat. But it is something about the nature of space, the cosmos, the solar system … maybe that we are prisoners on this planet due to the radiation belt, and have never gone further than 350 miles up. Maybe that secret is so important that we need guys like Tyson to protect it at all costs. Could it be that simple?
Consider where the whole Space Travel “meme” came from. It started with “science” fiction. It is no secret the drivers behind NASA and the Space Travel hoax were fiction author Arthur C. Clarke and Walt Disney. Preceded by the ones in the early 20th and late 19th century; H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, George Méliès’s Voyage dans la lune and many others. And what about the admitted hoax of 1835, propagated by “respected” astronomer John Herschel, son of William, the “discoverer” of Uranus (that had been observed long before but not described as such), and archived at The Museum of Hoaxes, a must-read website I shared before here? It is Chris Kendall’s favorite hoax, he covered it in a Hoax Busters Call.
Coincidentally, fellow HBC’er Adam Miller, whom I talked with last night, uploaded a video about Sagan a couple of days ago. His blog I linked at mine, maybe an idea to link in the blogroll here too?
I don’t believe even 350 miles is possible, Mark. The Kármán line, set at 100 km/60 miles probably is the very highest possible; it is the “boundary” (zone) between atmosphere and space. I have elaborated on this topic in detail at various sites, you can find a summary of my views about this on my blog, linked as “Impossibility of Space Travel”.
“THE purpose” is a hard nut to crack I think, because there never is just one purpose and the various purposes may differ in importance, depending on your personal views. The “Space Race” only kicked off after WWII and together with the Nuke Hoax they served to instill a huge dialectic in the minds of the people; the great “awe” of what beautiful achievements mankind could make to travel in space (I fell for this big time, in a similar way as ODD admits in his video), combined with the great “terror” of the achievement to destroy Earth with enormous bombs and lethal radiation till the end of days (“duck and cover”).
Confuse and conquer.
Confuse and control … I just added Adam Miller and your own blog to the blogroll.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha Mark, thank you but my blog was already in the list, so now it’s twice and that is a bit too much, I think.
Something about the nature of space, or the cosmos?
“We are property.” – Charles Fort
There is a Sinister Barrier as one of his admirers called it in his science fiction novel of the same name, and as his introduction to that novel amplified, why IS it that peace is impossible when everyone wants it?
“A swift death awaits the first cow who objects to being milked.”
Reminds me too of another man who needs some close examination … singer, songwriter, astrophysicist, and photographer … Brian May. Something smells.
Brian May alias MC Spy-D!
For those who do not know what Jackie is talking about there … including me …
Brian May is also responsible for this:
I once read that both he and Roger Meddows-Taylor (the drummer) still did the Lottery, which according to one old rock star was ‘a tax on the stupid’.
Roger Meddows Taylor is also fishy, I should I say Fysh-y. One of his distant relatives was called Thomas Christmas Fysh, who had two sons marry Taylors whilst a third Charles would have a daughter who married a Hickman who married Roger’s papa.
The Fysh family are at – http://www.ballfamilyrecords.co.uk/earl/I261.html
Roger Taylor’s line is scrubbed for some reason.
‘Queen had been playing the club and college circuit in and around London for almost two years when the band had a chance opportunity to test out the new recording facilities of De Lane Lea Studios. ‘ (‘Chance opportunity’ from wikipedia).
The Ball family? George Washington’s maternal line has Balls.
Thank you for the positive mention of my video about NDT. I have just now modified that page to be available to Free Members of the site, so anybody who is interested can watch the video for themselves, without having to pay the USD $14 to sign up to the site.
For those who don’t have time/inclination to watch the 13-minute video, basically here is what happened: NDT toured Australia in the middle of 2017 and his show in Brisbane was at an open-air venue, which meant that people like myself could listen to his presentation without paying the $100 (yes, $100!) ticket price to get a seat. So this is what I did: I listened to his performance, and watched the audience reaction in real-time.
And that is exactly what it was: a performance. The dude is a comedian, his act is a well-scripted and well-rehearsed comedy routine. I don’t personally find his comedy funny, but I give him credit for having his set down pat: the man is good at what he does (even if I don’t believe that he does is in and of itself good). He speaks calmly, confidently, and with a certain gravitas which appeals to people on a fundamental level.
Basically his set is structured like this:
a) Go through a list of numbers, from small to large, and interject with Scientism claims which are supposedly relevant to the numbers e.g. millions of stars in the galaxy, billions of cells in the human body, blah blah blah.
b) Inject some normie-tier humour (no different to the Big Bang Theory TV series i.e. only a moron could genuinely find it ‘funny’) at every opportunity.
c) Throw in the occasional criticism of non-believers.
Seriously, it is like a cross between a ‘science’ ‘lesson’ for children, a lame comedy act, and a religious sermon. And the audience LOVED it. I can’t stress this enough. They were on the edge of their seats. Their reverence for NDT has to be seen to be believed.
Previous to this, I did not realise just how religious modern Scientism really is. I understood the concept of ‘science = religion’ in theory, but this was my first exposure to it in this kind of setting, among the devout believers, in person, up close, at one of their ceremonies.
I also managed to get a man-on-the-street interview which was fun.
Anyway, thanks again for the mention, Gaia. Much appreciated. Hopefully a few people check out the video and get a better sense of what I am talking about here. So far as I can tell, having seen what I have seen, there is no stopping Scientism, the believers absolutely LOVE it, and their grand priests are treated like gods on earth.
What a time to be alive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
I wonder what he was talking about specifically?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who are you quoting?
Looks like Sagan to me, I remember reading or hearing words along these lines.
Who was it said “It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”?
But now I may be confused if it was …wain or …okarski. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greetings: This sounds like the “true believer syndrome”: “….What compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable? How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it’s exposed in the bright light of day, he still clings to it – indeed, clings to it all the harder? The true believer syndrome is the greatest thing phony mediums (but this applies to all those so-called experts – my thoughts) have going for them. No amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie.” – from The Psychic Mafia by Lamar Keene , pg. 151
Oops. This was supposed to go under Greg’s post. Sorry….
Regarding Carl Sagan, it has only been in the last year or so that I have become more familiar with the impact of his work on the masses circa 1980s, especially via his ‘Cosmos’ series.
“Looking back I now see that Carl Sagan was set up to be the voice of science, given wide public exposure via the means most often used to control the herd, television. His Cosmos series caught the public mind. The images and science of that series is so deeply ingrained now it is regarded as the ‘real’ science of our existence in space. This was the Great Sagan at his best.”
Indeed. For one example, have any of you guys looked into the so-called ‘Library of Alexandria’? The story goes that a great repository of information existed in the form of a tremendous library in the long long ago, but it burned down or otherwise disappeared, and with it went so much valuable scientific and historic progress, setting mankind back hundreds if not thousands of years.
I decided to investigate that story for myself, and soon discovered that one of main propagators of this story is none other than Carl Sagan.
By tracing back through the sources of the story, I soon came to learn that the ‘Library of Alexandria’ is in fact a HOAX. It never existed. The story of the Library only came into being in the past couple hundred years. Before that, nobody had ever head of it, because it never existed. The entire story is fiction, believed by the masses because the masses believe authority.
See this simple flowchart to get a better understanding of how the Library of Alexandria myth came into being:
The overlap between official ‘science’ and establishment ‘history’ is much greater than it may at first appear. The cultural impact of Carl Sagan provides a case study in this regard.
What a time to be alive.
Professor Brian Cox has just been on the TV namedropping Sagan, and how he put him aside for ten years to pursue other stuff (pop career) and then rediscovered him. He looked like he was wearing a Queen tshirt underneath his hoody – It’s a kinda Magic?
I saw Dr. Brian May plugging his new book alongside co-author David Eicher, ‘Mission Moon 3-D’ on ‘Going Underground’ on RT last week. The story tellers said that man landed on the moon in the year of ’69, ecc. , and spoke of how those brave souls learnt to take pictures so quickly and in sequence in their cumbersome spacesuits to enable 3D images to be produced for their new book nearly 50 years later. Incredibile.
They must have missed this:
This is one of the reasons for the fake voices of science, the Hawking’s, Cox’s, Sagan’s and deGrasse Tyson,’s … to reinforce the lies. If the smartest men in the world, which is how they are projected on us, believe we put a man on the moon, who’s to argue?
May be they’re Nasacists?
A new word – Nasacism (n.) excessive Nasa-admiration and being smug with it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NASA I’m told has been looking at the Maunder Minimum 1645 to 1715 prolonged sunspot minimum”:
Wiki:The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures. Whether there is a causal relationship, however, is still under evaluation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Wiki always plays safe but we appear to be in at the start of another dose of prolonged cold weather due to the cyclic habits of the Sun. The bottom line is that the Sun has the last word when it comes to Earth’s temperature.
I took my Hawking page down to prevent flack when his latest death was announced, maybe it’s safe to put it back? As a science and technology researcher I know that physics has no choice but to invent heroes and indulge in BS and never ending projects because when all the cobwebs are swept aside no modern physics theory has been used to discover an electrical technology (in the shops) since at least the 1930s. I challenge anyone to find one because I can’t. I have to admit that it was a surprise but it turns-out to be true. All of our electrical technology was invented during the Victorian era when aether theory was king.
On Sagan: ‘Carl Sagan Invented Climate Change’ by Peter Bros: https://nextexx.com/carl_sagan_invented_climate_change_by_peter_bros-by-peter-bros/
Brian Cox is a t*t, there was a BBC video, an Australian panel show where another panellist made him look like an idiot. When I looked for the video, as is customary, it had been BBC edited to make him look good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If there is one thing we can do against the Voodoo People, the Satanists, the Reptilians, the niggajews, the Crazy Apes, the Priests of the Clown World Order, it is using our language right. Especially native English speakers, which I am not.
It is mankind’s most basic skill, right and ability to speak and that also includes speaking out of course. There is no physical boundary to speech, we can and must use our only real weapon against them right. Fight Newspeak and Doublespeak (the evolution from the original Orwellian Newspeak and Doublethink) by using your own words and using them right.
“Physics has no choice” – so far so great; this is the exact characteristic of the physical world, that it has no choice. Gaia IS, she doesn’t decide. That’s a.o. why space travel is impossible. And always will be.
The physical world is the real world; a.k.a. reality. The Clownworld is part of the social world; the world created by mankind. It’s a construction. A magicians theater set. A puppet show. Voodoo People Playing Mind Control Chess.
Physically there is no boundary to speech. Your tongue doesn’t suddenly start to twist if you speak a word deemed “bad” by some other Homo sapiens [?], right?
Any enforced limitation to free speech, free thought and violation of the NAP; harming the physical integrity (every day helpless little baby boys are cowardly mutilated as we speak FFS) is part of the Clownworld; it is unnatural. With “rules” invented by Clowns. Clowns I don’t believe in, endorse, am interested in or want to associate with, if possible of course. I am a statheist; a state atheist. But still have visited churches, mosques and government buildings.
It is important to distinguish the real world; physics, and the study thereof, maybe-confusingly also called physics; the human interpretation of reality, and the “social”, human world, in too many aspects Clownworld.
The Dutch terms for the sciences are different from any other in the world. That is because they were invented. Well invented. By a scientist. He proposed, pre-Newtonian gravitational laws, that the Moon causes the tides. Which is still uncontested by any serious researcher. And also the FE minions keep quiet about that one. Busted.
blockquote>Het Nederlands kreeg dankzij Stevin, die de woorden bedacht of populariseerde, eigen wetenschappelijke termen zoals:
*kunde = hard to translate to English, it is the same in German, and would be something between “art of”, “knowledge” or “study [of]”.
“wiskunde” – “study of knowing [wis=wise]” – maths
“natuurkunde” – “study of nature” – physics
“scheikunde” – “study of separation” – chemistry
“sterrenkunde” – “study of stars” = astro-nomos too
“meetkunde” – “study of measuring” – part of maths
“wijsbegeerte” – “eagerness to knowledge/wisdom”
Wijsbegeerte = the actual, natural state of mankind. Where we come from, call it the prehistoric cave or any other tribal campfire, is where the wisest of society had the most “power”. This is the natural way of living.
The opposite of Idiocracy.
And thus it is that what the Clowns want to destroy, pushing their Clownworld; everything un-natural; going against natural tendencies.
So eagerness for wisdom has evolved mankind to where we are, affected by the overprinting of the pushed Clowns in his story. 99% of history is what we don’t know and is completely natural and peaceful day to day life, with similar struggles as we know from our own lives.
Anyway, then you continue:
“physics has no choice but to invent heroes”
Huh? No, physics is. Physics cannot invent heroes. Heroes are invented by people and they are thus by definition part of the “social” world, in this case a Clowns-in-coats World.
How are heroes invented?
Who indulges in BS?
Scientismists (i.e.; not scientists because those study the physical, the real world; oxymoron 1) make up (i.e. not reach after data analysis, but fitting data to the model; oxymoron 2) theoretical (i.e. by definition not physical) “physics” (oxymoron 3) “theories” (they are not; they are by definition physically untestable hypotheses; oxymoron 4) and praise these people who did everything against what science actually is, as a valid, proven and very useful philosophy, as heroes (look at the Nobel “Peace” Prize to see how from a Clownworld idiocratic perspective they make “perfect sense”…).
The boundary between science and scientism is a very interesting and important one to explore, but the first step is to establish, and prove that in our own language, that it exists. And not to con-fuse the two very different things; science and scientism.
It is concerning to still see far too many people being stuck at that first base…
*Wijsbegeerte = philosophy.
It is possible to use science or physics in a collective sense, a group of physicists. I agree with your “scientism” but most don’t understand it as it can be religious or a political stance. I would say that science has been political since at least the 1930s and I would not argue against an earlier date. Scientism is a more modern corruption invented by education. People used to question science without inviting abuse. What I’m saying here is that it was a gradual movement away from nature.
And that is the whole point. You contradict yourself in your own post.
“People used to question science without inviting abuse”
YES. That is the whole concept of science. It is by definition never settled.
And it means that scientists disagree a lot. If you read scientific papers, you see that. Even the climatologists disagreed a lot. It was the Policy Report of the IPCC which is written completely independently and is not even based on the already incorrect scientific reports and predictions.
“It is possible to use science or physics in a collective sense, a group of physicists.”
How can this be true, when knowing the former? How can the same word mean a study and a fictional collective of people, not restricted to, but including known lifetime actors as DeGrasse Tyson, Nye and other Kakuphonic Carriers of Physical Truth, stamped by the Ministry For Truth?
So many physicists, so many physical models/theories. About real physics I mean, not the “theoretical” mumbo-jumbo Miles Mathis takes mostly for granted and jumps in half-way and shuffles some equations around to sell another unverifiable model.
We agree, I just want to point out the importance of language and using it properly (against Newspeakers; use words what they stand for, avoid copying the Newspeak; not “Europa”, but “the EU”, a very pervasive form of Newspeak in Europe. Especially in the EU.).
– the importance of science and using it properly (against scientism)
– the importance of medical care and using it properly (against BigPharma/BigChemo, etc.)
– the importance of shamanism; the rule of wisdom (against statism; the rule of force)
– the importance of detachment and using it properly (yes from the Magician’s Media, the “Education System”, and as much as possible from the Financial Fascists behind BigDebt, but not from ourselves or each other; us, the goyim)
Compare: in a not so dystant future, a water company rebrands itself as Water. And that turns to water over time. Now water just means all the H2O life liquid and the company and the water (?) produced by the company.
Too far fetched, this idiocratic Clownworld image?
Look at the use of “iPhone”, “antisemitism”, “Coca Cola”, “racism”, “physics”…
Why do some people over analyze everything
Some people do analyze every single word that gets said and while there might be more than one reason for this bad habit still in most cases one of the following reasons will be the cause:
Some Internet psychology as answer to someone on the internet “overanalyzing”.