Einstein and other gods of science

[antipodean]

The CIA's RAND corporation wants to claim credit for intrigue like rigging meetings? Is "The Delphi Technique" the first time it was ever done? I doubt it. Vote rigging of all kinds has been going on since voting was invented. Seems like there is missing information here or it's just CIA/RAND/MITRE wanting to again seem like the authorities on intelligence that they are not and/or brand existing deception in their own way. "Developed" might not be the right word; codified maybe. Recommended even.

Either that or it could be a case of the CIA's Rand corporation being demonised for inventing the Delphi Technique. In the same way that the Tavistock Institute have the finger pointed at them for breaking down the family unit by introducing feminism, hippyism, LSD, Rock Music & Laurel Canyon etc.

[aa5]

From their perspective it is best if they actually change the person's mind to become fully 'invested' in 'the plan'. As opposed to trying to lead by fear or examples like firing people who don't go along with the plan.

Changing peoples minds on things is not an easy thing to do, as you probably have witnessed. I have no doubt it takes advanced psychological methods, broken down into a process on how to change peoples minds.

[antipodean]

I recently went through a similar experience at work (I work for a large corporation). Where I disagreed with an appointment that was made.
So I was Gas Lighted, being accused of doing things I hadn't done, poor performance etc, resulting in being disciplined. I'd even started second guessing myself, but I stubbornly stood steadfast.
Then by chance I came across an email where I had been defamed to Senior Management.
I demanded to see my HR file and discovered all this crap written about me on a Performance Appraisal, that had not been disclosed to me.
Within 10 minutes of me complaining to HR, a Senior Manager requested a meeting with me, dropped all previous disciplinaries against me and shook my hand.

[aa5]

One change for the universities is in the 1700's and 1800's, science, or natural philosophy as it was called then, was this obscure field that maybe had 1 or 2 professors at each university. And there were few universities on top of that.

No one, including the deans of the university really had any clue what these mad scientist type of professors were talking about. And especially early on, no one really cared because the philosophy didn't effect much outside of the walls of their departments. Sort of like philosophy in universities today, no one is overly concerned with those moral arguments those professors are making back and forth or their strange symbols they use.

But the universities got bigger and bigger until today they are these large corporations with many thousands of employees. And there is many hundreds of universities. In fact we can estimate the amount of employees. In America, university spending is ~5% of the economy. The economy as a whole employs ~150 million people. So 150 million * 5% = 7.5 million people working at universities. Then add similar amounts for Europe and elsewhere. In most places university jobs are considered relatively high paying and cushy jobs.

[pov603]

...and don’t forget, all university revenues generated on university grounds (including those not even related to the students ie concerts, sporting events etc) are apparently tax-free!
https://oc.finance.harvard.edu/faq/harv ... ganization

Edit: added link.

[aa5]

I didn't know that.. reminds me of the tax free status of churches . For a society it does make sense to ask the wisemen of the society what the truth is, and what policies the state should pursue. The problem is one can see how intensely political this will become.. as if anything else the answers determine where incredible amounts of money go.

[Mansur]

One time I was reading that religious stories/explanations need to be irrational/impossible to understand. Because then it is a true test of faith, for the followers to believe the arguments anyway.

Apart from Jesuits and Jesuitism and the like, it is absolutely so. (But if it is about “argument” it must be rational in this way or that. Moreover, an argument is there to be understood and not believed, isn’t it?) Religious methods [of praxis] consist always in that; – their basic outlook is that there are levels beyond or above the level we call rational. So their stories or dogmas or anything specifically called religious contain and must contain element to be “believed”. But the whole business is far from being clandestine (as it is in the scientific educations of today) but it makes up the whole thing, so as to nothing can be more explicit than that. (I mean religious praxis not religious opinion or so.) There are symbols and they have meanings…

The parallels/contrasts that are so often made between religion and science touch almost always only the most inferior “aspects” of religion (and maybe of both), if it can still be called religion at all and not an altogether new invention – or “creation” (a very “special creation”).

...This site however has a clarity and a tone I’ve not seen elsewhere. Not saying it cannot contain disinformation or mistakes of course.

People now blindly believe in Science, they adorn scientists as the ultimate authorities of knowledge. Whenever some scientific teaching sounds absurd, not only lay people but even science students prefer to put that down to their ignorance in the belief that scientists can’t go wrong, a situation not different from how people behaved in the ancient religious society. Many a times people don’t even know what some scientists actually teach, but they chant their theories (e.g. special relativity, general relativity etc) and worship them as Gods. Intellectuals who try to raise their voice against the prevailing weird theories and scientific superstitions are at a similar risk of humiliation, isolation and deprivation just like how people suffered in the ancient religious society for arguing against the absurd religious teachings.

https://sciencevstruth.com/2013/06/12/r ... believers/

(My bolds.)

People, who are saying like this would be greatly at a loss if it were to support their notions with some historical… (other than wiki.)

[aa5]

Something they so far have done a poor job on with science as a religion is talking about what (real) science can do in terms of heavenly advances. For example, some poor kid today is born with a growth hormone deficiency. And he would in earlier times grow up to be a dwarf/have disabilities, etc. But today with growth hormone injections he may be able to grow up to normal height and function.

A reason the older generations especially viewed science as godlike, is that science delivered to them godlike advances. The national electric systems, waterfalls right into their own home, flicking a switch and turning night into day, turning a dial and the heat goes on. The age old dream of the horseless chariot, brought from imagination into reality.

We are now in a period where the technological advances are cool, like cell phones and video games, computers doing things.. but they aren't so overwhelming in a physical sense. (in the way say the airplane was).

People view science and the technology of applied science as negative usually. Like I mention what a team of robotic AI servants could do for you.. and you know people are thinking of killer robots. Even pharmaceuticals, I mention coming products and people say, oh great the pharma companies can rip us off more.

[fbenario]

For example, some poor kid today is born with a growth hormone deficiency. And he would in earlier times grow up to be a dwarf/have disabilities, etc. But today with growth hormone injections he may be able to grow up to normal height and function.

Or grow up to be Lionel Messi.

[Mansur]

Something they so far have done a poor job on with science as a religion is talking about what (real) science can do in terms of heavenly advances. For example, some poor kid today is born with a growth hormone deficiency. And he would in earlier times grow up to be a dwarf/have disabilities, etc. But today with growth hormone injections he may be able to grow up to normal height and function.

A reason the older generations especially viewed science as godlike, is that science delivered to them godlike advances. The national electric systems, waterfalls right into their own home, flicking a switch and turning night into day, turning a dial and the heat goes on. The age old dream of the horseless chariot, brought from imagination into reality.

We are now in a period where the technological advances are cool, like cell phones and video games, computers doing things.. but they aren't so overwhelming in a physical sense. (in the way say the airplane was).

People view science and the technology of applied science as negative usually. Like I mention what a team of robotic AI servants could do for you.. and you know people are thinking of killer robots. Even pharmaceuticals, I mention coming products and people say, oh great the pharma companies can rip us off more.

„ Technical advances” were (and are) always (unfortunately or not) felt “cool” -- as well as all social changes foisted upon people by, or rather through, science, -- even wars. The noise was made as always by the media, as we call it today. I think it is a mistake to maintain the memory of our youth or our fathers’ youth in this respect. There was no “dream of horseless chariot”; but there were “dreamers” -- just as we have them now. Perhaps Jules Verne can be named as the first. (Dreams are real, but only in themself without any intention to become “true”.)


That how many lives medical (and other) sciences really save and how many they take we have no reliable account and will never have. But we can think about it… both in general sense and on given occasions.

[Modern science (to theorize a bit) seems to be an entirely “leftist” thing btw. It permits only social values. I wonder e.g. whether the official division now counts psychology into the “social sciences”. All things seem to tend to be incorporated in them.]

And again: whether the results (feelings, emotions) the “dreamers” achieve in people are positive or negative is just the same (AI is a “dream”.) (I don’t think “people are awakening”, in no sense of the word.)

------

Kham didn’t mention in her list of Einstein’s (co-authored) papers his correspondence with Freud, published on the eve of Nazi’s rise to power (i.e. of the beginning of modern “anti-Semitism”), on Jewish things. – Maybe there exist other works of his as well contributing to the social fields.

[aa5]

I'm just saying people have to believe there is some greater purpose to what they are doing. Say Catholics in Spain in the late 1400's believed that Catholicism was about the same as any other religion, and it didn't make a difference one way or another if say they converted to Islam or some other religion..

Then instead of being a conquering, expanding force with real strength, Catholicism in Spain would have gone into decline, and eventually been replaced by some sort of belief system that did at least believe in itself.

Its a problem I see not just with modern science but its friend modern leftism. By the modern leftist ideas that everything is equal and the same, and relative.. then modern leftism itself can go away with no loss to mankind.

[patrix]

We are now in a period where the technological advances are cool, like cell phones and video games, computers doing things.. but they aren't so overwhelming in a physical sense. (in the way say the airplane was).

This is because we are now in a period of de-enlightenment or dark ages if you will. The computers and cellphones we make today are a result of the short period of enlightenment and real physics that occured during the 19th century. Now the stones are back in place with Relativity and Quantum "physics". The Nutwork will always seek to keep the knowledge for themselves and give us believable crap. Knowledge is power you see.

And we scoop it up through their controlled media and science. Partly because they are very good at crafting believable lies but mostly because we want these things to be true. Medicine is the perfect example. From reading old books, for example
https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S536.htm
https://ia802302.us.archive.org/34/item ... itrich.pdf
it becomes pretty crystal clear that most of modern medicine and nutrition is utter bullshit, but we don't want this to be true.
So we refuse to look into it and buy the BS of all these all mighty drugs and syringes that cures us and makes us immune from disease, when the end result is in fact more disease.

[aa5]

My thinking is the powers that be in the 19th century didn't really know what science was or what it could lead to. In physics these technologies came onto the scene around the ~1880's to 1890's. But for awhile they were almost curiosities. It was during 1900-1910 I think the powers realized what was happening and moved to get it under control.

People might wonder well what radical new technologies did they suppress or not want to get out. I'm not sure, but I think more importantly the powers that be didn't know what might come.

Who would have thought in 1800 that you could talk to someone live on the other side of the world. Or that housewives would have chariots with the power of over 100 horses. Its hard to even guess what else might be achieved if science was allowed to continue.

Some examples of possibilities.. One is portals where you walk in one side of the portal, and then when you go out the other side you could be in another city on the other side of the world(think of what that could do to political control of geographic areas and the people within those jurisdictions). Another one that imo someone would sooner or later figure out is free energy(if it hasn't already happened). If your cars and houses could get energy from the environment. There is gigantic industries employing millions of people and supporting millions of government employees through taxes, which are depending on that not happening

Something we do know is that with fake science, never will there be any advances. Eg.. decades of research by many brilliant people in quantum science hasn't led to any actual applications that I know of.

[Kham]

Well put, aa5, and may I add thousands of TEDtalks later, how has our lives changed?

TEDtalks is a yearly conference of 5 days consisting of about 70 speakers. Cost $8,500 to attend the conference. Most speakers are given about 18 minutes. How much real thinking and fully formed thoughts can be communicated in this short time span? Like our current state of science I would suggest that TEDtalks placates the public into thinking we are at the height of learning. After viewing a TEDtalk one might get the feeling that others are handling the needs of this world, so don’t worry, don’t try to bother your intellect by figuring anything out. Science is getting it all figured out for you.

The YouTube channel for TEDx hosts over 90,000 videos of TEDtalks. With all that so-called brilliance for viewing, one would think big changes were happening. Oh but wait, they are. The following is a good example. The information Al Gore was presenting in a TEDtalk led to the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (2006) which warned us all about the disastrous and imminent dangers of global warming from carbon emissions. That movie made possible many legislative changes to emission standards that benefitted the most wealthy. Not only are people placated by TEDtalks but is seems people are also manipulated by fear.

There is so much more to say about the disasters of TEDtalks, brought to you since 1986, and how they hypnotize the learned community, could be a thread of its own.

[aa5]

Thanks, TedTalks are sort of the 'scientism', where people like the idea of science and knowledge.. but in reality they are comfortable with this kind of 'science' where nothing ever changes, and paradigms always are confirmed instead of challenged.

That 18 minute time frame does seem a limiting factor. Probably the owners of Tedtalks figured out the ideal time of presentations that their paying guests like.