New science is easy. No need for hypotheses, test, or observe, you just say "The Science says" followed by a lot of big words then defend by restating your credentials and calling that which disagrees dis/mis/mal-information.

Saw a snippet from the 2022 WEF press conference on Economics of Water, where in part of it they talked about failure of getting everyone a Covid jab, how climate change is too abstract But everyone understands the need for water And the common good They are evidently going to manufacture (oh I mean be concerned with existing) a water crisis.

I am rooting FOR government shutdown

Science and religion are compatible. They are not diametrically opposed to each other. That is to say; it is consistent for a scientist to believe in God.

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to out method of questioning" ~ Werer Heisenberg

#nostr #grownostr #science #learn He has a great point point...this is why most science over that 50years or more sounds more like religion than science. From Per Bylund "People's belief in data as a source of knowledge needs to be addressed. It is rarely more than faith backed up by scientism and fundamental misunderstandings of science/the scientific process. There are no data that can "speak" for themselves and data are rarely "objective." The social sciences study a complex process emergent from actions based on actors' interpretations, understandings, and valuations. Much of the social world consists of unobservables, but even "objective" data that actors take into account are interpreted and thus subjective. The natural sciences are generally much simpler than the social ditto because they study the world without human agency. This makes for a "cleaner" world that can (typically) be studied using experiments, tests of hypotheses, etc. and that produce largely reproducible results. The correlations (potential causations) observed in the natural sciences are comparatively simple, but "data" are always collected and never complete; no sample is truly random, measures are not exact or without bias, effects cannot be determined without risk of confounding, etc. Even if a sample is as random as can be, all known measures have been taken to avoid confounding, the instruments are as objective as can be, etc. they may still mislead us because, e.g., we collected the wrong data points the wrong way at the wrong time using the wrong means. Data are never ever a guarantee of objectivity. The high-school version of science teaches a simplification that is deceiving because it causes a faith in data that is unfounded. It is not the data themselves that provide knowledge but their repeated tests and interpretations. Science does not progress by collection of data that are then used to test a hypothesis. Even if the study is peer reviewed and the methods used vetted by others with deep statistical and field expertise. Empirical science progresses through repetitions with reproducible results. Data do not generate knowledge. Repeated (and independent) collections of data (that thereby vary) done at different times in different places, and perhaps with different assumptions, intended to test similar hypotheses are expected to home in on the true nature of reality. Such repeated experiments, perhaps done thousands of times with reproducible results, are still based on assumptions (such as the existence of constants and/or constant relationships), which are not themselves beyond reproach. They may seem obvious at present, but time will tell. It's unfortunate that people have a puerile view of data as objectively informing us about reality; it creates an overreliance (faith) in singular findings (that might be completely wrong) and an unfounded skepticism of findings generated using other methods than the scientific. I find much of the knee-jerk rejections of praxeology (but not, strangely, of its methodological siblings math, logic, geometry) based in this type of faith in objective data. These critics pretend to be skeptical, but really only voice a pseudo-religious belief--scientism. Whereas scientists specialized in their field of study can productively adopt and apply an already existing method of study, in reality no methodology is better than the philosophical argument for it--and philosophy ultimately hinges on what is reasonable, not proven truth. For most people, a productive first step toward developing a critical mindset is not to dismiss or reject any type of scholarship or even scientific results, but to realize that data are not the objective arbiters of truth that you learned in high school. They simply are not."

The State cannot give you your 'rights', because the State has no rights in the first place.

Kinda silly question about bitcoin, but one that has been in the back of my mind: What happens to bitcoin, if a widespread electromagnetic event takes place? Does anyone else think about that? #asknostr #plebchain

Consensus ≠ true Consensus ≠ authoritative Consensus ≠ fact Consensus ≠ scientific

Lol

With most things that were called conspiracy theories over the last 8 years have been proven true maybe this guy is not so off Lol 😆 🤣 😂

Salary employees, especially upper management, never tell an hourly employee that you don't get paid overtime and then tell him to suck it up. That is disrespect, unprofessional, and shows you are clueless.

According to Apple's latest video on how they are saving the climate, one of their goals is to kill off all the plant life by removing all CO2 from the air. I will never understand "settled science" #nostr

So FAA is extends remote ID enforcement 6 months Despite what press release, this was all anticipated over a year ago. Many/most will still not comply. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-extends-remote-id-enforcement-date-six-months

This is more of a religious response than a scientific response. This is Scientism not science.

#tyrant #newmexico #ungovernorable #impeach So the governor of New Mexico declared an public health emergency, then suspended the constitution and state laws by suspending gun carry laws via executive order. Some points for those in New Mexico to consider: 1. Executive orders are not laws. Act accordingly 2. New Mexico repealed qualified immunity in 2021, sue the crap out of her. 3. Then impeach and remove her from office

New Mexico governor issues emergency order to suspend open, concealed carry of guns in Albuquerque

The Democratic governor said she is expecting legal challenges, but felt compelled to act in response to gun deaths.