NEVER forget this truth:
Nature is what exists.
Science is simply the study of what
already exists.
Nature is CONSTANT. Nature is what is ALWAYS TRUE. While science can be practiced by many different types of people, in many different countries, with varying agendas and outomes.
Have a look at the definition of science, below - from the Oxford Dictionary:
sci·ence
- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."the world of science and technology"
- a particular area of science.plural noun: sciences"veterinary science"
- a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."the science of criminology"
- 1.the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations."the breathtaking beauty of nature"
- 2.the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it."helping them to realize the nature of their problems"
- 1.a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question."glaciers are unique and interesting natural phenomena"
- 2.a remarkable person, thing, or event.
- 3.PHILOSOPHYthe object of a person's perception; what the senses or the mind notice.
By these definitions, Nature BEATS Science, EVERY TIME.
I challenge any person to disprove that.
I do admire many things about Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but have to disagree with the statement he makes in this video below (at about the 1:26 mark):
"The good thing about Science is that it's true, whether or not you believe it."
Statements like this can make people put blind trust in what they've come to believe is the current definition of science: What paid scientists and doctors say.... regardless of whether those statements could be susceptible to corruption.
Pharmaceuticals and studies that have been manipulated by pharmaceutical industries, over natural methods that work even better. If you don't believe studies can be manipulated, CLICK HERE.
I liked this video when I first saw it. But sadly, it appears that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of those too-common "scientists" that believe the definition of science really boils down to: the "science" that fits in with the CONSENSUS they agree with. THEY get to choose the people who agree it is correct. THEY get to choose the studies they believe are accurate. Even if so many scientific studies nowadays are notoriously flawed. Again.... CLICK HERE to see lots of examples of this.
You can see him debate with Del Bigtree in the video below this one. Sadly, I lost a lot of respect for Neil Degrasse Tyson after the pandemic. So many peoples' true colors came out. Too many scientists are about CONTROL, and they have this odd need to be on the RIGHT side of science. It's almost like a Big Boy's club they get to run, and they believe you can't possibly be correct unless you run a study past the boys' club and they approve of the methods that were used.
DEL DEBATES NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON
A lot of people like to say we should rely on science, because somehow we've come to think of Science as the ultimate definition of What Is True. But the reality is, a lot of modern scientific methods are flawed. And too many scientists seem to think THEIR methods are the ONLY acceptable methods that could work!
Sadly, a lot of scientists, like Neil Degrasse Tyson, got things completely wrong during the pandemic. Why? Because they relied on the CONSENSUS. And the CONSENSUS often had an agenda.
Update 2025:
We can see how the people in "the concensus" drastically misled us!
Here are some screenshots from the interview above:
Clips from Del's interview: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Yjd0thbTj43Q
Love how RFK Jr. was able to make this prediction about how the vaccines were going to play out. He was able to make this prediction based on previous OBSERVATIONS, and he was 100% correct.
In 2020 RFK Jr. Predicted Exactly How Covid Shots Would Fail
https://web.northeastern.edu/nuscicomm/2019/02/15/whats-the-difference-between-nature-and-science/
What’s the difference between nature and science?
In my last blog post I asked: what’s science news? Today, the question is: What’s the difference between nature and science?
“Well, Nature’s based in London and New York, and Science is in DC.”
Lol.
Here’s another way to think about it: science has been in the “news” for a long time. Maybe since William Whewall coined the term “scientist” in in the 1830s to distinguish the doer-of-science from the natural philosopher. Maybe since Ibn al-Haytham documented the scientific method over a thousand years ago.
But nature? Nature’s been in the news since before there was news. The planet we live on is billions of years old. Squeeze its whole history into the calendar year we have now, and you’ll find that life doesn’t appear until late February, mammals don’t show up until December, dinosaurs go extinct on Christmas, and homo sapiens come on to the scene less than a half hour before the clock strikes midnight. The industrial revolution is two seconds before the ball drops.
Simply put, nature has been around a lot longer than science. So its story is different, and on a different time scale than science.
This is an important distinction for us as science writers. Scholars that study popularization have found that when scientists do their work as knowledge laborers, they produce “knowledge objects” called research reports, and these reports are written in the “narrative of science.” As the fantastic science literary scholar, Greg Myers puts it:
“…not because of any desire to misrepresent… the narrative style of much of popular science television documentaries, newspaper features, popular science magazine articles – emphasizes the immediate encounter of the scientist with nature, whereas the narrative style of most scientific research reports emphasizes the concepts and techniques through which the scientist conceives of and delimits nature. Thus, despite the sense of impersonality and abstraction they may convey to non-scientists, scientific texts do, in fact, foreground the human and social elements of science.”
This distinction in covering the eons-long nature story and the decades-long science story is important for science literacy. For my Communications course with Matt Nisbet, I’ve been reading Declan Fahy’s The New Celebrity Scientists, which cites this 1994 paper by MIT’s John Durant called “What is scientific literacy?” In it, according to Fahy, Durant outlines three levels of scientific literacy:
- Knowing basic science facts and ideas.
- Knowing how science works, including knowledge about scientific thinking, the role that evidence plays in drawing conclusions, the different types of studies that are conducted in various research settings, and the peer-review process.
- Knowing how science really works, which includes understanding competition among scientists, the role of uncertainty, evidence, and scientists’ drive for excellence.
As science journalists, I think it’s our job to cover stories about all three of these levels. We can’t always avoid going from a “narrative of science” to a “narrative of nature” in our work, but it’d do us and our audience well to remember the difference between them, and between science and nature.
https://www.economist.com/babbage/2013/12/09/the-problem-with-science-and-nature
What's wrong with science
The problem with Science (and Nature)
BLUNT criticism is part of the scientific process. And it doesn't get much blunter than this. In an article for the Guardian, Randy Schekman, a cell biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the 2013 crop of Nobel prize winners, announced that his lab will boycott "luxury" scientific journals, by which he means those commonly regarded as the most prestigious, such as Nature, Cell and Science. Dr Schekman:
These journals aggressively curate their brands, in ways more conducive to selling subscriptions than to stimulating the most important research. Like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags or suits, they know scarcity stokes demand, so they artificially restrict the number of papers they accept. The exclusive brands are then marketed with a gimmick called "impact factor" – a score for each journal, measuring the number of times its papers are cited by subsequent research. Better papers, the theory goes, are cited more often, so better journals boast higher scores. Yet it is a deeply flawed measure, pursuing which has become an end in itself – and is as damaging to science as the bonus culture is to banking.
I highly recommend checking out this info-graphic that shows: "How Science can go off the rails."
https://www.thinglink.com/scene/655045035355537409?buttonSource=viewLimits
Why incompetent people think they're amazing - David Dunning
We are all connected with nature: Nixiwaka Yawanawa at TEDxHackney
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.