Comments on: Selective Skepticism

By: A prime example of AnCap “monolithy” | A Division by Zer0

A prime example of AnCap “monolithy” | A Division by Zer0 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:04:43 +0000

[...] their unwavering denial of AGW with the same junk science they claim to oppose. A prime example of Selective Skepticism. I would like to say that I am surprised by it, but I’m not. As I’ve explained before, [...]

By: db0

db0 — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:29:44 +0000

Psychology and Neurology has already proven that your senses can lead you astray. 4000 years without science and people senses and intelligence still didn't lead them to anything like the medical science, or space science, or anything like it really.

As for science, I think you're about fifty years behind the times, or you're simply closing your eyes to the facts

Spare it

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:16:07 +0000

No, I do have a better way of understanding reality: my own senses and intelligence.

As for science, I think you're about fifty years behind the times, or you're simply closing your eyes to the facts.

By: db0

db0 — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:11:16 +0000

Science is different from the intelligentsia and a world of difference from newspapers and television. While the things that science researches are certainly related to the corporate interests, the actual findings of science are neutral and as objective as humanly possible. Which is why corporations go to so much pains to muddle the waters when scientific findings actually go against their interests.

The great thing is that no matter who is funding scientific research, if the results are accepted as consensus it's not because it was backed by this or that special interest, but rather because they are correct. They explain reality and they can be empirically proven.

I find it unbelievable on the other hand that someone who espouses so much an objective view of the world is so opposed to the only real objective way we have for understanding reality.

By: db0

db0 — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:06:01 +0000

But you're not exchanging in any common sense of the word, you're giving something to those who wish to have it, and get something (not necessarily from the same people) that you wish to have.

By the way you wield the concept, you basically render it meaningless as it ends up encompassing everything and all kinds of human interaction.

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:28:07 +0000

I am not a "conspiracy theorist." I don't believe it's a "conspiracy" any more than capitalism or modern democracy are a "conspiracy." It's simply, as you said, "due to the way science works." That's how the intelligentsia finds its place within the system. Are you saying that all the newspapers and television stations are conspiracy too? Come on.

I find it unbelievable that an Anarchist is seriously trying to defend the "scientific consensus" of modern State-funded, corporate-funded science. Do you not realize the intelligentsia role that you're defending?

By: db0

db0 — Sun, 17 May 2009 19:44:08 +0000

You seriously start to sound like a conspiracy theorist with your \”scare quotes\”. Scientific consensus is practically impossible to modify for one's interests. This is due to the way science works, which prunes out personal biases.

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:04:07 +0000

"Catastrophic consequences" completely made up by the "scientific consensus" in order to keep drumming up government funding.

I don't believe in consensus science (that is to say, modern science). You might as well trust the Pope for all that's worth.

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:58:48 +0000

Deciding to trade this production for that production is still a market, whether money is exchanged or not.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:04:12 +0000

as well as yourself, if I understand your theory correctly- replacing money with decision-making doesn't make it not a market

I don't see how it does.