Bring4th Forums
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:
  • Archive Home
  • Members
  • Team
  • Help
  • More
    • About Us
    • Library
    • L/L Research Store
User Links
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:

    Menu Home Today At a Glance Members CSC & Team Help
    Also visit... About Us Library Blog L/L Research Store Adept Biorhythms

    As of Friday, August 5th, 2022, the Bring4th forums on this page have been converted to a permanent read-only archive. If you would like to continue your journey with Bring4th, the new forums are now at https://discourse.bring4th.org.

    You are invited to enjoy many years worth of forum messages brought forth by our community of seekers. The site search feature remains available to discover topics of interest. (July 22, 2022) x

    Bring4th Bring4th Community Olio Prejudice, science, etc.

    Thread: Prejudice, science, etc.


    Cyan

    Guest
     
    #36
    10-02-2012, 10:09 AM
    (10-02-2012, 09:53 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:
    (10-02-2012, 09:49 AM)Cyan Wrote: 0.01% error rate inside the veil.

    If it were an error rate that would be fine. But it is a misconduct rate, and only the known misconduct rate at that. For example, I would suspect that a complete audit of pharmaceutical research (if it could be done) would turn up a misconduct rate much higher than that. Or how about this: How about we just start with Monsanto?
    Miconduct and fraud. Misconduct means unintentinal messing with the end results (most common is jumping to conclusion and having faulty test equipment (age or lack of fine detail maintanance) (sound familiar anyone,,, lack of maintanance or attention))

    Fraud means intentional messing with the end result.

    Thats essentialy the 2 categories that science admits errors in papers.

    Misconduct is a gentlemans way of saying "he was in error and we promise to keep an eye on him" and fraud is a gentlemans way of saying "I hope no one believes him again"

    Reported means that you order a copy of the study, you read it, you say if it has errors in your opinion, and if so, where, and send it back. To enter you must have a accepted basic level education in the field and access to the arena.

    Even if we assume 10 times more errors than what has been found (unlikely since most theories arent strictly found to be wrong, simply, only found to be accurate for the time period and the methods used, little more) then we'll still only get to under 1%. Most stuff that science has built like mobile phones have a success rate of assuming its well built intenionally (corporations are fraudsters, but i mean if you built it around the principle of just testing a cellphone as many times as possible) you could get it to maybe 1:1000 connections, your cellphone is less scientific than the peer review process.

    Science cant, by default, be accurate, anyone who says it can is a bad scientist, period. What science can be, is a method thats used to filter and organize data according to a common language. When you understand science as a language/method not as a "opinion/group" you'll get what i mean.

    Channeling is a language, Ra is a topic (kind of)

    Science is a language, Fraud is a topic (kind of)

    to clarify, what people like monsanto do is not fraud data (thats the stupid way) what they do is they have something like 1000 different people do studies on their chosen topic, THEN they corralate all those studies and remove 90%+ and just leave the pro monsanto ones. They can do that with sufficient money without resorting to fraud. If you simply went through all the published studies on GM (the data, not just the conclusion, and recalculated the conclusions based on the data, since its easy to buy the guy who writes the conclusions (IPCC anyone) and not so easy to buy the whole research lab (though possible, but less secure information that way), you would most likely find a strong correlation between GM and Illhealth, but what science needs is people between the method (the massive amount of published material that no one can actually go through anymore) and the person interpreting the world.

    As a scientist myself, what we need in the field is a understanding of the proper "social interactions for specialized field intelligence data distribution" thats a fancy way of saying, the data is now out there, what we need is special interest groups (ra is a good example) that somehow manage to go through all the data and comeup with a scientifically based theory as to why their idea and gnosis is best.

    Dont rag the language for the speaker, dont rag science for the corruption of man.

    M'kay!

    Thats all, i'll hush now and let you wiser creatures continue debating Smile
    [+] The following 2 members thanked thanked for this post:2 members thanked for this post
      • Patrick, Parsons
    « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

    Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



    Messages In This Thread
    Prejudice, science, etc. - by zenmaster - 09-26-2012, 08:42 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Patrick - 09-28-2012, 08:43 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Siren - 09-28-2012, 10:21 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Patrick - 09-28-2012, 11:37 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Cyan - 09-29-2012, 02:30 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 09-29-2012, 08:14 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by zenmaster - 09-29-2012, 09:13 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 09-30-2012, 01:31 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 09-29-2012, 09:28 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by zenmaster - 09-30-2012, 03:07 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Shin'Ar - 09-30-2012, 07:27 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by zenmaster - 09-30-2012, 10:49 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 09-30-2012, 11:33 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by zenmaster - 10-01-2012, 12:47 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 10-01-2012, 02:46 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by zenmaster - 10-02-2012, 09:56 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Parsons - 10-03-2012, 07:06 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Patrick - 10-03-2012, 12:21 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 10-03-2012, 12:55 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Cyan - 10-03-2012, 01:33 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 10-03-2012, 01:43 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 10-02-2012, 09:27 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Cyan - 10-02-2012, 09:49 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 10-02-2012, 09:53 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Cyan - 10-02-2012, 10:09 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 10-02-2012, 03:11 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Shin'Ar - 10-02-2012, 06:21 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Patrick - 10-02-2012, 11:06 AM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Parsons - 10-02-2012, 03:13 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Patrick - 10-03-2012, 01:06 PM
    RE: Prejudice, science, etc. - by Tenet Nosce - 10-03-2012, 01:19 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by hogey11 - 09-26-2012, 01:46 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Patrick - 09-26-2012, 02:24 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by hogey11 - 09-26-2012, 03:19 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Cyan - 09-26-2012, 03:35 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Patrick - 09-26-2012, 03:39 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by hogey11 - 09-26-2012, 06:33 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Parsons - 09-26-2012, 07:44 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by zenmaster - 09-26-2012, 08:48 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by hogey11 - 09-26-2012, 11:42 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Parsons - 09-27-2012, 11:12 AM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by zenmaster - 09-27-2012, 08:27 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Parsons - 09-27-2012, 11:52 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by zenmaster - 09-28-2012, 12:00 AM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Parsons - 09-28-2012, 01:19 AM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by zenmaster - 09-29-2012, 02:19 PM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Cyan - 09-28-2012, 01:32 AM
    RE: Abrupt vs gradual harvest - by Shin'Ar - 09-28-2012, 06:42 AM

    • View a Printable Version
    • Subscribe to this thread

    © Template Design by D&D - Powered by MyBB

    Connect with L/L Research on Social Media

    Linear Mode
    Threaded Mode