Sapere_Aude

"Chosen" by an impersonal process?

You guys have entered the domain of philosophy a long time ago and didn't realize it, thinking it is still empirical science.

Why do people still waste time and money on these post hoc theories of Dark Matter / Dark Energy, which were invented to explain anomalies in the conventional cosmological model like galaxy rotation curves?

We neither have direct evidence nor do we not have alternative explanations - to the contrary. They shouldn't even qualify as scientific theory, since they are neither falsifiable, have no predictive power or are supported by any independent experimental confirmation.

Oh,there are presents under the Christmas tree, it must've been Santa Claus!

They are patchwork "solutions" at best and by far not the only explanation for what's happening.

It's the aether rehashed.

So what? It doesn't even harm them financially.

The EU Suppressed a 300-Page Study That Found Piracy Doesn’t Harm Sales https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-...

Nice! Now people can finally eat tumors with chicken texture.

Thank God this stuff isn't econonically viable, nor is it in any way "sustainable". This is processed foods par excellence.

Right around the time when the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome and other elitist think tanks / NGOs were founded to push globalization, development and such ideas.

There isn't even evidence that depression is caused by serotonin levels. They never even checked that out in the first place.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/no-evidence-depression-c...

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/analysis-depression-prob...

Utilitarianistic approaches are really bad... Scientism falls flat on its face, since it's a self refuting philosophy(!).

It's truth cannot be demonstrated according to its own principles, (i.e. hard sciences are the best / superiour or even only source of genuine knowledge of the world). The truth of scientism is philosophical in nature and not the result of a scientific experiment.

We shouldn't adhere to untruth just because it "serves" our ends in some ways or another.*

By the way, how do you arrive at your value judgements of "good" and "bad", "serving" something vs. the opposite? How do you determine "the benefits" in a relativistic worldview, most modern people, as well as you seem to adhere to (see "post truth world").

For whom was it "net beneficial"?

Doing science and producing results is not necessarily a result or proof of the philosophy the scientist adheres to. One could believe all sorts of things and get scientific results, so I don't see scientism as beneficial in any sense.

It is wrong as a theory and it undermines science itself in a major way. Scientism undermines the presuppositions science philosophically rests on*and which cannot be proven by science itself.

Therefore if Scientism believes that you can only believe "truths" that are the result of scientific experiments and you have to rely on presuppositions that cannot categorically be proven by science itself, you cannot do science anymore.

Scientism is the enemy of science, logically speaking.

* I still believe that "the Good" and "Truth" are directly entangled and necessary.

* a) belief in an external world, independent of mind, languagy or theory, b) the nature of the world is orderly, especially its "deep structure" that lies under and beyond the manifest world of ordinary perception c) objective truth exists d) our sensory and cognitive faculties are reliable for gaining truth and knowledge of the world, and tehy are able to grasp the world's deep structure that lies beyond the sense-perceptible world, e) various types of values and "oughts" exist f) the laws of logic and mathematics exist

I love material reductionism. It pretends to explain the thing it actually renders meaningless with its "explanation".

This "explanation" is utter rubbish mumbled by the philsophically inept. It even pretends to be "science" all the while bringing in their "darwinian" "evolutionary" philosophy. (One thing I wonder often is, don't these people know fallacies, e.g. when trying to prove sth. to be caused by evolution, as a proof for evolution, while assuming evolution to be true in the first place? Classic "begging the question"-fallacy.)

No, of course it's not my sole argument. I have more than two dozens well researched books full with arguments for and mostly against this bunk science which is underpinning "climate change" and the CO2 lie.

I just don't have the time to argue with internet people over such things, there are enough scientists out there disproving the silly notion CO2 or humans are is to blame for "climate change", a term that has been used since their "global warming" phrase has become a burden. All of their predictions were wrong over the last 100 years and their fear mongering is completely based on falsified data and corporate science.

You don't need any "secret documents" to prove that there is an agenda behind it all, since they are publicly available and pretty easy to access from their sites and all of their wonderful front companies. Just start reading the UN's Agenda 2030 document.

If you actually looked into history then you'll see that much of what has happened from WW1 onwards was an effort by wealthy people, dynasties in finance etc., to build a world of their liking, which gives them top down control via a lot of fronts.

Check out who owns the world economy. It's BlackRock and Vanguard, the latter owning the former. Then there are a lot of foundations and NGO/NPOs which have their function of control and wealth funnelling as well, connecting finance, business, politics and the media.

The "climate change" bullshit is for natural resource and social control. The carbon credits are nothing more than a new financial product and their green governance guidelines are for leverage. Nothing about it is about saving the earth or the environment.

This is provable and not "just a feeling".

Please lead me to some examples for your claims, if you have them, so I can make up my mind and re-evaluate my stance, if you're correct. I'd appreciate it.

Sounds like more patchwork crap for a failed model...

Why don't you peeps check out some of the explanations coming from plasma physicists and electric engineers that have oberserved similarities between their fields of expertise and things going on on earth, it's atmosphere and space (sun, planets, stars)?

There is actually a model, that doesn't need dark matter and such things, which is called plasma cosmology or electric universe. The rotational aspect of galaxies is pretty easily explained with knowledge about plasma, loaded particle clouds and an understanding of electricity.

The best thing is, they can actually predict stuff. Contrast that with dark matter theories and gravitational models.

Check out the SAFIRE Project https://safireproject.com/ for an interesting experimental take on the sun.

These are some pretty old websites, but there is still some interesting stuff to learn about. https://www.plasmaresources.com/ https://plasmauniverse.info/ https://www.plasmacosmology.net/ https://www.electric-cosmos.org/

Something more up to date: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/beginners-guide/ https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/eg-contents/ https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/misconceptions/ https://www.holoscience.com/wp/

This is their YOUTUBE Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject/playlists