The authoritarian scientific establishment

Nobody
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by Nobody »

The weight given, in scientific communication, to formulations, or representations, should not be a function of the social force or authority of its advocates (as it is in other areas, politics, the humanities in which truth-value is often an effect of institutionally produced sources of authority) but this requires autonomy which requires secure financing. Everything, in the end, is always economic or financial. The problem with science arises from its very success at producing effects in the real world which make it a vital stake for the powerful: if you want to exercise your collective will, well, now, science is the means to realise that will and this is, of course, what you see with this pandemic. The problem with applied medical research is that it tends to be self-validating, in that the terms via which they construct the production of data validates the assumptions that are structuring modalities of the research so that research outcomes, of representational forms, are infused with a cognitive bias. But the problem with this use of science to defend particular institutional and political interests is that, whilst it is legitimatory, hence Johnson's "following the science" statement, it is used in an exclusionary and de-legitimatory way: to ensure others cannot speak or manifest interests. Now, whilst the virus itself is obviously a phenomena that belongs to the natural world and is a naturally occurring phenomena, its social effects relate to how it is signified by science and made socially consequential, that is, given public objectivity and social efficacy and this raises a number of issues that involve democratic principles and human rights. And this is where the governments are culpable of heinous negligence. The virus may belong to the domain of science but the use of science to defend states of affairs that are deleterious to human fruition and self-actualisation is something that involves issues concerning the nature of our civil institutions and this is why this virus has been such a seismic manifestation of changes in the nature of the state and its relations to the peoples of the world. What you see is yet more manifestation of divisions between those who will institute this new civil culture, the technocratic elite, the middle class who have technical and scientific education (the division, educationally, between scientific and humanities (or bullshit subjects) education is a huge class divide), who will find roles in this new covid economy sprouting up (the government spent £1 billion on test and trace, and has spent astronomic sums on the policing of this scientifically and laboratory produced signifying of the pandemic). But, what I think is a key historical revelation of this pandemic is the extent to which the nation-state apparatus has been appropriated by international interests. This is deeply revealing I think of a massive change. There was a time when the UK institutional apparatus would not have instituted the vaccines, for example, so readily. Yet, there have only been a few political leaders who have questioned any of it. I think the reason the lockdowns were pursued is because they achieve political ends that the global elite behind this are invested in and, also, the lockdowns are self-validating. If we did have heard immunity, naturally, then that phenomena was occluded by lockdown which operated via certain assumptions which then affect the reality: without interaction and social contact, the natural processes by which human beings develop immunity symbiotically is interrupted, making us more, not less, vulnerable over time (according to Geert van Borsch). The counterfactual position was obliterated by the policy which has become self-validating. If the reality had been that the virus would not have infected many more people than it did, that significant fact has been obliterated as a possibility. This is why I think they pursued lockdowns. It shows that institutional powers want to shape reality and exercise their will.
It is very interesting that Bill Gates, advocate of personal vaccine choice, has used the full social force of institutions charged with constituting the appearance of the possibility of public health, to create public conditions, via the significances of the representational power of scientific authority, to make necessary particular individual choices and, of course the behavioural psychologists at Sage are expert in these matters. It is kind of a back-handed acknowledgement of socialist principles that these world-historical figures are using social and political institutions to make necessary individual behavioural forms that will subtend the basis of a new economic order.
In the end, we need different kinds of institutions that offer different possibilities. We need representative institutions capable of responding to human needs: we need to operate from a human scale (to borrow a phrase from development economics) but it all needs money. I saw what happened in UK universities in the late 80s and early 90s where there was no money available for English students to progress to postgraduate level so that meant they could not progress to academic careers and the universities became filled with wealthy overseas students, postgraduates were 9 out of 10 in the department I did my PhD in and I never ever met a single other English PhD student. How can this not affect the forms that academic knowledge takes? If your institutions have no one from certain areas, how on earth can you have democratic institutions? How can these groups that are institutionally mobilised and positioned to develop science to defend and express their interests be challenged? I think this pandemic shows that their position is unassailable. They have the institutional means to render legitimate their interests and force the rest of the world into indentured servitude, living mutilated lives with a mask as a mark of their abortive attempts to accede to membership.


thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by thinksaboutit »

Nobody wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:23 am The weight given, in scientific communication, to formulations, or representations, should not be a function of the social force or authority of its advocates (as it is in other areas, politics, the humanities in which truth-value is often an effect of institutionally produced sources of authority) but this requires autonomy which requires secure financing. Everything, in the end, is always economic or financial. The problem with science arises from its very success at producing effects in the real world which make it a vital stake for the powerful: if you want to exercise your collective will, well, now, science is the means to realise that will and this is, of course, what you see with this pandemic. The problem with applied medical research is that it tends to be self-validating, in that the terms via which they construct the production of data validates the assumptions that are structuring modalities of the research so that research outcomes, of representational forms, are infused with a cognitive bias. But the problem with this use of science to defend particular institutional and political interests is that, whilst it is legitimatory, hence Johnson's "following the science" statement, it is used in an exclusionary and de-legitimatory way: to ensure others cannot speak or manifest interests. Now, whilst the virus itself is obviously a phenomena that belongs to the natural world and is a naturally occurring phenomena, its social effects relate to how it is signified by science and made socially consequential, that is, given public objectivity and social efficacy and this raises a number of issues that involve democratic principles and human rights. And this is where the governments are culpable of heinous negligence. The virus may belong to the domain of science but the use of science to defend states of affairs that are deleterious to human fruition and self-actualisation is something that involves issues concerning the nature of our civil institutions and this is why this virus has been such a seismic manifestation of changes in the nature of the state and its relations to the peoples of the world. What you see is yet more manifestation of divisions between those who will institute this new civil culture, the technocratic elite, the middle class who have technical and scientific education (the division, educationally, between scientific and humanities (or bullshit subjects) education is a huge class divide), who will find roles in this new covid economy sprouting up (the government spent £1 billion on test and trace, and has spent astronomic sums on the policing of this scientifically and laboratory produced signifying of the pandemic). But, what I think is a key historical revelation of this pandemic is the extent to which the nation-state apparatus has been appropriated by international interests. This is deeply revealing I think of a massive change. There was a time when the UK institutional apparatus would not have instituted the vaccines, for example, so readily. Yet, there have only been a few political leaders who have questioned any of it. I think the reason the lockdowns were pursued is because they achieve political ends that the global elite behind this are invested in and, also, the lockdowns are self-validating. If we did have heard immunity, naturally, then that phenomena was occluded by lockdown which operated via certain assumptions which then affect the reality: without interaction and social contact, the natural processes by which human beings develop immunity symbiotically is interrupted, making us more, not less, vulnerable over time (according to Geert van Borsch). The counterfactual position was obliterated by the policy which has become self-validating. If the reality had been that the virus would not have infected many more people than it did, that significant fact has been obliterated as a possibility. This is why I think they pursued lockdowns. It shows that institutional powers want to shape reality and exercise their will.
It is very interesting that Bill Gates, advocate of personal vaccine choice, has used the full social force of institutions charged with constituting the appearance of the possibility of public health, to create public conditions, via the significances of the representational power of scientific authority, to make necessary particular individual choices and, of course the behavioural psychologists at Sage are expert in these matters. It is kind of a back-handed acknowledgement of socialist principles that these world-historical figures are using social and political institutions to make necessary individual behavioural forms that will subtend the basis of a new economic order.
In the end, we need different kinds of institutions that offer different possibilities. We need representative institutions capable of responding to human needs: we need to operate from a human scale (to borrow a phrase from development economics) but it all needs money. I saw what happened in UK universities in the late 80s and early 90s where there was no money available for English students to progress to postgraduate level so that meant they could not progress to academic careers and the universities became filled with wealthy overseas students, postgraduates were 9 out of 10 in the department I did my PhD in and I never ever met a single other English PhD student. How can this not affect the forms that academic knowledge takes? If your institutions have no one from certain areas, how on earth can you have democratic institutions? How can these groups that are institutionally mobilised and positioned to develop science to defend and express their interests be challenged? I think this pandemic shows that their position is unassailable. They have the institutional means to render legitimate their interests and force the rest of the world into indentured servitude, living mutilated lives with a mask as a mark of their abortive attempts to accede to membership.
So you have a PhD, but have a mindset where you will accept a technical/medical viewpoint stated by a maverick minority of fringe figures over the viewpoint expresses by the vast majority of qualified professionals worldwide. When challenged as to why, you admit to knowing nothing on the subject whatsoever. So we must assume that the money invested in your PhD was wasted, as no educational benefit was derived.

We can also deduce that viewpoint you express is not technical/medical but instead just political.

CoronanationStreet
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by CoronanationStreet »

thinksaboutit wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:31 am
Speedstick wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:55 am Great post Richard 789.
Of course the GDB or a similar protection protocol should have been used as the response to Covid.
We can all see and understand that this virus is/was only a significant danger to those with weakened immune responses.
Those with with weakened immune responses as a result of frailty, serious disease or significant metabolic rate disorders should have been offered focused protection.
This focused protection would have saved just as many lives as lockdown maybe even more, as the vulnerable groups would have been protected, and whilst expensive would have been far cheaper than the astronomical costs of lockdown and far far less damaging to our children and society as a whole.
Except the GBD didn't actually propose how this focussed protection would be accomplished and neither did any of its advocates.
The govt didn't do any cost or harm/benefit analysis before locking down the entire country to varying degrees for over a year.

Focussed protection is a logical extension piece of the govt's own pandemic preparedness plan which it chose to ignore and which, for example, didn't suggest imposing or facilitating school closures unless absolutely necessary on an individual basis and advocated a "business as normal" approach as the underlying basis for the plan.

Nobody
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by Nobody »

So you have a PhD, but have a mindset where you will accept a technical/medical viewpoint stated by a maverick minority of fringe figures over the viewpoint expresses by the vast majority of qualified professionals worldwide. When challenged as to why, you admit to knowing nothing on the subject whatsoever. So we must assume that the money invested in your PhD was wasted, as no educational benefit was derived.

We can also deduce that viewpoint you express is not technical/medical but instead just political.

Yes. It has no epistemic value, I made that clear in one of my earlier posts.
People like me don't get real education anyway so we are undermined and de-legitimated as part of our daily existence (that is why I have been unemployed all my life and why, despite managing to purchase a PhD at what was probably the most difficult time in UK post-World-War 2 history to get one if you were poor) so, I don't expect my opinion to have value. All I can do is interpret the signs.
As the link I posted shows, my prejudices are well founded. I know enough from my knowledge of how universities operate to know that all their processes, like the political field, are merely another branch of class warfare. Science matters because it has real effects so the elite will mobilise around it because it is key to the establishment of the legitimacy of their rule, as this pandemic shows.
So, I have a well grounded suspicion of mainstream scientific orthodoxy, it is an institutional mobilisation, an effect of the sources of power from which its forms emerge (much like political forms).
In the end, this is as much a political phenomena as scientific or medical and it would have been better dealt with if philosophical principles concerning the interpersonal conditions of human well being were addressed but that would have involved very different political organisation and that tells us something: the form of our political institutions are invested in the use of science which affects the forms of the science. We all know Gates provides large capital sums to the BBC as well as to the universities and research sites that produce the legitimacy of his opinion in the same way that Bezos finances the New York Times to support lockdown. Establishing an orthodoxy is a political matter concerning the use of resources of various kinds to legitimate intellectual positions. This is why I prefer heterodoxic opinions, I learned they are usually correct.
Of course, in the end it is a prejudice but in the end all knowledge is based on pre-judgement, if we did not make assumptions our knowledge would never get off the ground, I have answered you on this charge before so I will not repeat it here.
As I have said, I am nobody so who cares what I think? The government doesn't give a flying fuck about the opinions of anyone. So, I don't think we should trust the science that they are not following anyway. The whole of the science that has produced this mess is corrupted. From the gain-of-function research that produced the virus to much of the rubbish that has been peddled from asymptomatic spread to new strains to the PCR test. Choose a type of infection that has a lot of symptomatic overlap with other infections and can only be diagnosed using an ineffective diagnostic device requiring complex institutional conditions to execute and you are going to end up with a pandemic, especially when you lower the thresholds required to declare pandemic after your first attempt to manufacture the institutional conditions for this stunt fail. This is how you manufacture particular conditions because you are invested in certain outcomes.
What are the social and institutional conditions of this catastrophe? Are they a virus that is not unknown to the species and which we have survived without much trouble? They are a institutionalised elite able to institute complex outcomes in the public sphere using sophisticated institutional machineries to produce particularly effective forms of significance that are then given political significance to extort behavioural change. For me, we are each and every one of us ill-placed to challenge this, and that is precisely why it has been instituted using the authority of science in order to manipulate us to make certain behavioural forms appear legitimate and necessary. When someone takes away rights that the political sphere should have enshrined as inalienable, then you are dealing with a bankrupt political elite and you have no choice but to reject the significances. If you are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, choose neither. So, yes, I reject scientific orthodoxy since I can see that the institutional field from which its representations emerge is institutionally compromised. Truth is also a moral disposition and those, like Yeadon or Cahill, could probably make a lot of money from supporting the orthodoxy, I take that as indicative of a moral disposition that is also a condition of having an expressive interest in the truth. So, yes, it is my preference to accept their authority.

Nobody
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by Nobody »

As for the priesthood. Only a very small percentage of the population has any real substantial scientific skills. Before the 1960's most of the people who persevered with study to get a PhD or equivalent research position had a high probability of have substantive scientific skills...Nowadays if someone with some formal professional scientific qualifications expresses an opinion on their area of specialty they should be assumed to be talking complete bollocks until proved otherwise.

The issue is really the mode of closure constitutive of the authority of those who are consecrated. In the humanities, which are totally corrupt because they are publicly inconsequential and, therefore, rely on income from any sources leading to the sale of credentials, the selection processes are attenuated by the complete anonymity of the process people are subject to. When I did my higher degrees all we did was purchase the credential via a charade that narcissistically realised the academics who extorted supply via students. It was difficult to pay for if you were poor and, at the time, in the UK, there were as few as 24 awards annually in some subject areas. So, it was very hard to survive. I managed to get one of the 24 awards but when I completed the PhD it was completely worthless. But what happens in the humanities is that the poor cannot access the conditions required to contribute or develop anyway. In science, you can demonstrate incompetence because it is consequential, and, also, you can establish exclusion because science is inseparable from context, but in the humanities, discrimination can be completely hidden because there is no sphere of practice that any of it relates to and the English system required a student of poor origin to develop a project from outside of the institution in order to secure finance independently to pay for the certification of the project. Now, if you live in a bedroom at your parents because you have no money and have to sacrifice everything to try to find a project when you live on state benefits, how are you going to develop a project of any public significance unless there is some mediation on the part of the institution. In the humanities, the discriminations start very early and are continuously instituted.
But what you say is even more true in the humanities, the credentials are so worthless that they do not even get you considered for a post. We live in a society where credentials do not certify you and, again, why? Because the grounds of value are institutionally private. What matters is the value of the producer. Look at Ferguson, he has been spectacularly wrong on many things, successively, but it does not affect his scientific capital. But that is because so few people have the skills he has. Any kind of scientific or mathematical skills are so rare that they guarantee those with them a future. There is a huge class divide within education and the labour market surrounding scientific and mathematical competencies. I went to a local college of 20 000 students and almost nobody did maths or science. We were all corralled into humanities subjects that offered nothing and ended up back in the town, back on benefits. The people in humanities need some dumb fucks to be stupid enough to invest and we are the ones who are structurally ignorant.

jmc
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:01 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by jmc »

thinksaboutit wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 2:02 pm
So you have a PhD, but have a mindset where you will accept a technical/medical viewpoint stated by a maverick minority of fringe figures over the viewpoint expresses by the vast majority of qualified professionals worldwide. When challenged as to why, you admit to knowing nothing on the subject whatsoever. So we must assume that the money invested in your PhD was wasted, as no educational benefit was derived.

We can also deduce that viewpoint you express is not technical/medical but instead just political.
And we can deduce that not only do you not have a PhD but you have spent your whole life around people who did not have either PhD's or senior academic titles.

The poster knows exactly of what he speaks. Very familiar to those of us who know that world. Whereas your contributions here sound like little more than the empty chattering of a witless troll. So far I have seen little evidence of any innate intelligence in any of your contributions here. They never move the discussion in a positive or informative direction. Just a rather stolid, leaden and very slow moving mind intent it seems on disruption and bringing everything down to an utterly nondescript intellectual level. You're dont sound terribly bright. You seem remarkably slow on the uptake. In fact a bit of a Benny.

Or is all just an act? Because its starting to seem that way.

The poster is genuine. Very genuine. But by this stage you sound remarkably like a fraud. Intent on disruption. Because ever single position you take seems to be a full and complete support of the lockdown and the whole media narrative. Always the Argument from Authority and nothing else. Or the seemingly deliberate misunderstanding of clear explanations.

So why are you such a prolific poster? Bored and nothing else to do but cause some pointless mischief?

Splatt
Posts: 1583
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by Splatt »

jmc wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:45 pm So why are you such a prolific poster? Bored and nothing else to do but cause some pointless mischief?
Locked down, furloughed so getting paid nicely for doing nothing. Didn't do anything exciting in pre-covid times so has lost nothing at a guess.

That or works in a nice cushy guaranteed salary job and really did nothing social or interesting even before this.

fon
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by fon »

jmc wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:54 am Now writing the real time targeting software
The very basics would obvsly be straightforward Newtonian mechanics in the form of an orbit determination algorithm, an orbit prediction system, after that, it's down to tracking data (range, azimuth, elevation) and straight forward vector coordinate tranformations or quaternions, to turn (where the hell is it relative to us , into where the hell do we point this gun thing to hit it in the inertial frame?) All those problems were solved before the 70s commenced, although the advent of 1 bips computers greatly helped to make it feasible, before that, a decent orbit determination could take an hour! Now it's 10 seconds or even less on a grid farm, and there is not much you can do about tracking data, it is what it is... And that the minimum crash course on orbit determination and state vectors, and pointing lasers etc. Things change very slowly in that area. Which is surprising since the obital objects whizz around at e.g 7 km per second.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by thinksaboutit »

jmc wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:45 pm And we can deduce that not only do you not have a PhD but you have spent your whole life around people who did not have either PhD's or senior academic titles.
Question your deductive skills. You are incorrect.
jmc wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:45 pm The poster knows exactly of what he speaks.
By his own admission, he has no relevant knowledge.
jmc wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:45 pm Whereas your contributions here sound like little more than the empty chattering of a witless troll. So far I have seen little evidence of any innate intelligence in any of your contributions here. They never move the discussion in a positive or informative direction. Just a rather stolid, leaden and very slow moving mind intent it seems on disruption and bringing everything down to an utterly nondescript intellectual level. You're dont sound terribly bright. You seem remarkably slow on the uptake. In fact a bit of a Benny.
Trademark personal attack. True to form!
jmc wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:45 pm The poster is genuine. Very genuine. But by this stage you sound remarkably like a fraud. Intent on disruption. Because ever single position you take seems to be a full and complete support of the lockdown and the whole media narrative. Always the Argument from Authority and nothing else. Or the seemingly deliberate misunderstanding of clear explanations.

So why are you such a prolific poster? Bored and nothing else to do but cause some pointless mischief?
Not a fraud, since I don't seek to disguise my motives.
I simply ask questions to make people justify their assertions. They almost never come up with the goods.
Since much of what is posted around here is garbage, this is justified.

Since much of the recent focus has been anti-vaxx motivated, it is also dangerous garbage.

Aggressive responses are common, which I regard as a success it means the responder doesn't have a justification and somewhere/sometime in their mind they may realise it.

Post Reply