Lessons from the Caterpillar – we need a scientific revolution!

The Caterpillar effect has been proven to exist, not just by one predicted outcome but two. And now this tremendous step forward in the understanding of our planet stands as one of the great discoveries … no?
Of course not!
Because science isn’t about great discoveries, it is not even about great science.
Instead, as I outlined in the “Cassandra theory” (aka the Academic Ape) science is a social construct consisting of people who self-identify as “scientists” acting as gate keepers: creating power for themselves over “science” and keeping out any unwelcome intrusions from people like me (and climate sceptics daring to comment about “climate science”).
Of course, I know how to become one of the great people of science: first I apply for a job within academia – because only those within academia can be acclaimed as the “greats within science”. Then (not having the time myself to climb the greasy pole) I have to find some “great” person – who undoubtedly only has a vague understanding of science themselves. Instead they have the social acumen to gather together around them an entourage of socially inept, but scientifically great individuals, with whom they have a parasitic relationship: stealing their ideas and claiming they are the “great people” of science. And if I am lucky, one will take me under their wing, steal my idea and if I’m lucky and brown nose enough they may just allow me to be a “co-discoverer”.
OK, that’s probably a cruel and over the top caricature of the way science works. Because I’m sure many who get to the top really do believe they are great scientists.
But the point I’m trying to make here, is that the kind of personality that makes a really great scientist, is seldom the kind of personality that makes a great social organiser capable of spinning their ideas to the press and getting all the credit. So usually, the “leaders” of science, are the least capable scientifically.
A good example here, is “Sir” Paul Nurse, head of the “Royal” society. He was woefully unqualified to speak about atmospheric physics, but he had the gall to lecture those who were qualified. So, he clearly didn’t have any compunction speaking out on subjects where he was clueless. So he does not seem to have got to the top by knowing what he was speaking about, and therefore I strongly doubt he was any better on genetics than he was on climate. His success was being a social manipulator, capable of persuading the socialites in the press and establishment that he was the one to put in charge of those who actually knew, understood and produced the science. But it was ever thus, for when has any great industrialist, welded their own ship, soldered their own iPhone?
Likewise in climate, when we look around in climate science, we see the truly great minds, chose to took a course against the “parasitic socialites” of science. And whilst the sceptic scientists acts were truly noble, I also note, that not one of them has progressed, nor even looks likely to progress now that the evidence is clearly backing them.  No one ever got on by being a sceptic – even if without sceptics we’d be going full steam to economic suicide.
Instead the people who have been running science: the social parasites who jumped onto the global warming bandwagon … will continue to run “science” even when the evidence clearly shows them to be wrong. And if you want to get on in science: you have to fit in with these people and not be a sceptic like me.

The lessons for Real Science

And herein lies the real lesson: much of scientific progress is undoubtedly being missed because it does not fit the agenda and/or scientific competence of those that run science. “science” is run by a bunch of truly ignorant people whose main skill is living off the work of others. So, much of what we call “science” is undoubtedly second rate non-sense … but it is second rate garbage that just happens to be socially useful non-sense whose only merit, is that it seemed attractive to one of the numbskulls running “science” and those politicians handing out the dosh.
So, what the Caterpillar Effect & Global warming theory demonstrates, is that good science is easily excluded a fake science is easily included.
And on that basis alone, one must conclude that much of what we are taught in any science degree is rubbish – not obviously the theories that can and have been rigorously tested by trial and error in the field – because if there was any error in these aspects of science, they would have been found long ago. But instead it is the esoteric nonsense we get which appear to be nothing less than wishful thinking invented to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
Take for example “wave particle duality”. This is just two separate and very different theories cobbled together with a lie: “It’s the same theory but … “.  Another classic example is relativity: “because the speed of light is a constant … “. Now tell me why the speed of light is a constant? Indeed to be more accurate, why is it defined as a constant? And so why is everything else defined in such a way that its meaning has to adapt to maintain the fiction that the speed of light is a constant. That was a totally irrational decision, and as everyone whose done maths ought to know, simply by redefining the speed of light as an equation of some form, we can get at least one other parameter to behave in any way we like. So, the decision to make C behave one way, imposes exotic behaviour on other variables: a decision that can be reversed if we chose to do so. Another is the fiction of a “quantum wave” … one that spreads throughout much of the galaxy before suddenly moving in an instant to materialise in the one single atom that happens to absorb this “wave”. It’s total bollocks: bollocks regularly served up to gullible young students who if they are clever enough to know it is bollocks, are also clever enough to know that they will not get on by asking why such bollocks is served up as “science”!
The problem of course, is that if we assume 50% of everything in science is wrong … who knows which 50% that is? Indeed, there is undoubtedly some truth in all the theories; and I also have to accept that even those ideas I’ve grown to think are laughable, could turn out to be right. And likewise, many ideas I cherish as the bedrock of real science will turn out to be wrong.
But, as the global warming scam has shown, the problem with the social construct now called “science”, is that it has become intolerant of dissent. As such, it seems that in many areas of (real) science, the subject has ground to a halt with little progress being made. So who knows what fabulous theories remain hidden if only someone has the courage to lift the hallowed stones of orthodox “science” and see what lies beneath?

The Future

I would therefore state with some certainty, that there remains whole areas of discoveries in even the most apparently “obvious” parts of science. Indeed, this is the natural conclusion of the global warming scam.
There was plenty of evidence against the 20th century being something special. (For example Central England Temperature record). Now, imagine what it is like, in areas of science where no one has yet done the experiment to reveal the contrary evidence? If rubbish like unending global warming can become entrenched when the contrary evidence was so easy to find and interpret, what must it be like in more exotic areas of science?
In order to make progress in science – particularly the older subjects like Physics – we literally need a revolution. We need to reduce the number of social parasites pushing crap like global warming, and start having real free thinkers ready and willing to turn over the stones of established theory and see what creepy crawlies line underneath.

And that’s a revolution I’d be very happy to start!

This entry was posted in Caterpillar, Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Lessons from the Caterpillar – we need a scientific revolution!

  1. oldbrew says:

    Science ‘has become intolerant of dissent’ – it’s always been like that to some extent.
    The problem is well-known e.g. here: Suppression of dissent in science

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Back in the 19th and early 20th century, science was conducted University by University. So speaking biologically, there was far more diversity around than there is today in the single common room of the internet.
      In the 19th early/20th century one University may have had entirely different views from another, and whilst that undoubtedly led to battles, those battles were few and far between.
      But today, if anyone steps out of line, within minutes the group-subject minders can be breathing down their necks bringing them back in.

  2. “In order to make progress in science – particularly the older subjects like Physics – we literally need a revolution.”
    De-legitimatize western educational system completely! Start over with parents socially constrained to rearing their own offspring to become ‘useful’ members of that society! Between chores ofsprouts may attend local classes for instruction in written\verbal communication and basic arithmetic (make change for a buck).
    After that trade schools for learning skills, especially that of the joy of learning! The masters of the trade schools broaden their skills by attending and ‘teaching their mastery’ at other trade schools. After 10-20 years of habilitation. some of those masters may be willing to discuss\argue between themselves what might be part if this physical world; and what must remain in the other reality of thought\religion\philosophy\fantasy! Peer review and publishing is only for publishers, never science!
    “We need to reduce the number of social parasites pushing crap like global warming, and start having real free thinkers ready and willing to turn over the stones of established theory and see what creepy crawlies line underneath.”
    Like wild chickens, carefully turning leaves over to discover yummy stuff beneath”

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      It all stems from my belief that science has begun to stagnate through its own … I suppose its the science equivalent of PC. It’s caught in a straightjacket of its own making.
      And global warming is arguably a symptom of that … because in a PC world that blocks every other form of enquiry because it will be going against some consensus or other, suddenly there was a field of study so new that there was no consensus … so they just piled in.
      But almost as soon as anyone touched the subject of climate … in came the PC consensus constraining the subject like any other area of science … but this time it was so immature that the “consensus” was a total load of garbage.

Comments are closed.