Predictive control becomes technologism. It seeks models of application to tasks or goal, not truth or significance within an integrative body of corroborated experience. So simple versions are used that mostly apply to most situations as serving systems of control. That they are wrong doesn't matter if the math works - with extra workar…
Predictive control becomes technologism. It seeks models of application to tasks or goal, not truth or significance within an integrative body of corroborated experience.
So simple versions are used that mostly apply to most situations as serving systems of control. That they are wrong doesn't matter if the math works - with extra workarounds for known anomalies.
Reductionism is useful to give a basic overview to a field, but quickly becomes a mainstream version that reduces life to false or incomplete 'explanations'. With the accretion of anomalies, or contradictions, the mainstreaming PR for 'the science' hires celebrities to front banalities, absurdities and models that are unscientifically provable (or simply sci fi).
The gold rush mindset operates (as now for biotech) as a variation of war, by pushing all other considerations aside in order to be first or get a preferable insider position to the new market.
Status in a hierarchy also pertains. Challenging nobel prize winners is a risky venture - unless they step outside the narrative to be excluded, but then they are not engaged with.
Those who are accorded authority may or may not use it to cow others, and are quite capable of facing challenges, but that the social order crystallises around them and challenging this can result in smear, ridicule or stonewalling exclusion.
Well, it seems to me you have a "new" idea, a "good" one, then it will either resonate and stand the test of time or it won't.
But, if all it is is an echo chamber of self-fulfilling ideas and rewards....well, the peasant's know, that is worthless and not laudable. Peasants got more wisdom then old pompous ones 8 days a week.
So, if you think you have a good idea, and even if you get accolades, be willing to defend it, because if not - you are just part of the narrative and really why should that be rewarded when we all ought know - old ideas proven wrong after a long time of obfuscation....well, of course, they die hard, but die they will.
After that, and before that you want my opinion - let the best ideas prevail.
What I see is that real discovery is suppressed to eventually be rediscovered (if we come out of this nosedive) while selected ideas are framed in such a way as to define the research into the field, while incentivising the right results. Ie CO2 research that receives the benefits of the gravy train.
So it is not a free market for the best ideas, but a politicised corporately captured science running under both hierarchical command and peer pressure of invested stakeholder in the established order.
When Bruce Lipton's research undermined the prevailing gene dogma he was literally stonewalled. (His mentor confided - "It's not what we are thinking"). Genes are more akin to gonads than brain/controller.
When Dr Klemmer documented his cures and reversals of polio with IV VitC treatments the polio vax campaign was already ready to roll. Stonewalled.
So the best idea to the parameters of acceptance, recognition and investment may be a plausible cover story for toxic damage that would involve huge fallout of loss and even prosecutions, AND provide a basis for huge profits as a boost to the vaccination industry - which is a protected and securitised narrative, and not open to scientific principles.
Predictive control becomes technologism. It seeks models of application to tasks or goal, not truth or significance within an integrative body of corroborated experience.
So simple versions are used that mostly apply to most situations as serving systems of control. That they are wrong doesn't matter if the math works - with extra workarounds for known anomalies.
Reductionism is useful to give a basic overview to a field, but quickly becomes a mainstream version that reduces life to false or incomplete 'explanations'. With the accretion of anomalies, or contradictions, the mainstreaming PR for 'the science' hires celebrities to front banalities, absurdities and models that are unscientifically provable (or simply sci fi).
The gold rush mindset operates (as now for biotech) as a variation of war, by pushing all other considerations aside in order to be first or get a preferable insider position to the new market.
Status in a hierarchy also pertains. Challenging nobel prize winners is a risky venture - unless they step outside the narrative to be excluded, but then they are not engaged with.
If a "nobel" prize winner is not willing to face challenges, then I guess the prize must be nothing but dynamite royalties?
Yes I get the reference.
It is often used to leverage narratives
Those who are accorded authority may or may not use it to cow others, and are quite capable of facing challenges, but that the social order crystallises around them and challenging this can result in smear, ridicule or stonewalling exclusion.
Well, it seems to me you have a "new" idea, a "good" one, then it will either resonate and stand the test of time or it won't.
But, if all it is is an echo chamber of self-fulfilling ideas and rewards....well, the peasant's know, that is worthless and not laudable. Peasants got more wisdom then old pompous ones 8 days a week.
So, if you think you have a good idea, and even if you get accolades, be willing to defend it, because if not - you are just part of the narrative and really why should that be rewarded when we all ought know - old ideas proven wrong after a long time of obfuscation....well, of course, they die hard, but die they will.
After that, and before that you want my opinion - let the best ideas prevail.
Regards,
BK
What I see is that real discovery is suppressed to eventually be rediscovered (if we come out of this nosedive) while selected ideas are framed in such a way as to define the research into the field, while incentivising the right results. Ie CO2 research that receives the benefits of the gravy train.
So it is not a free market for the best ideas, but a politicised corporately captured science running under both hierarchical command and peer pressure of invested stakeholder in the established order.
When Bruce Lipton's research undermined the prevailing gene dogma he was literally stonewalled. (His mentor confided - "It's not what we are thinking"). Genes are more akin to gonads than brain/controller.
When Dr Klemmer documented his cures and reversals of polio with IV VitC treatments the polio vax campaign was already ready to roll. Stonewalled.
So the best idea to the parameters of acceptance, recognition and investment may be a plausible cover story for toxic damage that would involve huge fallout of loss and even prosecutions, AND provide a basis for huge profits as a boost to the vaccination industry - which is a protected and securitised narrative, and not open to scientific principles.
Sad but true I suppose.
Speaks to the power of mammon - it diminishes new ideas to hold onto bad ones already proven wrong.
Why does it do this - well it must be ego I reckon and dollars in the pocket provided by mammon.
BK