It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Deny Ignorance – Tool of the establishment?

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Could the phrase “To Deny Ignorance”, be more of a tool of the establishment versus those who would like to come up with new ways of viewing this reality? When theories get proposed that go against mainstream thought, the opponents come out of the woodwork and start defending the status quo. It is like a simple theory is such a danger to the establishment that it must be crushed with all available effort.

Don’t they control most of the higher learning institutions already? They have the full backing of mainstream media and most of the published texts out there, supporting their positions. When their memorized and regurgitated ‘facts’ are questioned, the routine statements start coming out “What are your qualifications”? “What are your certifications”? “Where is your proof”? “What kind of peer reviewed mainstream articles can you cough up to support your position”?

They act like there are all these proven facts that support their science, twisting evidence to support their thoughts. But most of the scientific facts are mere theories. Do we have proof of black holes? Do we have proof of dark matter and energy? No? That sure doesn’t seem to keep the mainstreamers from condemning any challenging ideas as simple heresy.

Then there are the statements that go something like: well we are just trying to keep things honest, We are just trying to prevent an echo chamber or you are just a quack, a snake oil salesman….even though the originators of such new ideas aren’t trying to sell anything or con anyone, they are just looking for a new angle.

Right or wrong, I have no idea. I just imagine that this really stifles discourse and intimidates people from coming forth with unique and original ideas. Sometimes it is fun to propose ‘what if’ and engage in conversations with people who have an open mind enough to go down the rabbit whole with the creator.

Just trying to figure out if it is even worthwhile to try any more.

30 'facts' you learned in school that have since been proven wrong

35 Science 'Facts' That Are Totally Wrong

The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades




posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I agree with what your saying but I think Mac said it better




posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

I don't know about others, but, I absolutely love new thoughts/ideas. Do I believe in/agree with all of them? Nope...but it gives me the opportunity to think differently for a moment at least. To see things with new eyes.


I do believe that many people who invented something or thought differently were ridiculed/shunned by the public or their peers:

6 scientists who were dismissed as crazy only to be proven right years later

10 Inventions no one thought would be a success

I guess it goes with the territory. There will always be someone who doesn't agree. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just means they don't see things quite like you do. Not a bad thing, the world would be boring if we all thought alike.

Thanks,
blend



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

I looked at your source ...

MYTH: You must drink eight glasses of water a day.


I don't know why they are giving medical advice, they should stop. That's not a myth, and is actually still the recommendation.


You've probably heard the advice, "Drink eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day." That's easy to remember, and it's a reasonable goal.

www.mayoclinic.org...



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I've always thought it was best to teach your children to think for themselves. Kind of like giving them a seed and let them see how they plant it in the garden. It's like in America we build a little mound and then plant the watermelon seed, but is it really necessary... this country, no mound, just flat surface. I wonder why the difference?



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

I like this video where the laws of physics are not constant but the constants of the Universe are changing.



I thought this video was funny disproving most scientific methods

The crisis in science

"Chocolate accelerates weight loss"

The thing over the past 500 years science has done a terrific job disproving or creating doubt in people over many stupid superstitions like sacrificing goats somehow gains you favor with God. Plus science is essential in creating all kinds of useful technology.

People's attitudes about dogma is different than science. Every person has a belief system built on sets of assumptions consider to be absolute truths. People with different set of assumptions will think other people without those same assumptions as being insane. It is the human nature of language.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

The problem isn't science. It's the way science gets reported on. A study with a title like:

Possible connection found between x and y

Gets reported as a story with a headline like

Did you know that x will kill you if y?

Or

Omgwtf holy # x causes y

Most people will read a news article about some scientific study or report rather than an actual study.

So instead of reading.

'The results of our study show a possible statistically significant correlation between x and y. More studies are needed on both x and y.

They read:

'Scientists discover x causes y....so stop x or you're #ed.'

This is the problem.
edit on 1/4/2019 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
“What kind of peer reviewed mainstream articles can you cough up to support your position?”

Peer review in itself is a very nebulous way of corroborating results and separating fact from fiction. While it can be beneficial as a sort of filter for study results, it can also tilt the tables the wrong way.

Peer review is about as reliable as the opinions of a group of people on a specific topic.

More here:

www.vox.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
And yet a innocent child with a magnifying glass burns up an ant hill, and while being ignorant of the pain and harm the child is causing to the ants.

Very cute isn't it?

Especially with all the social sciences that are mandatory, when it should be a civics dispute in the first place anyways.

If a teacher wrong about something or teaches something not useful, that would make them a very bad teacher wouldn't it? And they should of got a career in McDonald's.



edit on 1-4-2019 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2019 by Specimen because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12

log in

join