Scientific Consensus and Mass Delusion

A video showing that science isn’t perfectly objective and can be manipulated by politics, emotion, etc.  Did you know that scientists once claimed to be in regular contact with Martians?  Neither did I until I watched this video:

Scientific Consensus And Mass Delusion – 150 Years Of Scientific Insanity

Ian Malcolm Gives Hammond An Ethics Lecture

Because They Use The Scientific Method (?!)

College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method, which assumes people can find reliable truths about the natural world through careful and sustained experimentation, concludes a recent dissertation by a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota…

Throughout her dissertation, Parson assumes and asserts that women and minorities are uniquely challenged by the idea that science can provide objective information about the natural world. This is an unfair assumption, she says, because the concept of objectivity is too hard for women and minorities to understand. “[N]otions of absolute truth and a single reality” are “masculine,” she says, referring to poststructuralist feminist theory.

Source and read more: and

Shoddy Science and Publishing Incentives

“The cultural evolution of shoddy science in response to publication incentives requires no conscious strategising, cheating, or loafing on the part of individual researchers,” Smaldino writes in The Conversation.

“There will always be researchers committed to rigorous methods and scientific integrity. But as long as institutional incentives reward positive, novel results at the expense of rigour, the rate of bad science, on average, will increase.”

Read more:

A Neurologist Hacks His Own Brain

Brain - Lobes

A fascinating account of a neurologist’s experiments on his own brain:

Some interesting quotes from the article:

José Delgado, Spanish neuroscientist:

“The human race is at an evolutionary turning point. We’re very close to having the power to construct our own mental functions,” he told The New York Times in 1970, after trying out his implants on mentally ill human subjects. “The question is, what sort of humans would we like, ideally, to construct?”

Neurologist Phil Kennedy:

“Scientists have to be individuals,” he says. “You can’t do science by committee.”

“Just helping ALS patients and locked-in patients is one thing, but that’s not where we stop,” Kennedy says, moving on to the big picture. “The first goal is to get the speech restored. The second goal is to restore movement, and a lot of people are working on that—that’ll happen, they just need better electrodes. And the third goal would then be to start enhancing normal humans.”

“We’re going to extract our brains and connect them to small computers that will do everything for us, and the brains will live on.”

Tyranny of the Majority

Wanliss dot com cites an article on academic consensus.  Says the citation:

“Climate consensus” is the rhetorical club wielded by the proponents of the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming. On campus—and in many other venues—to express the slightest doubt about the theory is to risk a “climate consensus” drubbing.  “Consensus” in this sense is pretty close to what John Adams warned in 1788 could become “the tyranny of the majority.”

Science News, December 2015

500px-Sciences_exactes.svgAre you the eldest child? Then you’re probably smarter than your siblings: First-born may get an IQ boost from teaching brothers and sisters

Fathers May Pass Down More Than Just Genes, Study Suggests

Forget X-rays, now you can see through walls using WI-FI: Device captures silhouettes and can even identify people when they’re stood behind CONCRETE

Study demonstrates a pattern in ‘how scientists lie about their data’

The DNA test ‘that reveals if you’re gay’: Genetic code clue is 70% accurate, claim scientists

Reliable in what regard?:

The American Academy has become a politically orthodox and quasi-religious institution. When everyone shares the same politics and prejudices, the disconfirmation process breaks down. Political orthodoxy is particularly dangerous for the social sciences, which grapple with so many controversial topics (such as race, racism, gender, poverty, immigration, politics, and climate science). America needs innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics, but can a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produce reliable findings?