Science / Scientists / Climate Change and Other Mental Landmines: Inspired by Joe Rogan and Candace Owens Full Interview

I watched a very long interview by Joe Rogan with Candace Owens. I like both of them. It went pretty good, but towards the end it got taken in a direction that had me strongly wishing I was the one talking to Joe Rogan.

Towards the end of the discussion the topic of Climate Change came up, I don't remember why, but I do think it was Rogan that introduced it.

Candace simply said something along the lines of "I don't believe in that" and indicated she was no expert.

Joe jumped on this and asked why she forms a BELIEF. This is a word I see people latch onto often these days. Belief is often equated with dogma and taking a religious unwavering view. I use the word belief at times myself, and other times I say THINK, and at other times say in my opinion or IMO. To me, because I do not ascribe to any organized religion these are all synonyms.

I also have NO unchanging beliefs. I love the fact that I am totally fine with being wrong. I don't think you can actually learn if you are unwilling to be wrong. So what I believe, think, and have opinions about is constantly in flux as I get new information.

Candace kind of hinted at this as well and I was rather proud of her. Yet, it took her some effort as she clearly stated she was no expert and said "I don't believe it, but it isn't a hill I would die on" or something along those lines. Essentially, she was saying "I don't currently believe it, but I am not going to fight for that belief."

This was a big one for Joe and when talking to her about this he pushed a lot of my buttons. It was clear he had bought a lot of koolaid and propaganda when it comes to the term science, and scientists.

I am largely in opposition to how the terms science and scientist are used in the media, and popular culture these days.

I wanted to ask Joe Rogan something like "What is a scientist?"

I strongly suspect it would come down to someone who has an accredited degree in some field of scientific study or something along those lines.

That is wrong. That person may or may not be a scientist.

A scientist is simply someone who observes and uses the scientific method. They also try to be up to date on the current models that currently BEST describe observable data related to a topic.

There are modern books that have added consensus to the scientific method. Yet, in reality the scientific method doesn't have anything to do with consensus. Consensus is two types of fallacies. It is both an appeal to authority (they have a piece of paper certifying their expertise), and appeal to popularity(truth or falsity dictated by quantity of endorsers).

Facts don't change because X amount of people choose to say they are true, and Y amount of people choose to say they are false.

Implying that the quantity of people that believe a thing PROVES it and then perhaps ridiculing the person who does not go along with it due to the quantity of people is also known as an Appeal To The Stone fallacy.

In history there have been many cases where what the vast amount of people believed turned out to be false. Einstein even had to fight against this when trying to push for Relativity. Though even relativity has flaws.

I don't even have to argue for or against climate change. I am arguing against how the terms science and scientist are hijacked for apparently political, or ideological purposes. When used these ways they are more akin to dogma or religion than science.

I have recently started asking people things along the lines of "Were there no scientists before university degrees? Did knowledge and people that could think not exist prior to the concept of universities?"

The answer is a resounding NO. Universities are an artificial construct. It is hopeful that the probability of someone with a degree in a field may be very knowledgeable on the subject is high. The university systems are in decline, as well as the scientific publications being written around false information. This is largely due to government, politics, funding requirements, and the corruption it leads to.

As time passes someone having a degree often becomes less of a measure of knowledge and more of a measure of likely debt, and time spent. Earning the guaranteed payments is more of interest to many universities than actually certifying the abilities of the people getting the degree. I noticed this two decades ago and it has only gotten worse since then.

I have encountered people in the fields I am skilled at that have masters, and even doctorates in and I seriously wondered if they got them out of a cracker jacks box. Many times they were truly clueless. It made me wonder if they just memorized and regurgitated to get their degree yet they lacked the passion to work in that field outside of class assignments.

I've also encountered people with no degree that were some of the most skilled in fields of anyone I've ever seen.

Yet if that area was in some field identified as a "science" would they be considered a "scientist" without that piece of paper from a university?

Many people have been suckered into thinking without that paper you are not a scientist.

It is also important to recall that at universities you are taught by someone else the way they want you to be taught. This can lead to indoctrination, and omission of other information and perspectives.

I am of the opinion at this point that unless you need access to an expensive lab, or expensive tools that you yourself cannot get access to then most degrees can be self taught. There are exceptions, but in reality if a person has passion about a subject the amount of information readily available to them is beyond anything people have had access to before. The key is the passion, and able to be self-motivated to learn things.

I come back to the idea that the scientific method has no appeal to authority embedded in it. It does not indicate anywhere that only people that have a certification can use that tool.

To perform science all you need to do is properly follow the steps of the scientific method.

If you can't do that then you are not a scientist even if a piece of paper says you are.

If you can do that then you technically are a scientist even if you have no piece of paper indicating it is that case.

My big problem with a lot of the CONSENSUS based propaganda when they push that 97% or X% of people state that Y is the case the scientific method is not even being properly followed.

There are four very important things in the scientific method:

Observing - Looking, Listening, Measuring, and collecting Data on something.
Questioning - Asking questions inspired by the observations.
Speculating - Coming up with ideas you THINK might answer the question based upon observations. (aka Hypothesis)
Testing - Performing a precise documented experiment (so others can repeat it) to test the hypothesis/speculation.

One thing that never stops in science. Asking questions, and challenging.

We should continue to ask questions about everything. That doesn't mean we should doubt. We can doubt, but we don't have to doubt to be inspired to ask some questions.

We keep the models that BEST explain our observations at the current time.

As we encounter things we cannot explain we do not toss out a model that explains the most things until we've come up with a model that explains what it COULD and also can explain some of the problem areas.

There is no X is wrong about Y, so Z must be true.

If Z can explain everything X does and also explain Y then it likely will be a better model and should be embraced. Yet if Z explains less things than X but can explain Y then it likely is a step backward to adopt it and introduce new areas that can now not be explained.

An important thing about testing is that it must be consistent. If you are using a mathematical formula upon some data and it is working and then you encounter data that doesn't fit the hypothesis when that formula is applied then you don't suddenly change the formula to massage that data so it fits. This is not science. This is what lead to a lot of the outrage about climate gate years ago.

I have problems with the Ideological Climate Change:

1. Consensus is not proof.

2. Global Warming was a specific target. When that started to have problems they adopted Climate Change. That turned it into a shell game that can NEVER be wrong because everything they are discussing fits inside the bucket of CLIMATE. It was rigging the game. It is much like saying some Weed X is going to overgrow our land. Then it doesn't seem to be happening so they start saying PLANTS are going to overgrow our land. That is the relationship between the difference between global warming and climate change. Global Warming is a specific target that can be tested, and is a child of Climate Change. The fact they needed to move the goal posts and change it to where the goal posts are now the entire playing field is a huge red flag if you actually understand science and the scientific method.

3. Carbon Tax - is no solution. It is a power grab, and a new way to tax people for breathing, and give ways for the worst offenders to pay money to keep being offenders. It is about power and control and is not an actual solution.

4. Climate Change happens, has always happened, and will happen. What they seem to be really pushing for is Climate Control. They talk about anthropogenic global warming (man made) and now they've switched to climate change. Isn't what they are doing actually pushing for man made climate change? They want to resist climate change, by having man control climate change.

5. They will ridicule, censor, and attack people that challenge their narrative. This is not science. This is religion. Many of their models and predictions have failed miserably, and they just keep continuing. For me they have become a lot like people who try to explain Nostradamus Prophecies and state some date of doom from a prophecy. That doesn't happen, and soon a new book or video is out interpreting the same prophecy and giving another date. This is happening in the Climate Change Cult.

6. If people are unwilling to be wrong (important part of science) then if they are wrong and they are taking actions based upon false information then it is possible we could introduce variations of the problems they claim to be fighting.

Now before you get all up in the virtue signalling, offended zone. I was a fan of earth day, recycling, and fighting pollution of all kinds. I actually endorse humankind reducing waste, and pollution of ALL kinds. Including electro magnetic pollution. I am of the opinion they have focused so much on CARBON that the overall push to improve our handling of pollution, and stopping other environmental concerns has been kicked to the side.

It is much like a world full of many sins which we should try to deal with. Yet a new religion decides that a single sin should get emphasis and attention, and people stop paying attention to the others.

I personally do not believe man is a big factor in current global warming. I do suspect things we are doing to fight that COULD alter the climate in artificial ways.

I see the Sun and Solar activity to be the biggest seeming factor in the influence on climate. Many of the models about the greenhouse effect haven't actually doing what we thought they would.

In science this means observations are telling us there is something wrong with the hypothesis. Religion will push the hypothesis anyway. Science will take the parts of that hypothesis that work and see if it is still something that may have truth, and if it seems to have that they will try to find out what hypothesis WILL explain the observations.

Climate Change is not the only area where it has become a cult like religion rather than actual science, but it is a very prominent one.

Yet how Joe Rogan spoke to Candace Owens about this largely was telling me that Joe Rogan hasn't really thought about "What is science?", "What is a scientist?", and "How did scientists exist before universities?". He also is pushing Arguments from Authority, Arguments from Popularity, and Appeals To The Stone.

---

EDIT: Research the Prussian Education System. Let that sink in. It will likely change the way you look at a lot of things once you understand what the Prussian Education System is, Why it was created, and what things the early creators liked about it.