Actual scientists really aren't. They may have their head in the clouds and suffer from "specialist idiot syndrome" (know their area of expertise really well, but be completely illiterate or deluded about everything else). But a good scientist is generally interested in truth and facts above all else, even their own ego, and certainly wealth and power.
The problem is that, instead of replacing politicians with scientists, we ended up replacing scientists with politicians.
Science has become corrupted because it became political. Not the other way around.
It's still out there now. I was a good biochemist; I worked with good and bad scientists. We had to bring a product to market as a startup. The bad scientists got married to bad ideas (because the ideas came from them) and almost killed the company. A lot of heads rolled, and some good scientists (including myself) were left. We brought a working product to market, and eventually we were bought. That company is now under the massive Mars umbrella.
That said... I left the industry for a reason. I always understood, naively, that science was a lofty pursuit of objective truth above all else, and the money flowed from those interested in the truth and the benefits that understanding would bring would automatically bring profit. But nah. It's mostly just "sell bullshit to get money." Many scientists are just salesmen; they know the jargon, they use big, obscure and/or confusing words to convey very little ("use a lot of words to say nothing"). Like most academics and "experts" - if you really listen to them and break what they say down into simple, more digestible terms... you'll often find they're just peddling bullshit.
Obviously there is no exact date, nor some ideal time without problems. That doesn't mean nothing has changed. That kind of absolutist thinking is nonsensical and won't help you make sense of anything.
The author expounds a narrow version of his point, just for subcultures, but it applies to science too. Science in 1900 was gentleman amateur sort of thing. Geeky chaps who wanted to know what was true. But things were already changing. There was money to be made. Chemistry and dyes were big in 1900. Engineering and steel making were getting scientific and profitable. Edison was trying mass produce science at Menlo Park based off money from electricity.
Ordinary people, Members Of the Public = MOPs, notice and get enthusiastic. But there is such a lot of money to be made. Eventually the sociopaths kill the scientists and wear them as skin suits.
So the wikipedia article is of historical interest, capturing the moment when the general public have noticed science and are getting all enthusiastic. But without any sense of the social dynamics. From the social point of view, science is made up of geeky truth-seekers and truth-tellers, because they don't have any power. Give them real power, come back in thirty years time, and ... Whoops! that didn't age well.
Also the wikipedia article focuses on Howard Scott and his particular vision. Fair enough, he founded the movement and gave it some life. But
Technocracy advocates contended that price system-based forms of government and economy are structurally incapable of effective action, and promoted a society headed by technical experts, which they argued would be more rational and productive.
At the core of Scott's vision was "an energy theory of value".
that is a particularly retarded version of "lets put engineers and scientists in charge." No wonder it failed.
A toaster that could handle 4 slices at a time was peak science to the common man during the Depression. I work with science types; they’re not what you would call a people person. The ones that are of the ‘politician’ type seem to be low level scientists and bullshitters. I wouldn’t want to live in a society run by those guys. They’re a bunch of Fauci’s. They can do the math, look at the data, and determine that jews and niggers are the problem, but would they say it? Oh no. A eugenics scientist might.
Scientists have too much to lose. Ego, money, licenses in some cases, etc. That’s why too often “the educated” go with whatever is the perceived safe opinion. Their egos tend to force them to believe or defend their perceived choice vicious / furiously.
It’s ironic because it leads them to unequivocally stupid choices like taking an experimental “vaccine” pushed during an obvious fake “pandemic” by a flagrant population hating “government”.
Which leads me to that there is an undeniable link to being being moral and having an actual high iq. Some sort of “effective iq”. Mix of morals, bravery and iq.
[ + ] RabbiKinderschtupper
[ - ] RabbiKinderschtupper 6 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 08:58:36 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 4 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:32:11 ago (+5/-1)
The problem is that, instead of replacing politicians with scientists, we ended up replacing scientists with politicians.
Science has become corrupted because it became political. Not the other way around.
[ + ] germ22
[ - ] germ22 4 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 12:04:14 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] we_kill_creativity
[ - ] we_kill_creativity 2 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 10:20:26 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] InYourFaceNancyGrace
[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 10:37:45 ago (+1/-0)
That said... I left the industry for a reason. I always understood, naively, that science was a lofty pursuit of objective truth above all else, and the money flowed from those interested in the truth and the benefits that understanding would bring would automatically bring profit. But nah. It's mostly just "sell bullshit to get money." Many scientists are just salesmen; they know the jargon, they use big, obscure and/or confusing words to convey very little ("use a lot of words to say nothing"). Like most academics and "experts" - if you really listen to them and break what they say down into simple, more digestible terms... you'll often find they're just peddling bullshit.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 10:38:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Niggly_Puff
[ - ] Niggly_Puff 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 10:57:47 ago (+0/-0)
That's when the UN passed it's "Gay Rights Protection Resolution", which was the spark that kicked off the NWO and modern clown world.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 12:39:49 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] _Obrez
[ - ] _Obrez 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 11:05:10 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] HeavyBrain
[ - ] HeavyBrain 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 16:27:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] happytoes
[ - ] happytoes 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 14:36:56 ago (+0/-0)
The author expounds a narrow version of his point, just for subcultures, but it applies to science too. Science in 1900 was gentleman amateur sort of thing. Geeky chaps who wanted to know what was true. But things were already changing. There was money to be made. Chemistry and dyes were big in 1900. Engineering and steel making were getting scientific and profitable. Edison was trying mass produce science at Menlo Park based off money from electricity.
Ordinary people, Members Of the Public = MOPs, notice and get enthusiastic. But there is such a lot of money to be made. Eventually the sociopaths kill the scientists and wear them as skin suits.
So the wikipedia article is of historical interest, capturing the moment when the general public have noticed science and are getting all enthusiastic. But without any sense of the social dynamics. From the social point of view, science is made up of geeky truth-seekers and truth-tellers, because they don't have any power. Give them real power, come back in thirty years time, and ... Whoops! that didn't age well.
Also the wikipedia article focuses on Howard Scott and his particular vision. Fair enough, he founded the movement and gave it some life. But
that is a particularly retarded version of "lets put engineers and scientists in charge." No wonder it failed.
[ + ] PearofAnguishJuniorManager
[ - ] PearofAnguishJuniorManager 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 10:07:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] CoronaHoax
[ - ] CoronaHoax 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 13:47:39 ago (+1/-0)*
It’s ironic because it leads them to unequivocally stupid choices like taking an experimental “vaccine” pushed during an obvious fake “pandemic” by a flagrant population hating “government”.
Which leads me to that there is an undeniable link to being being moral and having an actual high iq. Some sort of “effective iq”. Mix of morals, bravery and iq.
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:47:12 ago (+0/-0)