NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

There is currently such a tremendous mass communications based battle raging between the dogmatic "skeptical" science front, and all the many legitimate fringe scientific research strategists, that is ALL primarily fueled by the BIG business of commercial science, and furthered by the groupie serving, self aggrandizing, celebrity egos of those like like Richard Dawkins and James Randi, that one is best off considering the evidence apart from alignments on either side of the fence.

What is undeniable, is in fact undeniable, yet how many ways can the "skeptical" celebrities and groupies spin the black and white evidential support for what are legitimate fringe scientific studies that have in fact turned most of the "scientific commercial factions" back on their ears? The real woo are those that cannot accept change, even when numerically proved, and in fact invest billions of dollars in suppressing truths via extremely powerful commercial institutions that use everything from the mass media to those blood sucking crooks we call politicians, to maintain their financial power basin.

The real problem seems to be commercial interests that use the front, or the "appearance" of the falsely perceived progressive scientific community to maintain a high level of public influence via a feigned sense of illusory legitimacy. It keeps us all stuck in the deep dark age pockets of those whose only really interest in progress is it's magician's force of specified conclusion. Much like a common crook can skate provided they have enough money to influentially purchase their innocence.

Accepted scientific definitions are just that. Merely definitions whose legitimacy is marked and justified via the act of perceptual based acceptance. Down slams the mass media carrier of the pseudo skeptical judge's gavel and the crook walks again and again like some worn out sitcom stuck in infinite rerun mode. That's not science, that's just a capitalist kangaroo, or maybe better put, an seemingly endless kanga-Woo court dramatization to garner influence.

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Davis" data-source="post: 229013" data-attributes="member: 5483">There is currently such a tremendous mass communications based battle raging between the dogmatic &quot;skeptical&quot; science front, and all the many legitimate fringe scientific research strategists, that is ALL primarily fueled by the BIG business of commercial science, and furthered by the groupie serving, self aggrandizing, celebrity egos of those like like Richard Dawkins and James Randi, that one is best off considering the evidence apart from alignments on either side of the fence.What is undeniable, is in fact undeniable, yet how many ways can the &quot;skeptical&quot; celebrities and groupies spin the black and white evidential support for what are legitimate fringe scientific studies that have in fact turned most of the &quot;scientific commercial factions&quot; back on their ears? The real woo are those that cannot accept change, even when numerically proved, and in fact invest billions of dollars in suppressing truths via extremely powerful commercial institutions that use everything from the mass media to those blood sucking crooks we call politicians, to maintain their financial power basin. The real problem seems to be commercial interests that use the front, or the &quot;appearance&quot; of the falsely perceived progressive scientific community to maintain a high level of public influence via a feigned sense of illusory legitimacy. It keeps us all stuck in the deep dark age pockets of those whose only really interest in progress is it&#039;s magician&#039;s force of specified conclusion. Much like a common crook can skate provided they have enough money to influentially purchase their innocence.Accepted scientific definitions are just that. Merely definitions whose legitimacy is marked and justified via the act of perceptual based acceptance. Down slams the mass media carrier of the pseudo skeptical judge&#039;s gavel and the crook walks again and again like some worn out sitcom stuck in infinite rerun mode. That&#039;s not science, that&#039;s just a capitalist kangaroo, or maybe better put, an seemingly endless kanga-Woo court dramatization to garner influence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Davis, post: 229013, member: 5483"] There is currently such a tremendous mass communications based battle raging between the dogmatic "skeptical" science front, and all the many legitimate fringe scientific research strategists, that is ALL primarily fueled by the BIG business of commercial science, and furthered by the groupie serving, self aggrandizing, celebrity egos of those like like Richard Dawkins and James Randi, that one is best off considering the evidence apart from alignments on either side of the fence. What is undeniable, is in fact undeniable, yet how many ways can the "skeptical" celebrities and groupies spin the black and white evidential support for what are legitimate fringe scientific studies that have in fact turned most of the "scientific commercial factions" back on their ears? The real woo are those that cannot accept change, even when numerically proved, and in fact invest billions of dollars in suppressing truths via extremely powerful commercial institutions that use everything from the mass media to those blood sucking crooks we call politicians, to maintain their financial power basin. The real problem seems to be commercial interests that use the front, or the "appearance" of the falsely perceived progressive scientific community to maintain a high level of public influence via a feigned sense of illusory legitimacy. It keeps us all stuck in the deep dark age pockets of those whose only really interest in progress is it's magician's force of specified conclusion. Much like a common crook can skate provided they have enough money to influentially purchase their innocence. Accepted scientific definitions are just that. Merely definitions whose legitimacy is marked and justified via the act of perceptual based acceptance. Down slams the mass media carrier of the pseudo skeptical judge's gavel and the crook walks again and again like some worn out sitcom stuck in infinite rerun mode. That's not science, that's just a capitalist kangaroo, or maybe better put, an seemingly endless kanga-Woo court dramatization to garner influence. [/QUOTE]

Verification