Epistemology Science

If you are at

all scientifically rigorous, you reject the mask mandates. Because there is no science that supports them. Yes, they may fit with your political aims, but the actual science just doesn’t support them.

The Cochrane review’s lead author, Oxford’s Tom Jefferson, said of masks in a subsequent interview with Australian investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, “There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop.”

… In fact, 16 RCTs have tested whether masks effectively reduce the spread of viruses. Not one has found compelling evidence that they do. Two have found statistically significant evidence that masks are counterproductive—that they increase the spread of viruses—probably because masks are frequently moist or dirty, and people often touch them.

…Trying to block a virus with a mask is like trying to keep mosquitos out of your yard with a chain-link fence.

…In a way, Oreskes has provided a public service with her article, as has Scientific American in running it. The article makes clear how willing mask advocates are to sacrifice scientific objectivity on the altar of their newfound religion.


You wanna know

why people no longer implicitly trust “experts?


It’s a pretty

impressive intellectual tour-de-force. If you are at all interested in such things, you need to give it a listen.

The major problem, as I see it, is that people generally don’t understand the scientific concept of validity–are you measuring what you think you’re measuring?

Instrumentation is a big deal. Let’s say that it’s 1974 and I put up a thermometer to measure the temperature. It is in the middle of immense grasslands, so there is little interference from other sources.

BUT, come 2021, that thermometer is now in the middle of a mall parking lot–it is surrounded by asphalt for miles around. Needless to say, that area is no longer a grassland.

Do you think that the 1974 readings might be different than the 2021 readings? Yeah, maybe…

See, this is where the scientific concept of validity comes in. And if I adjust the readings to take account of the new conditions, upon what is that adjustment based? And just who decides the magnitude of the adjustment? And how is their decision scientific and not raw politics?

See, if I “adjust,” is what I’ve done now politics and not science at all? Not that it’s ALL not politics, but still…


It’s time I

posted some of the many memes I’ve collected. TBH, I pretty much have no idea where I got most of them, so I really can’t give credit…

More will come soon–this is just the first batch.

Epistemology Science

There IS no

science without Christianity. Science depends on Christianity to itself even exist at all! Hence, as smart and advanced as they were, there was no science in Muslim and Chinese cultures–because there was no Christianity.

Bear with me, this is long.

See, according to Christianity, we were made in God’s image. We could understand all of God’s creations. After all, the God that created them also created US to be like him. So God’s actions were comprehensible to us.

But also there was the fall of Adam, and humans became “fallen man.” So even though we could fully understand all of God’s creations, we were “fallen” and were highly prone to biases and all sorts of error.

THEREFORE, we needed a method of discerning fact from human biases. That method of knowing (not subject) was SCIENCE. So there was a great deal spoken and written (see: Sir Karl Popper) about how to reducer error and get to truth.

There were issues of validity and reliability and a culture where EVERYTHING was questioned. So to say, “The Science has spoken” and “Scientists have proven” is perhaps the most unscientific thing ever!

As historically and culturally understood, the Scientific Method is a way of getting over the human weaknesses that came about because of the fall of man and comprehend the mind of God. It is NOT a subject–virtually any topic can be studied in this way. It is a method for reducing error and getting to Truth.

Pandemic Panic Porn Pimps Science

Oh, I’m sure

there are other factors involved. Obesity might be one. Still, 90 times lower? That’s not just obesity…

A major study into the impact of the pandemic on Amish communities has found that Covid death rates among the traditionalist groups of citizens are 90 times lower than for the rest of America. [emphasis added]

The main difference, the study revealed, is that Amish communities completely ignored the guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Amish families did not get vaccinated or wear masks, nor did they engage in lockdowns, social distancing, or any other type of restrictions.

Current Events Science

Yeah, things

are changing. A bit. Rationality is beginning to creep back in…

Science Wisdom


interview. I highly recommend it! Highly. But the transcript is right there if you want to read it–much faster.

Dr. B is an MD expert epidemiologist AND has a Doctorate in Economics.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya came to Stanford University at the age of 17 and has never left. In addition to his undergraduate degree, Dr. Bhattacharya earned a doctorate from the Stanford Economics Department and an M.D. from Stanford Medical School. Dr. Bhattacharya’s now a professor of medicine at Stanford and a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jay is also one of the three authors of the “Great Barrington Declaration.”

Epistemology Science

Science will

make limited claims about what appears to be the case (or technically, what appears NOT to be the case). But religion and philosophy make claims about what SHOULD BE.

Any halfway wise scientist understands that. Otherwise, it is mere Scientism, a sort of armchair speculation–a manifestation of a set of cultural beliefs.

And “scientists” who claim to have proven TRUTH are not actual scientists at all. They need to go back and read Karl Popper! (there is no verification, only tentative falsification)

The ONLY way to “prove” something true scientifically is to account for ALL variables (both known and unknown, including space and time). And that is not possible. In short, there is only correlation, NO CAUSATION.

And anything with a 100% correlation is, by definition, trivial.

So is science useful? OF COURSE! I myself am a scientist. But we need to acknowledge the very real limits on what science can reveal to us.

Nutrition Science

C’mon folks,

pay attention to the science!