![The left killed science [974x878 - 98KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/VY0Ky5.jpg){kind=link}
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think that a crucial element that made the scientific method so successful, and the part that's completely ignored today, is how the hypothesis is formed. I'm being a bit hypocritical in formulating this hypothesis (being that this hypothesis is itself very political), but if you could bear with my stupidity for a moment, the idea is that more care used to be given to hypotheses so as to be deliberately written as apolitical as possible. That way they could help avoid falling into the trap along the right side.
I'd say the first crack in the armor was the theory of evolution, because that leads very naturally to a theory of eugenics. When the State saw how political motives could be baked into hypothesis-formulation, it was only a matter of time for Lysenkoism to occur, and now modern science is in an everday battle with Lysenkoism in almost every field of endeavor.
It's probably a whole other level now, because now it's so entrenched that modern scientific institutions now have to contend with the selection factors Chomsky discussed in Manufactured Consent.
Edit: successfully->successful
One of the places you can really see the dogma that they call “science” take hold of the shitlib psyche is the subject of race or sex realism. Where the fuck was this “equality” between the races and sexes even hypothesized nevertheless proven as a fact? Where the fuck are the grounds for the hypothesis? There aren’t any. It’s just presupposed based on a bastardized understanding of enlightenment philosophy transposed universally across race and sex.Pure dogma. Presupposing something to be true with no evidence when in fact all of the evidence shows the exact opposite. The priests just wear lab coats and work at university instead of the church now. Nothing new under the sun. Power will always look for ways to legitimize itself and by using this bastardized sciencism like a tool that’s exactly what they do. “Yes goy it’s totally proven that mixing with niggers is good look at this study we totally weren’t biased in making! Yes goy look trannys are real didn’t you see the pubmed article!?”
Your observations are supposed to inform the hypotheses, not vice versa.
A lot of truly great theories came from mundane observations. Pondering lobster eyes led to a leap forward in optic sensors. A brilliant developmental psychobiologist made a tremendous contribution to systems theory by watching her kids play.
Shout out to Viktor Schauberger.
"The majority of real scientific breakthroughs do not come from someone shouting "EUREKA!", but from muttering, "Huh...that's interesting...""
(post is archived)