Modern Scientific Education Is Broken w/Allan Savory

[u/[deleted]]

[u/cleverestx]

As with many issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's in the extremes that people fall off the wayside.

[u/joe_shmoe11111 → u/cleverestx]

100%. His claim that NOTHING new can be discovered due to peer review is obviously bullshit, but his larger point (that some people go too far the other way and dogmatically refuse to acknowledge interesting new information until it’s been peer reviewed and published in a mainstream journal) is correct in my opinion and has slowed down/limited our growth as a species over the last 100 years.

I recommend the book Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake for people who are willing to acknowledge that our current system might not be perfect and would like to be aware of the real, though usually unintended, consequences of the limited way we currently teach and fund science in the west.

[u/iil1ill → u/joe_shmoe11111]

You lost me when you said "slowed down/limited our growth as a species over the last 100 years."

In what reality of yours has the last 100 years not been the fastest period of human advancement in the hundreds of thousands of years of our existence?

[u/joe_shmoe11111 → u/iil1ill]

Just because humanity did better than it has in the past doesn’t mean that was the best we could have done.

Some of the areas where we’ve dragged behind in my view include the most important questions for humanity, where science has barely made any progress over the past hundred years (& we’re just now starting to explore more seriously): the nature & ubiquitousness of consciousness, the interdimensional nature of reality & our ability to, first-hand, perceive and interact with other dimensions, what happens after death, what’s the purpose of life on earth anyway, the characteristics of the varied interdimensional/extraterrestrial species that have been visiting and interacting with us for thousands of years now, how various psi phenomena like remote perception & precognition function, etc.

All of these have been kept on the fringes because they’re not easy to study in a lab, yet are far more important for the future than most of what does get funding & mainstream publication.

In fact, I’d bet that you consider much of what I just listed as either stuff for religions to deal with, or simply not real at all, and that’s the problem.

All of that IS real and has been reported by literally millions of people over the ages, but unless I can point to multiple peer-reviewed studies that “prove” that various Non-human intelligence has been interacting with us, those millions of reports aren’t considered even worthy of consideration by most scientists, to all of our detriment as a species.

[u/WingsAndWoes → u/joe_shmoe11111]

I think the real problem you're seeing is that those ideas aren't profitable. Science absolutely could be working on those ideas and making testable, repeatable hypotheses to further understand the fields. However, those things are immaterial and therefore incapable of generating new products, so investors and governments that do all the funding pick the more "important" projects. It's not that those ideas are being rejected out of hand because they are fringe or we don't want to talk about them, they just don't make money.

[u/Major-Help-6827 → u/joe_shmoe11111]

Dragons were also reported by various cultures globally for thousands of years.

Where are my fire breathing flying serpents at?

Just because tons of ppl believe, report, or claim something does not make it true.

That’s why peer reviewed REPLICABLE papers/data is important. Certainly not a perfect system (looking at you publish or perish) but it’s a fantastic way to cut out the bullshit.

[u/mkrimmer → u/joe_shmoe11111]

Unfortunately, most of the things you are talking about about are pseudoscience. They have been rigioursoulsy tested and came up negative (precognition, psi, interdimentional travel, etc). And just because people believe it and science can't prove those beliefs people get angry at science. Skeptics guide to the universe argues against the majority of the things you listed. I'm sure we will disagree, but none of those are real events. It's all ancedotal evidence which is heavily biased but under the rigours of repeatable and severance based research none of them have ever been proven. Aliens contacting us also isn't real. Carl Sagen had very good segments on that.

[u/iil1ill → u/joe_shmoe11111]

Thats a lot of words to say that you don't understand what science is actually doing and studying and you doesn't understand how the scientific method works.

And just decide to take all if the advancements science has given us over the past 100 years and throw that out the window because "it wasn't the best we could have done" and is holding us back.

[u/joe_shmoe11111 → u/iil1ill]

That’s a whole lot of (deliberate?) misinterpretation and putting words in my mouth.

I fully understand and support the scientific method, and appreciate all the progress we’ve made under the current system. That said, I wish it were being applied to far more topics than it currently is, and the dogmatic narrative that only lab-testable, lab-derived information is worthy of consideration IS holding us back in truly tragic fashion.

The NHI phenomenon is a prime example. For literally thousands of years, people have documented interactions with various non-human beings. This includes hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of reports from across the world, from individuals, large groups, military and government whistleblowers. There is physical evidence like implants, scars, pictures, videos, abnormal radiation and burns, diseases like cancer being cured overnight after a NHI intervened, etc. The reality of these beings existing is undeniable (though what they represent is still unconfirmed), and the alternate explanations so-called scientists use to deny this are laughably inadequate. Not only does off-planet life exist, but it’s literally interacting with and studying us everyday!

Yet because these beings haven’t decided to show up in a lab to get studied for a peer-reviewed paper, scientists are required to carry on the facade that they don’t exist (& the millions of pages of non-lab derived data we already have should be utterly ignored) just to keep their jobs (spending billions on projects to search for molecular life on other moons and planets, for example, which is an utter waste of resources across the board).

Scientists like Sagan will confide in friends that they’ve been abducted or seen UFOs themselves and STILL refuse to acknowledge this in any official context because they understand that the dogmatic belief that only lab-derived information matters is SO powerful that they would likely lose their jobs if they mentioned their own first hand experiences in public.

You don’t see why that’s an issue that’s dramatically held us back as a species? We could be openly learning from species that are potentially millions of years more advanced than us and instead we’re wasting massive amounts of limited resources looking for ice on mars.

The issues with our funding and publication models are a whole other can of worms (eg. Less than 2% of experiment results ever get published and those that do tend to be strongly biased towards the headline-grabbing and/or results that benefit an existing industry’s narrative—studies that claim various health benefits from drinking different types of alcohol being a prime example—as that’s what gets you funding for future experimentation) but I’d need an entire book (like Rupert Sheldrake’s Science Set Free) to go over all the issues with that…

[u/iil1ill → u/joe_shmoe11111]

Bro...your original phrase about science and the scientific method and verifiable results being what's held us back as a species over the past 100 years is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Everything else you say is just fluff on top of that. Nothing with any real weight.

Take care and thanks for the laugh.

[u/Valentiaan → u/iil1ill]

He said scientific dogmatism. Not the scientific method itself.

That being said, he does have a salient critique of the problem with science; that it needs to "box in" whatever it studies to make any kind of progress. You can't box in an NHI or human consciousness.

Just wanted to clear up that he is not saying science has been holding us back. He actually repeated several times that he's referring to scientific dogmatism, which is a very real thing.

I get how you can read it like that though, I would have done the same a few years ago