Rockstars of Scientism - Part 1 - Brian Cox's Orwellian Conclusion

Подписаться 5 тыс.

Просмотров 4,6 тыс.

50% 1

The first in what is intended to be a series of videos debunking pop "science" celebrities. This video addresses comments made by Professor Brian Cox during a 2010 Royal Television Society lecture which aired on the BBC. In the lecture, the pop-star physicist spouted an Orwellian definition of impartiality and justified it by appealing to almighty peer-review - a familiar tactic often employed by global warming propagandists. This video challenges his fundamental idealist assumption that "the peer-reviewed consensus is, by definition, impartial".
It's all very well and good making videos debunking the likes of Al Gore and the IPCC, but let's be honest, those guys are a joke! But popular scientists and naturalists like Brian Cox and David Attenborough are more respected and trusted. And so when they make programs about climate change, people believe them. It's time their propaganda was subjected to the same scrutiny.
I just want to be clear that I am not "anti-science". I love science. What my videos are attacking is Scientism - the almost religious worship of the scientific establishment and materialist philosophy, which is what pop science has largely become nowadays.
Music: CSS Music - Suspicion Confirmed.
Links and sources available: skepticdenialis...

Опубликовано:

8 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 25

@t4nkman 11 лет назад

Thanks for having the courage to question these sacred cows. That is true science. Can't believe some people still 'believe' in man made GW...

@demianhaki7598 11 лет назад

The statement that peer-review is, by definition!, impartial is absolutely true and this statement is not false in the presence of a corrupted process, since a corrupted peer-review process does no longer satisfy the criteria of it's definition. Also, note the fact that the video is talking about specific cases of corruption in certain journals and on certain topics. This does not mean that the review process is flawed in ALL journals in the world, which is a massive number.

@zezt 11 лет назад

Great video. Reminds me of a FB 'conversation' I had with a young dude who fancies himself a young scientific genius. I asked him if he had heard of Hadronic Physics, and Ruggero Santilli. He told me that because he was not properly peer reviewed and was self-published that this means his scientific theories are of no worth.

@edvolve 11 лет назад

Nevermind, saw your Part 2 so now I know the lens. I saw a comment that you made Part 2's comments stating something like 'appealing to a consensus IS appealing to an authority.' I can't disagree--an authority of evidence from nature based on a consensus of experiments. I can only assume the age of the universe, planet building, and continental drift (among other well established modern principles) are also sources of contention for you as well.

@demianhaki7598 11 лет назад

Ok, so your video points out the fact that the process of peer-review can be and has been corrupted on certain occasions and that this corruption is often led by typical human biases such as not wanting to lose one's reputation or job. Fair point. That, however, doesn't change the value of peer-review that Cox hints at, it only proves that we have to be sensitive to fraudulent activities, which, as Cagan says and Cox would agree, have no place in the endeavour of science.

@gwales 11 лет назад

I was enjoying listening to Brian Cox, agreeing whole-heartedly with his comments about peer review and then realised the video was a mash-up of anti-science 'drivel' as Professor Cox would call it.

@edvolve 11 лет назад

ScootleRoyale, I'm interested in your stance on scientific findings leading to evolution as the underlying theory of biology.

@muskduh 11 лет назад

he automatically contradicts himself from the start--peer review is majority review. for your peers to pass your claims the majority of them has to agree; therefore scientism is based entirely on consensus and not on actuality.

@edvolve 11 лет назад

Thank you for your reply.

@tsjasmine28 10 лет назад

Great video, thanks! of course it won't make much difference to the people who believe that everything science says is true and accept it without question. But then i used to be there myself so i don't hold it against them.

@stephenddblyth 11 лет назад

whats with the silly music

@marksandsmith6778 2 года назад

This is claptrap. Cox is a top science presenter.

@juckis 11 лет назад

Divide and conquer

@TheLogic1010 11 лет назад

I can't take Cox seriously. He achieved his aim of being a TV personality but failed to be a decent scientist. The peer review works most of the time but it also has moments of embarrassment publishing utter rubbish and misinformation. Cox don't fall into the trap of censor because you don't like certain articles and don't pretend to like free speech. Be honest mate!

@suxxatguitar 11 лет назад

Another great video.

@TheLogic1010 11 лет назад

No religious agenda from me, get your facts right! It's you who doesn't understand truth, knowledge or even science?

@TheLogic1010 11 лет назад

Good, a result!

@shocka007 11 лет назад

liars everywhere.

@TheLogic1010 11 лет назад

Cox is the bigot mate, wake up! My comments of Cox are honest and true, that's what I call critical thinking. Cox is dull and boring, a total turn off and a waste of broadcasting time. My opinion is on par with many others. He can't even do physics, the mistakes he makes are embarrassing for a so called scientist! Cox is a substandard Physicist. Now, Jeff Forshaw who I've met is a decent guy and actually knows Physics. You keep to Cox, probably you're level.