I've experienced this problem in economics. There are a few academics who are prepared to consider alternative perspectives, but generally I've found that even if you logically deduce a different conclusion from what a "genius" economist from the past has said, you are assumed to be obviously wrong and not worth debating. Even if you point out glaring problems in existing theory e.g. "standard macroeconomic theory assumes that households essentially never spend their savings and that firms which receive investment loans never repay them".
Here is the correct transcription: "People talk GLIBLY about science. What is science? People are coming out of the university with a masters degree or a PhD and you take them into the field and they literally don't believe anything unless it is a peer-reviewed paper! That's the only thing they accept. If we say them, "Let's observe, Let's think, Let's discuss." They don't do it. It's just, "Is it in a peer-reviewed paper, or not?" That's their view of science! I think it's pathetic! Going to universities as bright young people - they come out of them BRAIN DEAD, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers etc. NO! That's "Academia"! And if a paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the SAME, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when NEW knowledge emerges, NEW scientific insights... they can never ever be peer-reviewed. So, we're blocking all new advances in Science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in Science, almost always they don't come from the center of that profession - they come from the fringe. The finest candle makers in the world couldn't even think of electric lights. They don't come from within, they often come from the outside the breaks. We're going to kill ourselves because of stupidity." ~ Professor Allan Savory.
The problem with academia is that there is no feedback mechanism. The key difference here is that the professor in the video is an ecologist, his expertise lies in dealing with the world as it actually is. Evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyering are similarly grounded, during their trips into the field they must deal with nature as it is, rather then how they would like it to be. Too many colleges are plagued with the 'Hotel California' effect. Too many kids go off to university and then they never leave.
But it's even worse: Poor innocent Alan observes this and says "but the unintended consequence is that". Well... actually, that outcome is 100% intended by the ones that, over decades and even centuries, have been maneuvering in the shadows. Now, they have a mechanism that they can steer and control that lets them validate the "science" that they want to be recognized as such, and squash everything else that they may not find to favor their almost always really dark interests. The consequences may not be intented by everyone involved in this kafkaesque process, but there's some on top of it that absolutely do intend this to be so. The flaw in the system is meant to be there.
Understanding how real science works, along with how humans don't understand that science does not have all the answers is how I am able to make total fools out of the so called "experts" in the low carb community who fail to see their research about diet from and evolutionary or instinctive point of view. I'm constantly arguing with diet experts who only believe what science they have been exposed to, and they only listen to experts who have some kind of certification because of course, certified experts have a monopoly on the truth. I have heard the saying "what does the science say" so many times it makes me sick, not that I'm anti science or anything like that. It's just the mindless yammering and the inability of the average person to not understand that science is just one factor in finding out what is true. The reality is that most people have terrible critical thinking skills, and don't question what they learn. This is what allows propaganda and misinformation to spread out of control in our society...
read through some of the comments in here and you'll see exactly why this old fool is wrong, everyone thinks they're a genius and the current experts are just too full of themselves to see it. pre-eminent revolutionary ideas face resistance in every scientific field but that is to be expected and is a natural process of evolution of thinking, you can't accelerate this process by getting rid of peer-review. there is something to be said about keeping a healthy open-mindedness about new ideas but peer-review is an essential part of the scientific process.
I've experienced this problem in economics. There are a few academics who are prepared to consider alternative perspectives, but generally I've found that even if you logically deduce a different conclusion from what a "genius" economist from the past has said, you are assumed to be obviously wrong and not worth debating. Even if you point out glaring problems in existing theory e.g. "standard macroeconomic theory assumes that households essentially never spend their savings and that firms which receive investment loans never repay them".
Absolutely Outstanding!
Yes! Indeed
Here is the correct transcription:
"People talk GLIBLY about science. What is science? People are coming out of the university with a masters degree or a PhD and you take them into the field and they literally don't believe anything unless it is a peer-reviewed paper! That's the only thing they accept. If we say them, "Let's observe, Let's think, Let's discuss." They don't do it. It's just, "Is it in a peer-reviewed paper, or not?" That's their view of science! I think it's pathetic!
Going to universities as bright young people - they come out of them BRAIN DEAD, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers etc. NO! That's "Academia"! And if a paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the SAME, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when NEW knowledge emerges, NEW scientific insights... they can never ever be peer-reviewed.
So, we're blocking all new advances in Science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in Science, almost always they don't come from the center of that profession - they come from the fringe. The finest candle makers in the world couldn't even think of electric lights. They don't come from within, they often come from the outside the breaks.
We're going to kill ourselves because of stupidity."
~ Professor Allan Savory.
Thank you❤
This is particularly true in environmental sciences, so sad.
The problem with academia is that there is no feedback mechanism. The key difference here is that the professor in the video is an ecologist, his expertise lies in dealing with the world as it actually is. Evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyering are similarly grounded, during their trips into the field they must deal with nature as it is, rather then how they would like it to be.
Too many colleges are plagued with the 'Hotel California' effect. Too many kids go off to university and then they never leave.
But it's even worse: Poor innocent Alan observes this and says "but the unintended consequence is that".
Well... actually, that outcome is 100% intended by the ones that, over decades and even centuries, have been maneuvering in the shadows.
Now, they have a mechanism that they can steer and control that lets them validate the "science" that they want to be recognized as such, and squash everything else that they may not find to favor their almost always really dark interests.
The consequences may not be intented by everyone involved in this kafkaesque process, but there's some on top of it that absolutely do intend this to be so.
The flaw in the system is meant to be there.
Understanding how real science works, along with how humans don't understand that science does not have all the answers is how I am able to make total fools out of the so called "experts" in the low carb community who fail to see their research about diet from and evolutionary or instinctive point of view.
I'm constantly arguing with diet experts who only believe what science they have been exposed to, and they only listen to experts who have some kind of certification because of course, certified experts have a monopoly on the truth. I have heard the saying "what does the science say" so many times it makes me sick, not that I'm anti science or anything like that. It's just the mindless yammering and the inability of the average person to not understand that science is just one factor in finding out what is true.
The reality is that most people have terrible critical thinking skills, and don't question what they learn. This is what allows propaganda and misinformation to spread out of control in our society...
Malcomb Muggeridge said it best "...we have educated ourselves into imbecility..."
💎
Pretty much yes
Seen same video on @Paathshaala
May be, it's an useful one. Therefore many may share it.
@@dr.vantarisiva Yes Doc,, True..
Yes, make nature our university! dont just sit inside in our high tech buildings and think we know it all, we have a lot of stuff to learn.
Pretty correct 😍
read through some of the comments in here and you'll see exactly why this old fool is wrong, everyone thinks they're a genius and the current experts are just too full of themselves to see it. pre-eminent revolutionary ideas face resistance in every scientific field but that is to be expected and is a natural process of evolution of thinking, you can't accelerate this process by getting rid of peer-review. there is something to be said about keeping a healthy open-mindedness about new ideas but peer-review is an essential part of the scientific process.
He doesn't think like you so he's an 'old fool'. You have pretty much proved his point.