What’s Wrong with Academics – New Book

Someone asked me in the comments what must be wrong with academic scientists for them having such difficulty with comprehension of basic physics.  This was my reply and it sets the scene for the following book-link afterwards:

JP:  My next vid is going to be a basic science lesson and it will touch on what the academics are missing and what they’re doing wrong.

As far as them, they are professionally all focused on some incredibly narrow minutia of their specialization…no wait…I wrote the true answer in my book and elsewhere on this blog:

The answer for how they can behave this way is because they’re unconscious. The degree of anti-rationalism, general absolute philosophical illiteracy but especially that of the philosophy of science, open-ended non-answerable beliefs, beliefs about existence arising out of nothing for no reason and by no mechanism, the denial that they have a mind or agency, etc., the degree of cognitive dissonance that they have been inflicted with and to which they suffer has reduced their minds and mental capacity to that of unconsciousness.

You know how sometimes you suddenly realize that you’ve been driving for the last 20 minutes but remember not a single moment of it? You know how people can sleepwalk and perform basic waking-activities while entirely asleep? You know how you can concentrate on something so deeply and intently that suddenly hours have passed without realizing it?

That’s the mode that an academic is in…constantly. They have been made this way from the result of the negative Hegelian Dialectic…they have incorporated so many cognitively-dissonant ideas into their personal identity as a scientist that it has rendered them unconscious.

Look at this short email I got from Roy Spencer a few days ago:

RS: “I think anyone who claims that the area of a sphere (4 Pi R squared) isn’t four times the area of a circle (Pi R squared) needs to go back to geometry class.”

Is that AT ALL what I’ve been talking about, or am having difficulty with?

Look at this email I got from a PhD in physics at my local university:

anon: “You are doing what all my AGW denier friends do, which is present an argument based on misrepresentations and oversimplifications. Just one example…dividing the solar constant by 4 is not “flat Earth”…. it’s a way of counting the average energy flux over the sphere, which has exactly 4X the surface area of the cross section of the Earth…it gives the correct average energy flux.”

Is that AT ALL what I’m talking about, or am explaining in my vids?  Does that answer in any way at all what I’ve been pointing out?

Are those responses AT ALL relevant to what I’ve been putting out in my vids?

These people are unconscious. We are attempting to interface with people who are sleeping, people who are dreaming and in a dream-state while appearing wakeful.

They are not processing information at a very basic level!

They are not processing information at a level you would expect >75 IQ.

…they’re…just…not…there…

And with that said, anyone who reads this blog I beg you to read the following book:

The Mandarin Effect: The Crisis of Meaning

You will find at some point a quotation in this book from yours truly.  But I beg you…if you want to understand what academia is, what academic science is, what the scientific establishment is and how it proceeds, then please read this book.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Illuminism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to What’s Wrong with Academics – New Book

  1. The book that most helped me to understand the dichotomy of mind that we all possess is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (ZAMM), by Robert M. Pirsig,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

  2. historyscoper says:

    [[Look at this short email I got from Roy Spencer a few days ago:
    RS: “I think anyone who claims that the area of a sphere (4 Pi R squared) isn’t four times the area of a circle (Pi R squared) needs to go back to geometry class.”]]

    It’s not about geometry it’s about physics. In order to fudge the physics and get his intended result, Spencer has turned the Earth from a sphere into a SCREWED-UP IMPOSSIBLE JERKY CUBE, consisting of four discs at right angles. He then claims that dividing the Sun’s power by 4 and applying it to one disc perpetually gives a physical result. It’s not even a giant die from Vegas because there is no way four discs can join seamlessly. He doesn’t apply the Sun’s full power to one face at a time for 6 hours, rotate the cube 90 degrees so that it can cool while the next face gets the heat, then after doing all four faces and waiting 24 hours attempting to calculate an average surface temp. Instead he just reduces the Sun to a sick sister, applies its sunlight to the whole surface area perpetually, and calculates a Three Stooges result. So he’s the one who needs to go back to class after getting a toupee with some brains in it, peeeeeyuuu! He should be fired and all his academic positions awarded to a bright young whippersnapper with peach fuzz on his cheeks, like Morning Joe the Postman.

    Meanwhile as Spencer’s mind rusts shut, the real Sun shines its full power on a HEMISPHERE at a time, and since the Earth continuously rotates like a turkey on a spit, the power causes endless variable heating and cooling over the whole surface, so that no simple geometrical formula can calculate the average surface temperature, but instead it takes a complex integral even in the simplest case of no ocean or clouds. I think that calculating real physical results was what Newton invented integral calculus for.

    Time must be the integrating variable in the integral (dt). If it’s too complex to solve analytically, you do digital numerical integration using the Runge-Kutta or other method to get an approximation..

    Maybe Spencer is still stuck in the Aristotelian physics era, and believes that light rocks don’t possess as much “gravityness” as heavy rocks, hence will fall slower 🙂 Maybe not, since he thinks that the Sun doesn’t possess “powerfulness” based on its surface temperature, and can be disrespected by reducing its power at will to get the results he wants, namely, that the Sun alone can’t keep the Earth from freezing, leaving CO2 as our only savior, and the globalist Marxist U.N. IPCC as our knight in shining armor after we give them power to foist world govt. to slay a fake dragon in the sky. It was maroons like him who caused Newton to laboriously prove all his calculus theorems using old-fashioned geometry in his Principia, and most of them still didn’t accept it, having to die of old age so their students could begin teaching it.

    It’s not that they’re unconscious, it’s just that their minds have turned to stone, unable to accept new ideas, which they stick to till death despite better ideas staring them in the face. It’s for this reason that they say that a physicist has to come up with his new ideas before age 30 or it’s never going to happen, which isn’t always true, but that’s what they say. In a field that isn’t ossified and has been reduced to transmitting a body of knowledge from generation to generation, academic tenure sucks. Maybe Spencer isn’t really that lame, and is just a puppet of the IPCC octopus, pretending to be on our side to lead us astray. That’s a question for er, history.

  3. Joseph E Postma says:

    Excellent comment! 🙂

  4. “You are doing what all my AGW denier friends do, which is present an argument based on misrepresentations and oversimplifications. Just one example…dividing the solar constant by 4 is not “flat Earth”…. it’s a way of counting the average energy flux over the sphere, which has exactly 4X the surface area of the cross section of the Earth…it gives the correct average energy flux.”

    Misrepresentation of what? What has been misrepresented? The sphere is correctly represented as a body whose surface area is 4piR^2. The greenhouse effect is correctly represented as dividing the flux of the sun by this surface area, to yield an “average flux”. All this is correctly represented.

    Next, what is represented in these numbers is the MEANING of these numbers. The MEANING of these numbers is an OUTPUT. What is correctly represented is that the greenhouse effect assigns this number as the solar INPUT. THIS is what is correctly represented as the fundamental MISrepresentation of the greenhouse effect. It is the greenhouse effect that misrepresents what the numbers mean. The numbers do NOT mean a solar INPUT — they mean an Earth OUTPUT.

    There is nothing oversimplified here. This is a straight explanation of how the greenhouse effect is not even worthy of oversimplifying, because even its own simplified model is a misrepresentation of reality.

  5. Joseph E Postma says:

    Sophistry tactics 101: Accuse your opponent of precisely what you yourself are doing and what your own errors are.

    The gall of these **ckers!

  6. Yeah, make a bunch of stupid errors, and when somebody points them out, say something brilliant in reply like, “There are so many errors in what you say that I hardly know where to begin.”

    It’s the old mirror-my-own-errors-back-onto-you response.

  7. CD Marshall says:

    This is a reply I just got someone which runs along with a lot of the replies I get.
    “Climate science is consistent with both physics and thermodynamics. You have no clue about radiative forcing.” Yeah it’s always me who doesn’t understand the science.

    Or I get this, “If the solar cycles are getting weaker why is it getting warmer if the Sun is the main energy for the planet.” This one I get a lot it must be in the updated handbook.

    These guys use bots I wish someone could create an algorithm with replies. I am so sick of repeating the same thing and it’s just pointless. These people are mindless automatons.

    I would love a coordinated effort on our replies. You know like a handbook becasue I am sick of giving the same replies over and over.

    For instance someone replied “but IR can reflect back to the Earth how do you explain that?” I said so what? it’s not warming the surface up more. You’re talking about light not radiation absorbed by CO2 and it’s not going back down to the surface. CO2 absorbs and cools off like all other gas in the atmosphere.

    They are so dishonest because if you corner them they simply stop commenting. They will never say you are right which means their intent is subversion and only subversion. Like the brit guy PotHolder54, I’d love to take him down. His job is to destroy all opposition to climate change by discrediting all opposition to climate change.

  8. Joseph E Postma says:

    It’s all a very well-coordinated system. You are learning and seeing what I have and had went through too: the strange nature of the “people” we debate.

    What happens if those who you are communicating with are not actually interested in a rational discussion? I’ve discussed this before…about identifying who acts like a real human and who doesn’t: real humans queue off of new information and develop novelty in their insight and comprehension. These people we debate on the other side do not.

    They can only not act like a real human interested in and capable of a rational discussion if either of two things are occurring: 1) they are robots…web-bot “AI” algorithms which simply repeat themselves without increasing actual mental comprehension. I am sure that many of the “people” we deal with are in fact simply bots. 2) they are real people, but they are not interested in a rational discussion, and hence, *have an ulterior motive*. In this case, we are actually engaged in war, in some form of a war with some group. And in war, of course then the battle is one of deception and subterfuge.

    I am sure that there is a handbook of algorithmic replies which someone has and is shared. It is clear, given the ubiquity of the commonality of responses we find. I am sure that it has also been coded into web-bots, given the ubiquity and consistency of the behaviour of responses.

    It is thus also now clear that some form of a quiet war is being waged.

    We are in a war. We are NOT in a discussion.

  9. Zoe Phin says:

    Chris,

    “Climate science is consistent with both physics and thermodynamics. You have no clue about radiative forcing.”

    Now ask him where in physics OUTSIDE of climate science one can find “radiative forcing”. When he fails to provide non-climate references … climate science is not consistent with physics. He lied or he’s a dupe. Simple.

  10. Climate science is consistent with both physics and thermodynamics.

    That’s just plain false.

    Consistent with TWISTED physics and thermodynamics, maybe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s