https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ras_VYgA77Q
So here's a DEFCON clip that I think everyone should see (partly because it's pretty hilarious) but also because it has to do with how that science article you may be citing as the justification for whatever you might do differently having read it may be total garbage and why it has become very difficult to distinguish real science from propaganda. It is pretty embarrassing when you take up a cause only to learn later that the movement was based on fraud so this is one way to hunt down those types of clues. I have known for some time, and I think it's well known by many people, that many agendas that show up in a ballot box stem from information that is collected by and from 'experts' and that many of these experts cannot be trusted, but until I saw this I could not necessarily refute them easily or on their professional level without similar credentials. What this presentation demonstrates is how a greedy moron with a grudge or narcissistic tendency to be validated, or anyone looking to earn a buck really can build up a significant academic background without actually doing anything normally required to earn such credentials and as a result wind up with his face on the evening news. One obvious case in point is Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Seriously, this guy was an out of work actor with no real educational background in anything who got his start as a Carl Sagan fan hosting a reboot of Carl's show 'Cosmos' and ever since he has steadily been elevated to celebrity status as a physicist, which he is not. Bill Nye 'the science guy' is another one, but this style of forgery is not limited to science publications. Where this fakery factory technique can really can matter, and where it shows up a lot, are war justifications.
Many neo-con arguments are based on information like this so if you really want to clock them from left field you need to expose and attack their sources rather than them. It also shows you care about truth more than the crusade and sidesteps the personal confrontation because you are questioning something other than the person you are debating. So when it comes to politics if you choose to engage another activist on anything, ideally you should try to come off as someone with an interest in protecting them from fraud rather than prosecuting your opponent FOR the fraud. Because anyone can be fooled, and there's no real shame in that. The only times I have ever won with any political crusader is when I managed to successfully discredit their citations. And what 'winning' looks like is they stop or stutter or retreat for a minute so savor those moments LOL. The problem with being a better 'expert' is it can take hours of research sometimes to score a point and this is research most fervent orators of what you should be doing to join the herd of sheeple they belong to typically never do, so don't expect many one round fights. Here's one example:
Frequently you hear the opinion of some conveniently conjured source of credible intelligence from an organization that only exists to provide that quote. I wrote a piece on my blog in April 2017 on the story surrounding how we supposedly learned Assad was gassing his own people that I hoped would shed some light on the blatant use of propaganda in mainstream news. (including the NY Times FYI) excerpt below:
According to Lee Stranahan of the Populist, intel that Assad gassed his own people came from The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is actually a single guy who owns a clothing store in the UK who also happens to be a Sunni Muslim so that whole lofty sounding think tank is one guy selling pants someplace!
(* a side note to this is Lee Stranahan's career as a mainstream journalist was ended when he publicly spoke out about this.)
… that reveal about who the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights actually is. You know this is something I see way too much of. A lofty sounding think tank name that conjures up mental images of a 4 story office building full of conference rooms, libraries, plasma screens and suits that just breezes by everyone's scrutiny, which is quoted as saying something credible that led to the spending of a billion dollars of hyperactive US war machine and after the fact, eventually, somebody goes to the effort to learn we just bombed another country based on a phone call from a thrift store in London.
…But you will never see a major mainstream editorial retraction like that. More often, if the ruse worked, as it did in this instance, you will just hear more from the SOHR anytime we send more troops to Syria.
Junk science and overtly mass produced political propaganda is a serious problem that I think has gone completely unnoticed for at least a decade possibly longer. Sadly, there's no easy solution to the junk science end of this until what's known as 'pay to publish' organizations are identified as such and systematically eliminated. And even if they are one day, there are other sources of stalwart decay within academia that foster their own brand of cognitive dissonance. Pollution which takes a real expert to spot and whistle blow from the inside, and there are quite a few instances where this has happened that I could name, but a simple awareness of these major predatory publisher groups listed below, who completely fabricate the reputation of actual peer reviewed academic literature, would go a long way towards discerning truth from bullshit so knowing who they are is wise and the fact that they disseminate bogus publications and promote junk conference events is good info to spread around.
If there are certain studies for example, that you might be trotting out as evidence for a thing in conversations or that are used by a person or organization that is there to promote awareness on an issue and you see that the author of that study has published in a journal distributed by any of these organizations or has in any way previously been involved with one of these groups there is a high probability that the information they are peddling is baseless.
-World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology
-OMICS Group
-ISOR Journals (International Organization of Scientific Research)
-Science Publications
-ScienceDomain International
So here's a DEFCON clip that I think everyone should see (partly because it's pretty hilarious) but also because it has to do with how that science article you may be citing as the justification for whatever you might do differently having read it may be total garbage and why it has become very difficult to distinguish real science from propaganda. It is pretty embarrassing when you take up a cause only to learn later that the movement was based on fraud so this is one way to hunt down those types of clues. I have known for some time, and I think it's well known by many people, that many agendas that show up in a ballot box stem from information that is collected by and from 'experts' and that many of these experts cannot be trusted, but until I saw this I could not necessarily refute them easily or on their professional level without similar credentials. What this presentation demonstrates is how a greedy moron with a grudge or narcissistic tendency to be validated, or anyone looking to earn a buck really can build up a significant academic background without actually doing anything normally required to earn such credentials and as a result wind up with his face on the evening news. One obvious case in point is Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Seriously, this guy was an out of work actor with no real educational background in anything who got his start as a Carl Sagan fan hosting a reboot of Carl's show 'Cosmos' and ever since he has steadily been elevated to celebrity status as a physicist, which he is not. Bill Nye 'the science guy' is another one, but this style of forgery is not limited to science publications. Where this fakery factory technique can really can matter, and where it shows up a lot, are war justifications.
Many neo-con arguments are based on information like this so if you really want to clock them from left field you need to expose and attack their sources rather than them. It also shows you care about truth more than the crusade and sidesteps the personal confrontation because you are questioning something other than the person you are debating. So when it comes to politics if you choose to engage another activist on anything, ideally you should try to come off as someone with an interest in protecting them from fraud rather than prosecuting your opponent FOR the fraud. Because anyone can be fooled, and there's no real shame in that. The only times I have ever won with any political crusader is when I managed to successfully discredit their citations. And what 'winning' looks like is they stop or stutter or retreat for a minute so savor those moments LOL. The problem with being a better 'expert' is it can take hours of research sometimes to score a point and this is research most fervent orators of what you should be doing to join the herd of sheeple they belong to typically never do, so don't expect many one round fights. Here's one example:
Frequently you hear the opinion of some conveniently conjured source of credible intelligence from an organization that only exists to provide that quote. I wrote a piece on my blog in April 2017 on the story surrounding how we supposedly learned Assad was gassing his own people that I hoped would shed some light on the blatant use of propaganda in mainstream news. (including the NY Times FYI) excerpt below:
According to Lee Stranahan of the Populist, intel that Assad gassed his own people came from The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is actually a single guy who owns a clothing store in the UK who also happens to be a Sunni Muslim so that whole lofty sounding think tank is one guy selling pants someplace!
(* a side note to this is Lee Stranahan's career as a mainstream journalist was ended when he publicly spoke out about this.)
… that reveal about who the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights actually is. You know this is something I see way too much of. A lofty sounding think tank name that conjures up mental images of a 4 story office building full of conference rooms, libraries, plasma screens and suits that just breezes by everyone's scrutiny, which is quoted as saying something credible that led to the spending of a billion dollars of hyperactive US war machine and after the fact, eventually, somebody goes to the effort to learn we just bombed another country based on a phone call from a thrift store in London.
…But you will never see a major mainstream editorial retraction like that. More often, if the ruse worked, as it did in this instance, you will just hear more from the SOHR anytime we send more troops to Syria.
Junk science and overtly mass produced political propaganda is a serious problem that I think has gone completely unnoticed for at least a decade possibly longer. Sadly, there's no easy solution to the junk science end of this until what's known as 'pay to publish' organizations are identified as such and systematically eliminated. And even if they are one day, there are other sources of stalwart decay within academia that foster their own brand of cognitive dissonance. Pollution which takes a real expert to spot and whistle blow from the inside, and there are quite a few instances where this has happened that I could name, but a simple awareness of these major predatory publisher groups listed below, who completely fabricate the reputation of actual peer reviewed academic literature, would go a long way towards discerning truth from bullshit so knowing who they are is wise and the fact that they disseminate bogus publications and promote junk conference events is good info to spread around.
If there are certain studies for example, that you might be trotting out as evidence for a thing in conversations or that are used by a person or organization that is there to promote awareness on an issue and you see that the author of that study has published in a journal distributed by any of these organizations or has in any way previously been involved with one of these groups there is a high probability that the information they are peddling is baseless.
-World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology
-OMICS Group
-ISOR Journals (International Organization of Scientific Research)
-Science Publications
-ScienceDomain International
RSS Feed