So remember how salt is supposed to be harmful. We’ve heard that forever — the dangers of too much salt. In fact, Bloomberg has wanted to use the law to limit salt in New York restaurants, i.e., if you put too much salt on your food, he will send people armed with guns to stop you because salt is that dangerous as says Science!
Well… about that…
Yep, now they’re saying that salt is not harmful. In fact, increased might actually be beneficial.
Come on!
This raises an important question I think we need to explore as a society. Right now there is this way too high a reverence for Science! and we’re supposed to not question scientists and base our laws based on what they find, but my question is this: What percentage of scientists are useless idiots?
I mean, we all love science because it gave us lasers and computers and nuclear bombs, but my hypothesis is that it’s only a very small percentage of scientists who do any of this useful stuff and the much larger percentage are the ones saying, “Salt is bad for you! …No wait, salt is good for you! No wait…” They’re basically hippies in white coats with lots of pockets — completely useless. Well, except to carry things in their pockets.
My theory is that we revere scientists because we have a long memory for useful findings from scientists — because those we remember years and years later as we still use them — but a short memory for the much much more numerous dumb findings from science, because as soon as they’re disproven we forget them and move on.
The problem is, while it’s obvious a hundred years later which scientific findings are useful, we can’t seem to sort moron scientists from useful in the present day. And that makes the reverence of supposedly scientific findings (and it’s reverence of scientific findings and not science since science is a process and most people don’t engage in it) all the more harmful.
Anyway, if the government will give me millions to scientifically study this subject, I will accept and promise to be a useful scientist and not cause confusion and delay.
There’s science, and then there are scientists.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
― Richard P. Feynman
Seems to me like we could address this problem by raising the price of lab coats. You’d have to be a successful scientist that can make money sciencing before you could afford a lab coat.
There are two things that scientists absolutely loathe – besides getting turned down for grant money, that is. Caffeine and salt. Man o man, how desperate they are to prove those two things are bad for us in any measure at all. You’d think these two things made people vote conservative or something. . .
what percentage of scientists are useless idiots? 97.3. you can trust me on that. i used to have some white lab coats.
If the “scientist” in question views mathematics as a useful tool on how to express his data and is willing to engage in debate with people and doesn’t use the phrase, “well, you’re a doody head!”, then he is probably capable of doing some worthwhile science.
Just for myself, I only trust a scientist who has pocket protectors in at least three of his lab coat pockets.
As long as you are doing this study, I think you should also ask for funding to study the word etymology to find out when the words ‘science’ and ‘seance’ separated and why.
Let’s see: One; Two; Thr. . . .
Three.
I remember a few years ago when any useful scientist who wanted to do sciency things to determine if global warming was actually happening, was shut down by moron scientists who had gotten into positions of power, where they could approve research money and all that stuff. If those smart scientists didn’t pretend to be morons about global warming and tow the party line, they were blacklisted from their field. That’s how they got a “scientific consensus” about GW.
I think the lesson here is, never give a scientist any kind of power. They may not be as bad as politicians, but if they’re morons masquerading as scientists, it’ll be pretty darn close.
Sturgeon’s Law applies here: “90% of everything is crud”.
The catch being that there is no way to tell which 10% is actually good until after it has produced something useful.
Also, having the crud around tends to inspire the 10%, after the fashion of making them angry and saying to themselves “I’ll show that crudball!”
Never underestimate the awesome power of pure spite as a creative force.
I’d rather they be useless idiots than useful ones.
First eggs were good for you, then they were bad, then they were good, then they were bad, then…
First the coconut oil used to pop theater popcorn was BAD, then it good, caffeine was bad, then good, then bad, then …, wine was good, then bad, then good, magnetic fields were bad, now they’re good. Name a product, and according to Centers for Science in the Public Interest, it’s good, then bad, then good, then bad, then not bad, then necessary, then bad, yada, yada, yada.
If the staff of Centers for Science in the Public Interest REALLY wanted to perform some science that was in the public interest, they’d all gather around a nuke in Washington, DC, and detonate the bloody thing while Il Douche was addressing a joint session of Congress.
Scientists haven’t been useful since Dr. Quest and Mr. Spock had their shows cancelled in the 1960s.
This is a trick question right? There’s always a use for an idiot, cannon fodder.
“ninety-nine percent of all science is bean counting and button sorting”
R. Heinlein