Why science and history should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Private Pickle]

In today's world science and history has been bought and paid for.

Science is supposed to be based on fact and proof. Yet in today's world science is based upon preconceived ideas paid for by grants with a specific goal in mind. Grants awarded always have a goal in mind. A grant is awarded to find fact in an ideal.

For example a grant is awarded to prove global warming. The scientists then set out to prove global warming. If they don't their grant and as such their paycheck is denied.

So their science is based upon proving a goal of those who have paid to have their agenda proved.

The same goes for history. Historians are tasked with interpreting past events per the grants and monies given to them. Granted it is less so in comparison to science but the results are the same. They are given money to come to a predetermined conclusion that fits within the narrative of societal temperature.

For example the idea that the native American was a peaceable people who were set upon by the white man while true has history. While the native American was indeed set upon by the white man the idea that they were a peaceable people is false. The Native American would have been happy conquering not only the white man but also their Native American counterparts. The proof of this is the fact that they had done so for centuries.

We all need to take a step back and question our scientists and historians. They all have an agenda and unless we question them we will all be subject to a revisionist perspective.

[Helena]

In today's world science and history has been bought and paid for.

Science is supposed to be based on fact and proof. Yet in today's world science is based upon preconceived ideas paid for by grants with a specific goal in mind. Grants awarded always have a goal in mind. A grant is awarded to find fact in an ideal.

For example a grant is awarded to prove global warming. The scientists then set out to prove global warming. If they don't their grant and as such their paycheck is denied.

So their science is based upon proving a goal of those who have paid to have their agenda proved.

The same goes for history. Historians are tasked with interpreting past events per the grants and monies given to them. Granted it is less so in comparison to science but the results are the same. They are given money to come to a predetermined conclusion that fits within the narrative of societal temperature.

For example the idea that the native American was a peaceable people who were set upon by the white man. While the native American was indeed set upon by the white man the idea that they were a peaceable people is false. The Native American would have been happy conquering not only the white man but also their Native American counterparts. The proof of this is the fact that they had done so for centuries.

We all need to take a step back and question our scientists and historians. The all have an agenda and unless we question them we will all be subject to a revisionist perspective.

What makes the Red man red? People bending over backward to paint them all as uncivilized bloodthirsty warmongers. Different strokes for different folks,or tribes, or nations. Or you know, some historians. So yeah, you're quite correct. Good job and Merry Christmas.

[Private Pickle]

What makes the Red man red? People bending over backward to paint them all as uncivilized bloodthirsty warmongers. Different strokes for different folks,or tribes, or nations. Or you know, some historians. So yeah, you're quite correct. Good job and Merry Christmas.

Yet the "red man" wasn't a peaceable people. They were bloodthirsty and conquered their enemies without remorse for the same reasons the white man conquered them. For land and the spoils that came with it. I suppose your belief is that it was OK for the natives to conquer each other for the their land and resources but not OK for the white man to do so for the same reasons.

Mirror time.

[Mister D]

What makes the Red man red? People bending over backward to paint them all as uncivilized bloodthirsty warmongers. Different strokes for different folks,or tribes, or nations. Or you know, some historians. So yeah, you're quite correct. Good job and Merry Christmas.

Their Ruddy skin tone. That wasn't obvious?

[Captdon]

Yet the "red man" wasn't a peaceable people. They were bloodthirsty and conquered their enemies without remorse for the same reasons the white man conquered them. For land and the spoils that came with it. I suppose your belief is that it was OK for the natives to conquer each other for the their land and resources but not OK for the white man to do so for the same reasons.

Mirror time.

They were no different than anyone else. This is just the "Noble Redman" crap to ignore that fact.

[Private Pickle]

They were no different than anyone else. This is just the "Noble Redman" crap to ignore that fact.

Exactly. An attempt at the degradation of a race for no other reason than to achieve a moral high ground that simply doesn't exist.

[Helena]

Yet the "red man" wasn't a peaceable people. They were bloodthirsty and conquered their enemies without remorse for the same reasons the white man conquered them. For land and the spoils that came with it. I suppose your belief is that it was OK for the natives to conquer each other for the their land and resources but not OK for the white man to do so for the same reasons.

Mirror time.

Why is it always one extreme to the other with these conversations? Please, keep supposing my beliefs for me. All while enjoying the narrative and history that you prefer.

[Private Pickle]

Why is it always one extreme to the other with these conversations? Please, keep supposing my beliefs for me. All while enjoying the narrative and history that you prefer.

So you're ignoring the argument which is based in historical fact for the sake of your feelings? I enjoy historical fact. You enjoy being triggered. My suggestion is that you refute the facts I have presented rather than passive aggressively implying those facts are false.

[Chris]

Science is tentative, incomplete and probabilistic--it should always be taken with a grain of skeptical salt. History depends on who wrote it.

[Helena]

So you're ignoring the argument which is based in historical fact for the sake of your feelings? I enjoy historical fact. You enjoy being triggered. My suggestion is that you refute the facts I have presented rather than passive aggressively implying those facts are false.

Dude, your whole thread is about taking history with a grain of salt. You enjoy historical fact on the side.