In order to not pigeonhole myself as a conspiracy essayist, I have started a Substack where I will post work that sits slightly closer to the Overton window (Radical/Acceptable rather than Unthinkable). I have called it Liminal Revolutions to retain a similar name to this blog while keeping it separate. I will continue to post conspiracy-related content here.
My first post is the first part of what is intended to be a 7 part series on whether science is trustworthy. This first part is on the Scientific Method, and subsequent parts will be on Measurement and Statistics, Experimental Design, Scientific Theories, Scientists, the Social Structure of Science, and Scientific Institutions. The last three will be the most critical, as they concern the human factor in science, but there is still room for polemic in the other parts.
This is something I have been thinking about for a couple years so I’m glad to have the first part published now. It has been inspired by Miles Mathis’ critique of modern science and especially physics and Curt Doolittle’s epistemology of science emphasizing operationalism. The idea to split up ‘science’ into its component parts was inspired by Vox Day’s tripartite model of science as the practice of science, scientific data, and scientists. Subsequent sections have benefited from Emil Kirkegaard’s many blog posts discussing studies in metascience and from all the twitter anons who link metascience studies, in particular Cremieux.
Overdue Revolutions 