The Cult Of Scientism: "Trust The Science"

in Deep Dives4 months ago (edited)


This slogan has become a cult mantra.

Yet, how is it possible for people who claim to be skeptics and critical thinkers for their cognitive biases to complete disable their critical thinking skills so as to completely blind & deafen themselves to what doesn't fit their cultural belief system?

How is it possible for otherwise "smart" people to become so indoctrinated into a worldview that they aggressively attack those asking valid questions, addressing serious concerns, and censoring those sharing Truths and actual scientific data?

What have we devolved into, such that those claiming to revere the scientific method as the holy grail of finding Truth insist on suppressing that which doesn't conform to their beliefs or fit their cultural agenda?

Screen Shot 2021-05-12 at 4.44.09 PM.png

What is happening to us as a collective, when those we've entrusted with the tools to probe further into the dynamics of our universe to discover what has the power to serve us misuse & abuse them on a scale that creates immense confusion, chaos, and destruction?

What light lies ahead for us, amidst this dark tunnel of madness where up = down and logic is thrown out the window in favor of extremist cult ideology cloaked with socially-acceptable rhetoric?

Screen Shot 2021-05-12 at 4.45.04 PM.png
Screen Shot 2021-05-12 at 4.45.13 PM.png
Screen Shot 2021-05-12 at 4.45.21 PM.png
Screen Shot 2021-05-12 at 4.45.30 PM.png
Screen Shot 2021-05-12 at 4.45.38 PM.png

It shall certainly be interesting to watch as the house of cards falls, how all these kneeling at the altar of $cience when the dumbing, deafening, and blinding errors certain fixed ways of thinking and dictating how sovereign individuals ought to do with their own bodies.

Until then, perhaps we best just sit back and watch the show...


This is likely to be a very interesting show to watch unfold.

everything written here speaks from my soul hehe. it is a mass cult and we all were once part of it.
the thing is that even when we see it we are still engaging in similar behavior.
take cigarettes for example, i know the example is meant well and I do get its function in this context, but then we might be quick to forget or even miss to find out that tobacco is one of the oldest remedies for lung maladies. no joke.
we may be thinking we are open minded followers of the scientific method, looking down on people who are frantic scientism believers, but then we turn around and portray the same kind of behavior towards someone who claims the earth has no curvature and may indeed be flat, without ever trying to gauge his arguments.

my point is we have all drunk the cool-aid in most if not all areas of our lives, and we all have blind spots. thus, following a true scietific spirit requires constant self-reminders from ourselves to ourselves that we may still fall into the same trap of being stubborn and dogmatic, rather than open-minded and logical.

great post dude!

These are valuable clues to what one might be mistaken about oneself. Only the misguided do not doubt. Science, if it is not dogmatic, lives from constant doubt and debate. Where it fails to do so, it is no longer science.
People seem to have a very deep need for faith, presumably because they feel deep down that the world will never really be revealed to them in its entirety. Since modernity has destroyed everything that existed in terms of spirituality, ritual and faith, the person longing for faith looks for what offers itself as a substitute. In doing so, they fall for the deception of those who cling to their dogmas and actually spread superstition without knowing it, but hide it behind titles and incomprehensible language.

Orthodox medicine - I exclude some areas - is just as much magic and bound to faith as non-orthodox medicine. Belief in doctors' statements alone, such as "You have six months to live", are a kind of voodoo, which of course contain nothing provable at all. The proof itself is already a superstition, the deep desire for provability of theories a religion. I hardly see any difference between a shaman concocting a medicine and the way pills are packed into boxes by a factory line. The suggestions are there in both cases, just in very different ways, so that one can hardly bring them together. The chemical effect of remedies is a fact for me, but how they affect me and my organism personally is something no one can really predict or determine.

Probably the biggest mistake of orthodox medicine is to deny that spirit has any influence on matter. This is as ridiculous as it is untrue. I am firmly convinced that the mental condition of a person definitely has an effect on his physical condition and vice versa. This can also be observed as a mass phenomenon, or at least it falls into one's own observation space as soon as one looks.

For me, the virus theory is superstition made manifest, where, if you switch on your mind, it should actually be immediately clear that we have left the apparent and tangible and are reducing ourselves to pure abstraction. While we completely forget that we cannot really understand a single one of the scientific explanations for it. It is completely incomprehensible for laymen to be able to follow this theory and also the research from the past centuries. What is completely incomprehensible to me personally in this context, I cannot accept as real. It is my personal decision to think this way and to reject this theory. Because I don't care if someone else thinks it is proven, because even he, as a layman, doesn't know anything about it at all. The question that is in the background is: Do you have to go through your own studies of biology etc. first to understand the matter? My answer is "no", of course not.

The initiates of so-called science, however, elevate themselves above the unknown, forgetting that they are not explaining laws, but only theories.


I suppose one upside of the whole last year: it’ll serve as a catalyst to wake many up to that fact...

yes! it is the best pro-covid times argument I hear.
It forces people to wake up from the slumber. If they don't they might get hurt by reality.

Mass psychosis (as your excellent link to the vid yesterday, pointed out).

You cannot use reason and logic on these people. (but taking the piss out of them in the years to come, for their gullibility, could become national sport !)

but taking the piss out of them in the years to come, for their gullibility, could become national sport


Been seeing your thoughts on this on your IG and FB stories. Really interesting to hear more of your thoughts on this topic.
Try combining Science 🧪🔭🔬🧫🧬👨🏾‍🔬🧲 and Spirituality 🙏📿🛐🤲🧘🏾‍♂️ you get Quantum Medicine ⚛️
They don't want you to find out about Quantum Medicine because it will hurt the big pharma coop pockets
And oh ..I'm back to posting on hive fam 👊 stay blessed 💙

You rightly say people should question what they hear and make their own research. I had done that already, so I just had to verify with the latest available data, and it confirms what I thought. Your very first statement on which you based your entire 'demonstration' is false. It's a common mistake that's been floating online for months now. It seems you confuse the test cutoff number of cycles and the CT value. For most PCR tests (COVID or others), it's typical to run between 40 and 45 cycles. But the CT value, which is basically the cycle when whatever you're looking for becomes visible, is usually significantly lower than the cutoff cycle. If you look at UK data (easily available there:, you'll see that there are very few positive CT values beyond 35 and all means are under 30, with most of them below 28. So what you're apparently missing is that you could run as many cycles as you wanted, it would not change the results, as the CT value was already reached way before. So, like many people, I wonder where the high cycles you mention come from, definitely not from the data available. If you have any data supporting it (or US data, because I didn't find much for that), I would really like to see it. Because for sure I don't trust blindly some random numbers thrown out there by a constitutional lawyer (hell, even if he was a virologist, or test Lab expert, I would not trust any numbers without supporting data). By the way, you say people sharing "actual scientific data" are censored, but I don't see one single piece of actual scientific data in your post.

this entire array of thought presupposes things that are in no way certain or valid from a scientific standpoint. the only basis for this is basically faith, namely that pathogenic viruses do exist and that government reports are somehow factual by default.

what @rok-sivante speaks of in this post is beautifully demonstrated by this very issue here - what is called "science" today presupposes everything and has not done the basic proofs necessary to make a theory into a science fact.

dissenting and qualified voices are silenced and everyone is just running with the official narrative, which is by definition akin to cultish or religious behavior, but not to science.

not trying to convince, just listen to some of the arguments that have been around long before covid was ever dreamt up and tell me there is no data problem here at all... because there really is, we just don't hear about it anywhere, curiously...


But you’re still doing a great job of dodging the point:

how the hell is it supposed to be a fair, objective, controlled science experiment when you’re setting different standards for one of the control groups?

By the way, you say people sharing "actual scientific data" are censored, but I don't see one single piece of actual scientific data in your post.

You’ve clearly missed the point, voice, and angle of this article - none of which is to satisfy your expectations of what it should or supposed to be.

That one point your picked the fuck apart was merely one of countless examples that could have been drawn upon which served as a brief stimulus for the rest of the philosophical debate. It is of no interest to me to expend large amounts of time & energy crafting volumes of essays elaborating on every minute scientific detail of every one of those jump-off points to prove anything to folks such as yourself and those in the cult of $cientism who seem to think anyone not doing so is automatically wrong for not conforming to their rules and choosing to conduct their communications with balance in the language of common sense and emotional/spiritual intelligence rather than entirely left-brained cult dogma.

Yet another baby thrown out with the bathwater. Missed the meat and potatoes of the artistic work because there was a speck of dust on the fork.

There might be details again, but you asked a direct question (just like the first lines of your post where you ask how people can be blind to such factors, followed by two false statements...). Now for the question, I'll start with another question: where did you see "different standards for one of the control groups"? I don't find any such mention anywhere in WHO or CDC documents. The only thing I can think of is maybe you (or maybe a person whose statement you blindly repeated without checking) are referring to the CDC document about vaccine breakthrough case investigation (it was one of the documents that started many misleads and lies about the infamous '28 cycles'). It simply mentions that out of the vaccinated people testing positive (through the exact same testing process as always), specimen with CT count lower than 28 should be selected for sequencing. I’m guessing because it needs a higher viral load for that sequencing. But again, it does not change anything to the testing or the way to define a positive/negative case. Of course, I could have missed some documents or notices, in this case, point it to me

With your emotional/spiritual intelligence, if you think peddling easily debunkable clickbaits to justify categorizing a group of people as acting “dumb, deaf and blind”, is artistic and stimulate debate, then sure why not. But I don’t see how that can spark any honest, constructive debate. Instead, it just looks like you’re doing the exact thing you claim “folks such as myself” are doing. Lots of projection…

you asked a direct question

it was rhetorical.

where did you see "different standards for one of the control groups"?

there was news all over of how the cycle count was reduced for the vaccinated. Gallati's tweet was only one of several.

fully possible all them and myself are just scientifically-illiterate dumbfucks who took something out of context.

The only thing I can think of is maybe you (or maybe a person whose statement you blindly repeated without checking) are referring to the CDC document about vaccine breakthrough case investigation

yes, that's the one linked to in his tweet, which could be the originating point of much of the 'gossip.'

despite a a stubborn defensive arising out of my own cognitive biases, I (begrudingly, lol) appreciate your counterperspectives to shine light on the weak link in the piece.

it's certainly feedback that can help guide for stronger presentations from hereon. (and did inspire a revision & edit to weed out the potential misinformation and focus on the point).


Thanks for your response! I am sorry if my English (second language) came off as more aggressive or defensive than intended. It's just that I don't really like the extremes: the hardcore "scientists" dismissing everything and everybody else (yes I know they do exist), AND on the other side of the spectrum, the hardcore "Big Pharma is 100% totally pure evil" (for sure some are - think Sackler family, but not all of them) crowd. In general, I like to sit in the middle, gathering info from all sides, and trying to make sense of it all. And that's why when I see any kind of misinformation (from any sides), I might sometimes respond more passionately than I should.
Anyways, cheers and have a good week end!

Maybe look at it from a different perspective? There are the hardliners and hardcore extremists on the pharmaceutical and corporate side, who in turn have the wherewithal to set in motion a very large propaganda machine. Where the most extreme statements are to be found: what do you want to oppose them with? It is a game of forces and the moral arguments that are thrown into the arena on one side must, in order for them to hit the very people who accept morality as an argument and are not impressed by any other information than moral exaggerations. What would happen if this opposite pole did not exist? What if those who do not want to go along with the dictates of the present regimes behaved inconspicuously, reasonably, quietly and thoroughly logically? (which nevertheless many do exactly). Do you think they would be heard?
The fact is that we are subjected to a gigantic PR that needs adversaries who speak out at least as loudly. Personally, I think nothing of either, but where fire burns hot and bright, you can't do much with a little splash of water.

One can take this particular phenomenon "the loud and the moralists" as one part of the many events and see all the other actors as side players, nevertheless in the same way important. Through many efforts peoples minds get influenced.

What do you think?

To give an example: the exaggeration in the beginning of the phenomenon was "massive numbers of people will die!" "Those, wo do not follow the rules are "murderers"!"

Since the vaccinations took place the other side screams: "the vaccinations will kill a massive amount of people!" and "all who produce them and inject them are murderers!"

I don't know, but to me it seems that both poles were not correct or will not be correct in absolute terms. Though I clearly tend to support the anti corona regime movement. Because I make a difference between becoming sick by destiny or becoming sick through treatment.

Science can be used for good or bad, so we must investigate and analyze, not be fooled or indoctrinated, I think in this whole situation have played a lot with fear is the best way to paralyze people.