Garry Nolan on Eric Weinstein, Science & The Decline of Peer Review.

Evidently, this man Garry Nolan is a genius and a very wealthy one at that, he doesn't act like a genius! He acts like a spoiled brat!

I like this guy, his straight up no bullshit backing up what he says, i even understand about 35% of what his talking about with others nothing ☘️💚

I remember Garry's the one insisted on that 'Nazca Mummies' needed to go through peer review!

Garry is a joke, soon he will release his book about how he got an al probed by little green aliens.

Its as I always say: We live in a cult and each part of society functions like a branch of the cult. The main purposes of the cult is to create a status quo and make it so the cult members will police one-another. We do this through shaming, ignoring, or dismissing people from jobs or groups in which they challenge the status quo.

Eric Weinstein is a mathematical problem he doesn't get to the point on what he trying to say he just blabs on and on about nothing

Eric has no solutions only problems

Peer Reviewers often are the Contractors who have huge Business Affairs with Government or Military Contracts and are highly corrupted by those relationships... Peer Reviews actually hurts Science many times because it slows down acceptance anyway... The Journal themselves have influences and agendas that corrupt the process also not even arguing the Religious relationships, Church/Denomination is one thing but Science Itself beyond the influences of Church Doctrines can have influences thru the scientific or taught Beliefs of different scientific methods being studied... (Science itself can be a religious way of Faith or belief)

This man is anti-status, and anti-hierarchy. How can humanity have money, and material focused values with inspiration or new ideas? Perhaps this superior intelligence should keep his ideas to himself through patent and ownership law for profit. After gaining millionaire status he will understand the neccessity to maintain a mean average of 51% growth in population awareness and education being a solid standard.

its a bit weird from the angle of people who have been exploring these spaces for years, in a much less sensationalised way and have been totally ridiculed by scientists, who to be frank , miss the point anawful lot.if you want to look into consciiousness dont call it UFOs in my opinion. its all BS

In today's environment, we need peer review of the peer reviewers.

Iain McGilchrist, in his The Matter With Things, has some eye opening reports on the corruption in peer review. It's not just the gatekeeping. There is fraud.

Thank you sir 🙏

My estimation of Dr. Nolan just took a nosedive. EW is about as phony as they come. All Weinstein does is talk about how brilliant he is and how he is persecuted by academia. All his problems are somebody else's fault. 🙄

Intellect is of epigenetic origin, and its evolutionary chain is very very old. Eric's kite sails in the wind, but never flies on its own.

I already saw this in the full interview, but that's a good thing to have clipped this. About peer review : I'm not a scientist, but I completly understand what "tyranny of average" is. That idea that we need a maximum of people to reach truth is wrong : this is quite the opposite, given that the more humans you have, the more antagonistic situations you're likely to meet, with moreover the danger of mockery coming reaaaaally quick as the crowd grows. And if you're an elite, you'll have trouble with all the aggressive wannabe that will use "blind tests" and this type of counter-productive methods to shine and "prove you're a bad scientist" if you refuse it. That's how they sabotage and control things to climb the social and professional ladder. We saw this during c0vid's era, and Raoult's harassment in France. People orbitting around the UFO topic has been equally treated and ousted. Don't forget that there is thousands of DeGrass-Tyson science bigots out there : they are barely 25 yo but already thinking themselve as having a PHD (if not having one and acting like someone having 10 years of practice and expertise), and are ready to attack anyone and brag about what real science is. A 130+ IQ scientists who is on the top of the ladder is a target for them, especially if he's doing fringe science or having fringe methods, or simply bypassing mainstream protocols to get quicker to his ideas. Excellence for them is more a "don't step out of the line" than having creative ideas and intuitions. Bullying is also a sport for them when it comes to unproven ideas and what they call "pretentions". That's why when you're on the top of your profession, you can just rely on two others peers, than having a bunch of these kids around starting to lecture you on how to do things. Not mentioning the "kitchen effect" : the more you are, and the more difficult it is to have some vital space to do things, or to coordinate superfluous helps. It's time consuming and a nest for narcissism.

About heaven and hell : I would rather have expressed it in a more "neutral" way, like "a metaphysical side of the universe", or "extra-dimensions", but he already summurized it quite well in a more litteral approach. Indeed, it's astonishing that human mind has since the begining been able to conceptualize it, and that nowadays, scientists try to destroy this cognitive capability with doubt.

Many PhD's become so focused on their particular field, they have blinders on any out of the box ideas. I have a PhD mathematician friend who won't consider th possibility of NHI as he has not seen any data. Anytime I bring up the subject in our Men's group he just rolls his eyes in disbelief.

A lot of time and money is put into physics , chemistry and biology trying to determine if there is intelligent life beyond earth. The answer is in mathematics and it is so obvious it is ridiculous. There are 200 billion trillion stars in the universe and the only one we know about is ours. Anyone that comes here from another star system sees no sign of intelligent on Earth for putting any time into such a stupid question.

What peer review is, is just a commie idea to distribute funds by lying in tandem, and stealing further funds.