The Portal Wiki

National Science Foundation (NSF): Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

National Science Foundation (NSF) (edit)

Revision as of 06:37, 26 October 2025

8,880 bytes added ,  26 October
→‎2025
Line 1,684: Line 1,684:


Science cannot afford Francis Collins and his culture of backstabbing officials.
Science cannot afford Francis Collins and his culture of backstabbing officials.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=TheAtlantic-profile-WJdNY4fH.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1917307971060593038
|name=The Atlantic
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TheAtlantic
|username=TheAtlantic
|content=The former NIH director Francis Collins tells @JeffreyGoldberg he fears the U.S. is losing a generation of scientists.
“We have depended so heavily on being the place that everybody wanted to come to to do research," Collins says. "And now we’re driving those people away.”
|media1=TheAtlantic-X-post-1917307971060593038.jpg
|timestamp=8:00 PM · Apr 29, 2025
}}
|media1=ERW-X-post-1917653053253247292-Gpzd5VSa8AAzyyz.jpg
|timestamp=6:51 PM · Apr 30, 2025
|timestamp=6:51 PM · Apr 30, 2025
|media1=Gpzd5VSa8AAzyyz.jpg
}}
}}


Line 1,703: Line 1,716:
“Peer Review” was a last ditch promise made to government funders: “Will you stay out of our research if we agree to give away much of our discretion?”
“Peer Review” was a last ditch promise made to government funders: “Will you stay out of our research if we agree to give away much of our discretion?”


You want to look up: Medicare act, MACOS, Baumann amendment, Utah medical clinics, and the NSF peer review wars of 1975.
You want to look up: Medicare act, MACOS, Baumann amendment, Utah medical clinics, and the [[National Science Foundation|NSF]] [[Peer Review|peer review]] wars of 1975.
|timestamp=7:04 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|timestamp=7:04 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}
}}
Line 1,720: Line 1,733:
Which is *exactly* what just happened in UFO land. We admitted we did what I claimed we were likely doing when I was on Rogan.
Which is *exactly* what just happened in UFO land. We admitted we did what I claimed we were likely doing when I was on Rogan.


And what I claim about our failed 40 year “Quantum Gravity” and “String Theory” program is simply that it completely disabled a potentially dangerous activity: successfully discovering and sharing the power of new physics in open universities with foreign nationals of rival nations well beyond the Manhattan Project era nuclear physics. Is that deliberate? It sure as hell would be a lot less suspicious if we ever had the string theorist/quantum gravity people at the same conference head to head with their rivals and detractors. Wouldn’t it?
And what I claim about our failed 40 year “[[Quantum Gravity]]” and “[[String Theory]]” program is simply that it completely disabled a potentially dangerous activity: successfully discovering and sharing the power of new physics in open universities with foreign nationals of rival nations well beyond the Manhattan Project era nuclear physics. Is that deliberate? It sure as hell would be a lot less suspicious if we ever had the string theorist/quantum gravity people at the same conference head to head with their rivals and detractors. Wouldn’t it?


I’m sorry this seems crazy to you. But the U.S. government makes shit up. It’s called “Covert Operations”. In laymen’s terms: we conspire to gaslight our own people. And we do it a lot around national security.  
I’m sorry this seems crazy to you. But the U.S. government makes shit up. It’s called “Covert Operations”. In laymen’s terms: we conspire to gaslight our own people. And we do it a lot around national security.  
Line 1,728: Line 1,741:
Enough.  
Enough.  


I was writing about the danger of a manipulated CPI in 1996 (now admitted). The fake NSF labor shortage (now discredited) in the 1980s. Biden’s cognitive crisis for all 4 years of his presidency (now known to all). The fake racism charges against the Wuhan Lab leak theory (ahem).  
I was writing about the danger of a manipulated [[CPI]] in 1996 (now admitted). The fake '''NSF''' [[Labor Shortages|labor shortage]] (now discredited) in the 1980s. Biden’s cognitive crisis for all 4 years of his presidency (now known to all). The fake racism charges against the Wuhan Lab leak theory (ahem).  


Etc. See the pattern?  
Etc. See the pattern?  
Line 1,747: Line 1,760:


No hard feelings.
No hard feelings.
{{Tweet
|image=michaelshermer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1936935674374172867
|name=Michael Shermer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer
|username=michaelshermer
|content=Dear @EricRWeinstein The history of technology strongly indicates that UAP-type "anti-gravity" tech cannot be Earthly. Here's my explanation of why from my forthcoming book Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Still Matters:
An alternative to ordinary explanations for UAP sightings is that they represent Russian or Chinese assets, drones, spy planes, or some related but as yet unknown (to us) technology capable of speeds and turns that seemingly defy all known physics and aerodynamics. Pilots and observers describe “multiple anomalous aerial vehicles” accelerating from 80,000 feet down to sea level in seconds, or making instantaneous turns and even sudden stops, or shooting off horizontally at hypersonic speed, breaking the sound barrier but not making a sonic boom, which should be impossible, not to mention that it would kill the pilots instantly. And these vehicles appear to be able to do so with no apparent jet engine or visible exhaust plume, suggesting that they’re using some anti-gravity technology unavailable to even the most advanced experimental programs worked on at DARPA. When 60 Minutes’ correspondent Bill Whitaker asked former Navy pilot Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who had seen with his own eyes UAPs buzzing around Virginia Beach in 2014, “could it be Russian or Chinese technology?” Graves responded “I don’t see why not,” adding that “if these were tactical jets from another country that were hangin’ out up there, it would be a massive issue.”  Top Gun navy pilot and commander of the F/A-18F squadron on the USS Nimitz, David Fravor, told 60 Minutes “I don’t know who’s building it, who’s got the technology, who’s got the brains. But there’s something out there that was better than our airplane.”
The hypothesis that the objects are terrestrial and developed by some other nation or corporation, or some genius working in isolation, is highly unlikely, given what we know about the evolution of technological innovation, which is cumulative from the past. In his seminal work The Evolution of Technology, the historian George Basalla busts the myth of the inventor working in isolation, dreaming up new and innovative technologies out of sheer creative genius (the ping of the light bulb flashing brilliantly in the mind). All technologies, Basalla demonstrates, are developed out of either pre-existing artifacts (artificial objects) or already existing naturfacts (organic objects): “Any new thing that appears in the made world is based on some object already in existence,” he explains.  But some artifact had to be first—an invention that comes from no other invention, ex nihilo as it were. If this is the case then that artifact, Basalla shows, likely came from a naturfact. (Barbed wire is a famous example. Its inventor, Michael Kelly, in 1868 explained: “My invention [imparts] to fences of wire a character approximating to that of a thorn-hedge. I prefer to designate the fence so produced as a thorny fence.” )
In How Innovation Works,  Matt Ridley demonstrates through numerous examples that innovation is an incremental, bottom-up, fortuitous process that is a result of the human habit of exchange, rather than an orderly, top-down process developing according to a plan. Innovation is different from invention, Ridley argues, because “it is the turning of inventions into things of practical and affordable use to people that makes innovation possible.” Innovation, he continues, “is always a collective, collaborative phenomenon, not a matter of lonely genius. It is gradual, serendipitous, recombinant, inexorable, contagious, experimental and unpredictable. It happens mainly in just a few parts of the world at any one time.” Examples include steam engines, jet engines, search engines, airships, vaping, vaccines, cuisine, antibiotics, mosquito nets, turbines, propellers, fertilizer, computers, dogs, farming, fire, genetic engineering, gene editing, container shipping, railways, cars, safety rules, wheeled suitcases, mobile phones, powered flight, chlorinated water, toilets, vacuum cleaners, shale gas, the telegraph, radio, social media, block chain, the sharing economy, artificial intelligence, and hyperloop tubes.
It is simply not possible that some nation, corporation, or lone individual—no matter how smart and creative—could have invented and innovated new physics and aerodynamics to create an aircraft of any sort that could be, essentially, centuries ahead of all known present technologies. That is not how innovation works. It would be as if the United States were using rotary phones while the Russians or Chinese had smart phones, or we were flying biplanes while they were flying stealth fighter jets, or we were sending letters and memos via fax machine while they were emailing files via the Internet, or we were still experimenting with captured German V-2 rockets while they were testing SpaceX-level rocketry. Impossible. We would know about all the steps leading to such technological wizardry.
Consider the Manhattan Project, arguably the most secretive program in US history to date, leading to the successful development of atomic bombs in 1945. The Russians had an atomic bomb by 1949. How? They stole our plans through a German theoretical physicist and spy named Klaus Fuchs. Modern tech companies like Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft are notoriously secretive about their inventions, forcing employees to sign Non Disclosure Agreements (NDEs), enforcing extensive security protocols for their offices, and protecting intellectual property rights through countless lawsuits. And yet
all of our computers, smart phones, computer chips, and software programs are essentially the same, or at least in close parallel development. Countries and companies steal, copy, back engineer, and innovate each other’s ideas and technologies, leaving no one company or country very far ahead or behind any other.
|timestamp=11:53 PM · Jun 22, 2025
}}
|timestamp=5:57 AM · Jun 23, 2025
|timestamp=5:57 AM · Jun 23, 2025
|media1=GuG0BxyXUAAaDFK.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-1937027263108891121-GuG0BxyXUAAaDFK.jpg
|media2=GuG0Bx3WMAAbszq.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1937027263108891121-GuG0Bx3WMAAbszq.jpg
}}
}}




{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1977086909324374411
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We make anyone pointing at the real problem lose everything within the system. We expell them. We impugn them. That is the problem.
@sapinker you are one of the most courageous voices inside the system. I appreciate that.
Those more courageous than you are not there anymore and many are every bit as good as you. Look around. Where did they go? Where is Jim Watson? Who replaced Serge Lang? What did they do to Larry when he spoke in the program I co-Founded with Richard??
You are a professor. Invite those who stood up back and call for the firing of Claudine.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1977081891963686958
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Plenty of 1st rate scientists over the last 50 years have raised their voices to say “Our leadership, grant making groups, and journals are lying about X.”
How many of them have a 2nd home. A 1st home? A grant? A professorship? An invited talk? Even an affiliation?
Come on man.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=sapinker-profile-mc3-jzbr.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/sapinker/status/1977026837894082736
|name=Steven Pinker
|usernameurl=https://x.com/sapinker
|username=sapinker
|content=If scientists wants science to be taken seriously, they've got to stop doing stupid stuff like publishing the zillionth study claiming that groupwise disparities are proof of bigotry, and then firing scientists who point out the obvious flaw in that reasoning.
https://www.sensible-med.com/p/a-cancellation-and-a-firing-at-obesity
|timestamp=3:01 PM · Oct 11, 2025
}}
|timestamp=6:40 PM · Oct 11, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
Line 1,783: Line 1,854:
Or am I wrong in this? I have the credentials having done this work *AT* Harvard. Let me know.
Or am I wrong in this? I have the credentials having done this work *AT* Harvard. Let me know.
|timestamp=6:53 PM · Oct 11, 2025
|timestamp=6:53 PM · Oct 11, 2025
}}
|timestamp=7:00 PM · Oct 11, 2025
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/23334"