What is Science? -- Nobel Laureate in Physics, Richard Feynman, provided his answer in 1966

There is 

no freedom 

to question 

the conclusions,

and the delusions, 

of the United Nations IPCC

99% conclusions,

but only 1% evidence,

( 99% politics, 1% science )
'government version'
of climate "science".

Which consists of 

repeated since 1988
consistently wrong

wild guess predictions

of 100% bad news

global warming,
stated with 
great confidence.

but completely 
unrelated to 
the 100% good news,

past 325 years

of actual intermittent, 

mild, and harmless 

global warming, 

including 79 years 

of rapidly rising 

carbon dioxide levels 

in the atmosphere.

Wild guesses

of "it's different this time"

future global warming

get 100% of the attention,
in the mainstream media,

while actual experience
with global warming

in the past 79 years --

( 1940 through 2019 )

rising CO2, and mild, 

intermittent warming,

( no warming at all from 1940 to 1975 )

gets no attention at all.

What Is 
Real Science? 

A very good answer 

came in a lecture 

by Nobel Laureate 

in Physics 

Richard Feynman, 

a brilliant lecturer 

who insisted on 

teaching students. 

Feynman answered 

this question 

at the fifteenth 

annual meeting 

of the National 

Science Teachers 

Association in 1966

in a humorous

manner: 

Feynman's conclusion:

“So there came a time, perhaps, when for some species [humans] the rate at which learning was increased, reached such a pitch that suddenly a completely new thing happened: things could be learned by one individual animal, passed on to another, and another fast enough that it was not lost to the race. 

Thus, became possible 

an accumulation 

of knowledge 

of the race.

This has been called time-binding. 

I don’t know who first called it this. 

At any rate, we have here [in this hall] some samples of those animals, sitting here trying to bind one experience to another, each one trying to learn from the other.

This phenomenon of having a memory for the race, of having an accumulated knowledge passable from one generation to another, was new in the world–but it had a disease in it: it was possible to pass on ideas which were not profitable for the race. 

The race has ideas, 

but they are not 

necessarily profitable.

So, there came a time in which the ideas, although accumulated very slowly, were all accumulations not only of practical and useful things, but great accumulations of all types of prejudices, and strange and odd beliefs.

Then a way of 

avoiding the disease 

was discovered. 

This is to doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initio [from the beginning] again from experience what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it is passed down. 

And that is what science is: 

the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race[‘s] experience from the past. 

I see it that way. 

That is my best definition.

I would like to remind you all of things that you know very well in order to give you a little enthusiasm. 

In religion, the moral lessons are taught, but they are not just taught once, you are inspired again and again, and I think it is necessary to inspire again and again, and to remember the value of science for children, for grown-ups, and everybody else, in several ways; not only [so] that we will become better citizens, more able to control nature and so on.

After discussing 

beauty in science, 

Feynman further states:

Another of the qualities of science is that it teaches the value of rational thought 
as well as the importance of freedom of thought; the positive results that come from doubting that the lessons are all true. 

You must here distinguish–especially in teaching–the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science.

It is easy to say, 
“We write, experiement, 
and observe, 
and do this or that" 

You can copy that form exactly. 

But great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. 

In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. 

In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers.

We have many studies in teaching, 
for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics,
 and so on, but these do not thereby become established science, 
established knowledge. 

... The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. 

[But] you teachers, 
who are really teaching 
children at the bottom 
of the heap, can maybe 
doubt the experts. 

As a matter of fact, 

I can also define 

science another way: 

Science is the belief 

in the ignorance of experts.

 When someone says, 

“Science teaches 

such and such,” 

he is using the word 

incorrectly. 

Science doesn’t 

teach anything; 

experience 
teaches it. 

If they say to you,

“Science has shown 

such and such,” 

you might ask, 

“How does 

science 
show it? 

How did 

the scientists 

find out?

How? 

What? 

Where?”

It should not be 

“science has shown” 

but “this experiment, 

this effect, has shown".

And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

In a field which is so complicated [as education] that true science is not yet able to get anywhere, we have to rely on a kind of old-fashioned wisdom, a kind of definite straightforwardness.

I am trying to inspire the teacher at the bottom to have some hope and some self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence. 

The experts 
who are 
leading you 
may be wrong.

I have probably ruined the system, and the students that are coming into Caltech no longer will be any good. 

I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television–words, books, and so on–are unscientific. 

As a result, there is 

a considerable amount

of intellectual tyranny 

in the name of science."