fake2

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Real Tragedy of 'Science': Public Faith Declines as Fakery Grows
By Staff News & Analysis - March 28, 2015

Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal … A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of "fabricated" peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications. – Washington Post

Dominant Social Theme: Science saves us?

Free-Market Analysis: The breadth of this scandal (see excerpt above) is extraordinary and comes not long after a top executive at Monsanto issued a plaintive tweet lamenting the West's eroding faith in "science." You can see our Monsanto analysis here:

Monsanto Laments Dwindling Faith in Science

We wrote:

As we have noted in the past, the current status quo emphasizes "experts" and "expertise." In part this is because the foundational meme of modern society is based on central banking – and central bankers are presented as having the expertise to predict the future.

If people generally came to doubt the ability of central bankers to peer into the future in order to generate accurate monetary prices, then central banking itself would become a doubtful proposition. The same thing holds true in other fields.

Science – faith in science – was supposed to justify the modern technocratic society. It is in fact an ancient manipulation. The meme of the "expert" is that of the technocrat – a model of social manipulation that dates back at least to Socrates and his theory that "philosopher kings" ought to run the world.

When we called science a "manipulation" a month ago, we didn't except to receive such efficient confirmation as this so quickly.

But BioMed Central, which puts out 277 peer-reviewed journals, has begun to retract articles and sees the problem as a "problem of how scientists are judged." In other words, scientists are under extreme pressure to "publish or perish" and thus may be tempted to fudge.

More:

The Committee on Publication Ethics, a multidisciplinary group that includes more than 9,000 journal editors, issued a statement suggesting a much broader potential problem. The committee, it said, "has become aware of systematic, inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review processes of several journals across different publishers." Those journals are now reviewing manuscripts to determine how many may need to be retracted, it said.

Peer review is the vetting process designed to guarantee the integrity of scholarly articles by having experts read them and approve or disapprove them for publication. With researchers increasingly desperate for recognition, citations and professional advancement, the whole peer-review system has come under scrutiny in recent years for a host of flaws and irregularities, ranging from lackadaisical reviewing to cronyism to outright fraud.

Last year, in one of the most publicized scandals, the Journal of Vibration and Control, in the field of acoustics, retracted 60 articles at one time due to what it called a "peer review and citation ring" in which the reviews, mostly from scholars in Taiwan, were submitted by people using fake names.

Modern scientific reporting is subject to all sorts of fakery. The broadest kind of fakery is a theoretical one. Physics, for instance, seems stuck on gravitational explanations for what may well be an electrical phenomenon as regards the fundamental "force" of the universe. In other words, Tesla had it right with "plasma" and physics may have taken an inaccurate detour with Einstein's gravitational theories.

On a slightly smaller scale, there are surely questions about double-blind testing. The questions must be raised – though the mainstream media doesn't do so – based on the many disastrous drugs launched by the pharmaceutical industry.

Some of these drugs may be subject to rigorous double-blind testing and yet after being on the market for some years, they are removed for "side effects."

What is happening is that the samples are too small or the timelines too short. In either case, double-blind testing is the fulcrum of a certain kind of modern science but there are plenty of instances where its findings are seemingly invalidated.

Science and the ability to generate trustworthy results is a noble effort. But what has happened in the modern day is that science is being elevated to a kind of religion. Slap the label "scientific" on research, no matter how dubious, and you may end up with the benefit of the doubt.

As in so many other ways, you have to follow the money. To question science is to question economics and in particular to question the technocratic efficacy of central banking. Sadly, science has been aggrandized to serve the meme of monopoly money printing.

As a result, science and scientists occupy rarified air, indeed – and because the stakes are so high, the temptation to cheat is increasingly significant as well.

Scientific theories are ever more impervious to change. Change, after all, suggests a cognitive evolution and one doesn't easily adjust what is basically by now a religious doctrine for fear of bringing certain elements into doubt.

The article in question offers the suggestion that scientific fakery is rife among journals. We would suggest that the problem will only become bigger and broader as scientists and publishers become increasingly reluctant to challenge the orthodoxies of their colleagues and the institutions for which they work.

After Thoughts

We would also suggest that as the problem grows, public confidence in "science" will continue to decline.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Bill Ross

    Yep, science, by the astounding accomplishments of physical scientists and engineers, is indistinguishable from magic for the scientifically illiterate, the new “faith based religion”. As such, just as in the dark ages there are hypocritical “priests” using alleged “science” as “rationalization of necessity” regarding why we should bow to their self-alleged superior “wisdom” based on falsely representing their credentials as “scientists”, debasing the “brand, reputations” of all honest scientists and engineers. Science needs a massive triage of the charlatans, else, it will be rejected by the public, just as organized religion has been, for the same reason: LIES writ large, with massive collateral damage.

    It started with totally bogus Social “science” and bogus Social “engineers”:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/39

    and, their “snake oil” prescriptions are a massive failure for all but the social “science” “doctors”, in monopoly control of creating problems and dispensing “diseased band-aids” based on false diagnosis of “what ails us” (with the “benefits” to them, costs to us).

    Full Disclosure: These sociopaths REALLY pi$$ me off.

    • Just for the audience and the record, it was the SECULAR, or LAY faction of the “scientists” of the (as we increasingly realize now) Not-All-That-Dark Ages, who demanded that the SECULAR authority of the POLITICAL priesthood shut the mouths of upstarts with new upstart perspectives. For example the ARISTOTLE-theory of the sun and stellar objects revolving around Earth was held by the LAY (“secular”) scientists who rejected the heliocentric Ptolemaic model.

      Like the atheists who dominate the authoritarian and censoring agencies of the USA government today and in most of the world, these “scientific” political authoritarians are just like any authoritarians, POWER-motivated individuals who seek to use that power for gain, or sometimes just to avoid embarrassment.

      • autonomous

        I agree. In rejecting the possibility there is a creator even smarter than the scientist, science automatically rejects most of the knowable universe.

        • And instead believes in an admitted 98 percent pure fantasy universe, and that’s not counting all the missing “punctuation” in the “puncuated equilibrium” theory. The invisible 98 percent that has not one atomic unit of evidence is to save the Big Bang theory, and the punctuation that is nowhere to be seen or evidenced in the fossils (according to the theory’s co-creator Stephen Gould) is to save the Darwinian unguided spontaneous theory from the stasis-proving fossils forensics.

          • Gil G

            It’s the Big Bang Fact – the Universe has been expanding for over 13 billion years. Likewise animal species have evolved over the eons and continue to do so. You can’t be criticising science because you haven’t taken the slightest look at it.

          • Forty years not just looking but studying, after 16 years of government indoctrination in materialist myths. We want the followers of the Darwinian pagan religion to learn more about their “science”, not less.

            They’ve got bacteria in sealed environments going through millions of generations, they’re still bacteria. DNA works based on instructions from is a digital computerized symbolic programming language, with four “alphabet” letters, A, G, C, T, the quartenary bits, the building blocks for nucleotides, they form the “word” called DNA molecule, and these are organized into “sentences” called chromosomes.

            Apply Occam’s razor and you have to multiply gaps on gaps, myth on myth.

            Again, the materialist “evolutionist” believes in a 98 percent fantasy universe. That’s dark matter plus dark energy. They are fantasy props to avoid any “divine foot in the door”.

            That’s not even counting the missing punctuation, the great big giant leaps of faith the common-ancestry story requires, not seen in the fossils, the only forensic evidence of biological history.

            And it’s an ancient pagan myth. Look:

            Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.-Jeremiah 2:27

          • Gil G

            Nope rather you’re assuming gaps that aren’t there to save your outdated Bronze Age view of the Universe. Science has increased the known size and age of the Universe far beyond what Bronze Age people could have possibly imagined. Likewise Jesus supposedly walked on water while men have walked on the Moon.

          • HERE IS A LIST OF JUST A FEW OF THOSE “GAPS THAT AREN’T THERE” that anti-creationists like to say are simple things they just don’t know yet but they will, while they demand to know where God came from, a question that has already been answered long ago:

            Tell us EXACTLY WHAT is dark matter made up of, and provide a link to the proof.

            Tell us EXACTLY WHAT is dark energy and provide a link to the proof.

            Tell us what refutation you have to “evolutionary biologist” Stephen Gould’s comment that the fossils show stasis rather than continuous evolutionary progression between the fossil stasis. Why did Stephen Gould call them “gaps” if those “gaps” are not there?

            Tell us EXACTLY HOW dead matter made the leap into biological organisms?

            Tell us EXACTLY WHY physicists struggle with the anthropic principle and EXACTLY WHAT is the explanation for the dozens of micro-tuning of the physical constants of the universe, coordinated in a symphonic combination that is required for the existence of life?

            Tell us HOW one can squiggle out of the fact that creationist scientists Russel Humphreys was able to predict spot-on the strength of the magnetic field of the outer gas giants (based on Genesis One) while NASA’s brilliant team of GOVERNMENT-paid scientists were exponentially off?

            EXACTLY WHY are there so many quasars and galaxies that astronomers say are obviously and visibly physically connected in space while their red shifts are so very much different, as in creationist astrophysicist Halton Arp’s vast catalogue of them? (And why the scientists of the government establishment refuses to allow him credit but instead recognize two others as originatal documentarians of the phenomenon?)

            WHY do the most outstanding and experienced Big-Bang and inflation-believing scientists REFUSE to debate creationist scientists anymore? Why do none of them dare take on Walter Brown’s far-rules written-debate challenge?

            WHY did so many medical scientists declare 72 –seventy-two– human organs as vestigial (against the warnings of creation scientists) so prematurely resulting in the unnecessary removal of appendices and other useful organs from the human body?

            WHY did so many geneticists rush to declare the majority of the human genome to be JUNK DNA to the RAUCOUS LAUGHTER of creationists, only to declare themselves embarrassed (again) to find out that the “junk” DNA actually has good purpose?
            (Avoiding, of course, giving credit to the creationist biologists and the intelligent design advocates for warning them)

            EXACTLY HOW did the retina evolve from a rock with the rest of you to the way it works, where just ONE photon that hits ONE cell initiates a reaction in the cell involving TWELVE discrete steps to start the message on its way to the brain?

          • Gil G

            There’s a whole array of scientific disciplines out there and you want to wave it all away because you want Bronze Age mythologies to be true? Feel free to search all the topics thanks to the magic of the Internet instead of fobbing it all off and remaining ignorant. After all, do you think the Universe is 6,000 years old as per the Bible? Do you think other galaxies can’t exist because the Universe can’t be any large than 12,000 light years across? Life can’t emerge from inorganic matter even though the Bible actually says life comes dust and dirt? Real scientists don’t debate Creationist because they all have better things to do with their time let alone do Creationists have anything to debate about.

          • You did not address even ONE of the items I listed. You avoided them because they expose the bankruptcy of the 98 percent fantasy universe that materialists have to believe in by pure blind faith.

            Instead of thinking, you just repeat yourself.

            The Bible doesn’t specify what any animal or plant life comes from but says GOD fashioned man from clay. You are the one who thinks the Universe created itself without even being there, and that you descended from a rock, just like the ancient pagan BLIND FAITH:

            Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth:….–Jeremiah 2:27a

        • Gil G

          Most of the known Universe contains zilch evidence for God.

          • autonomous

            I have seen only a tiny part of the universe, but I have seen and studied my little segment, and found a lot of evidence for him. And have seen a lot of evidence of the damage caused by denying him, particularly by those who reject him completely. The most puzzling thing I have noticed is that those who dismiss him angrily. Why be so angry at what doesn’t exist?

      • Yes, well said. The “science” of climatology is flawed from the very start, where totally incorrect assumptions are made. In his “gold standard” text, for example, Pierrehumbert makes an obvious mistake in his calculations for albedo in his imaginary world without the most prolific greenhouse gas, water vapor. It seems he “forgot” water vapor is necessary for clouds that then reflect 20% of solar radiation back to Space. By forgetting such, he was able to double the (incorrectly) assumed surface warming supposedly caused by radiation from a colder atmosphere. What does happen on all planets is explained at http://climate-change-theory.com .

    • autonomous

      So what are we to do? Kill off all who don’t see things as we see them? That was Caesar’s, Hitler’s and Lenin’s strategy. Did it work? Science doesn’t kill off dissenters anymore, but they kill anyone’s career who happens to disagree with their atheistic, evolutionary teachings. They are only marginally less evil that medieval church leaders.

  • autonomous

    Science is no less vulnerable to human foibles than are politics, religion or business.

    • Science is practiced by individuals, not gods, and they certainly are not prophets.

  • Tesla had it right on Plasma? Glad to hear you say it. In my view and perception, Tesla had it right on EVERYTHING. What a towering genius who remains virtually unknown even in many scientific circles. I just googled the word “Tesla” and what comes up is a bunch of stuff about the Tesla car and Elon Musk – a shameless self-promoter trading on government subsidies and another man’s name. Nikola Tesla pretty much single handedly invented the twentieth century, he was ripped off and sabotaged by both Westinghouse and JP Morgan, and if he had been able to continue and complete his work we might have free energy on this entire planet. Instead the government moved in, stole his files and papers, and is currently developing super weapons based on his genius and concepts. Mahvelous! Well done!!

    • Thanks.

    • dave jr

      I agree with everything you said about Tesla, except I haven’t seen any evidence that he was on to ‘free energy’. Rather, he promoted the wireless transmission of electricity. The authorities put it down because there was no way to meter it, essentially making it free to the user. But in no way is it ‘free’ in the production. Even though we are swimming in energy, made out of it, nature has already spoken for it. There is no “free” energy. It must be extracted…right after non-free lunch 🙂

      • Thanks Dave, Jr, I stand corrected : )

        • Ochie

          Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower was built for his experiments in extracting energy from the ionosphere. Though not “free” the idea was the energy extracted would be more than the energy input. I don’t doubt if given the resources and the time Tesla would have given the world free electricity, that was his life’s goal. Great read http://www.amazon.com/Tesla-Man-Time-Margaret-Cheney/dp/0743215362

          • Agreed.

          • dave jr

            Is that what Margaret Cheney tells in her book? It is pretty well known that the Wydenclyffe experiment was a transmitter, not a receiver. I read somewhere that when Tesla fired up his wireless electricity transmitter at Wardenclyffe, the town lights dimmed because of the current draw. He could light a bulb miles away, though very dimly. It was highly inefficient and the financiers withdrew. That government is withholding his plans for free energy smacks of conspiracy theory even worse than my own.

          • A more recent scandal, that rivals the crimes committed against Tesla, is the energy scandal Eugene Mallove uncovered in “Fire and Ice”, even though he was not conspiratorial at all. He did mention the billions of dollars in 1989 dollars that were put in jeopardy by Fleischmann and Pons’ experiments. The U.S. lost a good scientist to year in the uproar that followed their press conference. I always cheered loudly that they went straight to the press conference instead of doing the stupid peer review charade.

            The high priests of what I’ll call the “NeoScience” religion enforce their inviolate dogmas by hook and crook. Looking at what happened to Eugene Mallove one might suspect they’re capable of using the worst kind of crooks. Or their billionaire shadow-hugging sponsors are.

          • Ochie

            Reasonably certain that it was Cheney’s book that I read it in. When fired up Wardenclyffe is said to have crackled with static electricity and lit up the night sky with lightening. Also said to have blown out the generators with feedback resonance many miles away. Tesla made lots of claims and had to hide the true purpose of his experiments from his financiers. Wardenclyffe Tower would have served multiple purposes for Tesla: Radio transmission, power transmission and experiment with the Ionosphere. On another note I was watching a program this morning about Edison’s lab located at the Henry Ford Museum. The narrator stated that Edison “invented” electricity and the incandescent light bulb. I wanted to scream at the idiot.

  • Bill Ross

    “scientific fakery is rife”

    starting at the intersection of the state (seeking rationalizations to prey / control, follow the money) and the corrupt self-alleged “scientists”, dribbling down and corrupting entire “professions” more than happy to oblige, since in the free market of ideas, these losers would be hard pressed to provide value and, would be triaged as unfit, incompetent liars, not of use.

    How ’bout: Separation of the state and science (religion) and virtually everything else?

    And, these so called “scientists” are no more than pretext / excuse (to prey) generators, as recommended nay the master “philosopher” of states, Machiavelli:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/45

  • dave jr

    Science is the study of creation (natural universe) and engineering is the application of the result, the discoveries born out of said studies. This in itself is not the manipulation. But there are those trying to ‘own’ the sciences, and through their manipulations, claim an authority through self professed expertise. These are the Technocrats, the most dangerous Authoritarians of our era, that need to be dealt with, asap! These Authoritarian Technocrats need big and bigger government for protection, and it is THEY who need the destruction of free market enterprise.

  • Science is the quantitative, predicative and repeatable definitions of empirical reality, anything less is superstition. The elitist control of banking lead to control of the war industries, then media, then government. For decades, every appointed head of the FDA, CDC, NIH, EPA, NAS and every other ‘watchdog’ bureaucracy has been a puppet of the elites. Virtually all ‘funding’ comes from government directed puppets, or vested interest ‘industry’, resulting in massively destructive policies, which the controlled media then sanitizes. At present, 1500 newspapers, 1100 magazines, 9000 radio stations, 1500 TV stations and 2400 publishing companies are owned by just six corporation, claiming authority over all information as the ‘prestige’ press. Captive entertainment industries then create fictional films, music and programing that supports the elitist memes. The elitist controlled FCC’s new ‘neutrality’ rules are the first step in ending internet independence, the only hope for Universal Freedom, and the nemesis of our feudal Demonic Warlords. My research covers the provable LIES of Carbon climate forcing, ‘sustainable’ energy, ‘peak’ oil and big bang in science, and many LIES in our rote history indoctrination. This two hour interview on the largest radio program in the world explains the rigged, three sided climate debate.

    coasttocoastam.com/show/2015/03/18

    • Ras

      Faux, The link you provided is a little difficult to navigate.
      More importantly the interview seems to include a paranormal element? Does this fall into your pure science stance?

  • Jim Johnson

    Each of us must decide what we are here to render. Small bags of chemicals bouncing into one another, or eternal creatures sojourning for a purpose? Go make your tents, but do not sacrifice your passion.

  • Diogenes60025

    Peer review is a form of crony-based fraud. Dominant cliques use peer review to stifle opposing views, while fraudsters & self-promoters use it to sell wrong or unproven theories. Peer review causes more harm than good.

    We should eliminate peer review, and allow anyone to publish anything. To be taken seriously, presenters must include all supporting detail, model algorithms, and properly-documented factual observations. No “secret science”. No “proprietary data”, especially when public funds are used.

    And what’s with the racket where private publishers lock publicly-funded “peer-reviewed” research behind $35.00/copy paywalls? Isn’t the internet supposed to make information free? It certainly is making our medical and financial information public.

    • You can’t fault them for charging for access, but you can fault them for using a government monopoly grant to a-priori censor anybody else from copying it or sharing it. The Open Source movement is knocking down authoritarian “intellectual property” iconic ideas..
      With the Feds’ treatment of Kim Dotcom, we can see that their takeover of the Internet under the false color of “net neutrality”, that they will use copyright and “fairness” to control alternative content. They don’t even like neocon radio! They can’t control who listens to whom!
      They already got Google to research a new way to rank web links. They’re researching a new set of algorithms to weigh the results based on some “credibility” formula. Translated into the lie detector version, they’re searching for an algorithm they can use to make sure the links that get more rank are the ones that agree with the “experts”.

      (Post-script: “Experts” meaning those that agree with government-mandated thought, aka “politically correct”)

      • Diogenes60025

        Scientific American already does that.

  • THANK YOU Daily Bell for this article!

    The Internet is the best peer review system there is. ALL of a researcher’s peers that want to can look at it, self-appointed watchdogs can pick it apart or demand to see the source code behind the programs. Last year there was a new resolution of what they call the “P versus NP” problem hit the Internet like a lightning bolt because it’s one of the few big centuries-old math propositions still waiting a solution. It was disproved within about 24 hours:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

    Now this false religion of “scientism” is exposed, the idea that “science” is some kind of magically divine occupation that elevates its faithful above reason, above its inferiors, and its truths are higher than any “religious” or Biblical truths.

    Science is done by scientists, and without even considering the corruption factor, their rules are neither better nor make them better than anyone else, and even magical invocations of “scientific method” chants cannot make them more than human.

    Climategate, the treatment of João Magueijo at the hand of peer reviewers, the shameful persecution of anybody who treats intelligent design science by the same rules as others, the shameful pharmaceutical “science”, the use by political tyrants of economists to rob us all, are increasingly seen by the rest of us. Find the transcript from Michael Crichton’s great talk about the ossification of science into religiosity from his talk to U-Cal students titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”.

    He holds up the famous “Drake Equation” that justified SETI to the most scathing ridicule, and blames the new science authoritarianism.

    Cold fusion moves into mainstream (finally! Maybe Eugene Mallove did not die in vain):
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream

    Low-Energy nuclear reactions:
    http://lenr-canr.org

    Fire From Ice, by Eugene Mallove:
    http://tinyurl.com/pvb6luq

  • Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project:
    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/

    Freedom’s answer to authoritarian “science” in energy:
    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/life-open-science

    An Open Science initiative:
    http://www.openscience.org/blog/

  • alohajim

    Got to love the way DB consistently puts things together – clear, concise, and true. Got to love DB’s commentators too – they get it! It’s a sad fact of the matrix we live in that the ‘experts’, ‘scientists’ and ‘leaders’ in most any endeavor are deeply compromised and are directly controlled by the powers that be. To trace this phenomenon directly back to central banking is absolutely brilliant. We are supposed to trust and believe that academics with PhD’s are so much smarter than we are that we cannot even understand what they do even when they try and explain it to us. But because they are working on ‘our behalf’ we don’t need to understand, only trust. So naturally we are too stupid to understand what ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ know. As always, follow the money, ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ work for academia, corporations, and governments – giant institutions that dominate our lives yet don’t deserve our respect and have long lost whatever credibility they ever had.
    The momentous upside of all this bad news is that there is a clear and obvious path to the truth, (peace, love, and happiness – whatever you want to call it) : don’t believe anything the ‘experts’ or ‘scientists’ say and do the exact opposite!

  • Ward Arminius

    Science has been getting deeper and deeper into rabbit holes of its own making in the last 50 years or so. The gravity-centric universe and the self-perpetuating circle jerk method of inventing excuses when observations fail to hold up their predictions is becoming very pronounced.

    Statement One:

    Dark matter is a giant question mark looming over our knowledge of the Universe. There is more dark matter in the Universe than visible matter, but it is extremely elusive; it does not reflect, absorb or emit light, making it invisible. Because of this, it is only known to exist via its gravitational effects on the visible Universe.

    ————————–
    Statement Two:

    *Unicorns represent* a giant question mark looming over our knowledge of *zoology*. There are more *Unicorns on the Earth* than *all other animals*, but *they are* extremely elusive; *Unicorns do* not reflect, absorb or emit light, making *them* invisible. Because of this, *Unicorns are* only known to exist via *the observable movement and motion of foliage in the natural areas of the Earth*.

    ————————–

    One of the statements above is silly, and the other “science”; quoted word for word from a science article.

    Needless to say, “Unicorn Deniers” believe there is a known force that can move grass and tree branches without the need for Unicorns.

    • dave jr

      The planets are caught in orbit around a massive sun. What kind of mass would cause the formation of a galaxy? Billions of suns and their planets are orbiting something massive yet invisible at their centers. Are there ‘black holes’ (only experts would call them holes) at the center of each galaxy? Could this be their missing matter?

    • Gil G

      So basically you’re on par with the author is feeling science is wrong because it contradicts your holy book or because it makes you feel the universe is bigger and more mysterious than what you would like it to be (which seems to be the view of this site)?
      Scientists didn’t say dark matter exists because of a joke but because it clear there’s a lot more “something” out there because of the effect that it creates on galaxies. It’s akin to a hunter who stumbles upon an unknown footprint – it’s not like any animal he’s seen before so he know there’s a new creature out but he doesn’t know yet what it is.

      • Ward Arminius

        My holy book? I’m not religious but I do have a great bullshit detector and there’s quite a bit of it getting thrown about in physics and climate studies these days.

        I think reading this classic, though not “holy”, book might give people a clue about the inherent problems the scientific establishment is wrestling with today: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn.

        If you don’t want to read a book, just look at the history of science and see for yourself. Two good examples would be the background on the discoveries of what causes stomach ulcers in humans and continental drift.

        Establishment science has tended to become overspecialized at the expense of broader understanding due to compartmentalism. A holistic view is necessary in order for there to be an approachable and truly human understanding of the universe we inhabit.

        • Gil G

          By your reasoning the understanding of dark matter will be solved and we will know what makes up of the majority of matter throughout the Universe.

          • Valkyrie_Ice

            Or… alternatively, electrical forces 37 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity could explain all of the structure found in the universe WITHOUT THE NEED for mathematical fictions like “dark matter” that exist to cover up the fact that the MATH DOES NOT MATCH THE OBSERVATIONS.

            Which is better? Invisible undetectable particles that you have to take on faith, or hard scientific evidence that can be replicated in the lab? Plasma cosmology doesn’t require faith, and it’s easily observable in the lab. It can and does match the observations, and the evidence that the gravity only universe theory is not merely wrong, but not even science, only a different variation of religious myth, grows daily.

          • Gil G

            Which is better is the one that is mainstream science because it’s reproducible and not pseudoscience that makes you feel comfortable.

          • Valkyrie_Ice

            The problem with that statement is you have them reversed. “Mainstream” science lately appears to be producing nothing but pseudoscience, re: this article. Electric Universe Theory on the other hand is verifiable in the lab. But, please, do feel free to cling to your comfortable illusions.

    • I reminded an atheist fellow worker (good anarcho-capitalist though) that 98 percent of his universe is pure fantasy: dark matter and dark energy, they call it.

      And by the way, the Darwinians have their fantasy. The fossils (according to some of their own) only show “stasis”. They have lots of “equilibrium” out there, but the transitional continuum is the fantasy. That’s the “punctuation” part of the “punctuated equilibrium”. DNA is their other horror. Made a theist out of Antony Flew.

      • Gil G

        Your pseudonym is truth-in-advertising: you believe in destroying the truth because it dares to force you out of your comfort bubble..

        • It is a great comfort to know the truth. I always regarded rejection of the truth as the greatest danger.

          2 Timothy 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
          11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

          • Gil G

            And a cow can jump over a moon if you believe in things that found only in books.

  • MetaCynic

    Scientists too have tuition debt, mortgages and investments of all sorts as well as businesses to run. During the worldwide 2007 economic meltdown brought about by the machinations of central bankers, they too like so many others were hit hard and suffered monetary losses and experienced financial hardships. It stands to reason that out of desperation to hold on to what they have and to reverse losses, some, if not many, scientists would do unethical things to get recognition to advance their careers and to receive government grants in return for tainted research. So in this sense, it’s not out of the question to claim that central banking and its boom and bust business cycle has corrupted not only wall street and the real estate industry but scientific research as well.

    It’s also worth noting that government funding of any activity such as education, scientific research and medical care will politicize and corrupt those activities as it did in the Soviet Bloc. There is no way to mix the coercive power of government funding in directing human activities without unpleasant outcomes.

  • Identity theft is nothing new. Truth is not ‘out there’. Insofar as anything true is ‘out there’ it is recognized through one’s own truth.

    As Consciousness is accepted as our Ground Reality there will be no need to manufacture or employ ‘truths’ as weapons of leverage and control because truth will be self-evident and beyond question or conflict.

    In the mean ‘minded’ while, any form of anything is meaningless (or means anything and nothing) because the meanings given to things reflect a false or conflicting identification as the ‘doer’ or ‘controller’ of consciousness. This is self-illusion or vanity of ignorance and arrogance. Nothing worthy or sane can come of it save the recognition and release of what we are NOT.

    Science predicated upon materialism already asserts metaphysical notions that filter and distort receptivity to truth. Of course many notions operate true within their specific range of focus and provide frameworks of intervention into existing patterns of relationship. When enough people agree, their mutually reinforcing definitions operate as currency regardless whether they share true value or pass off toxic debt in place of true worth.

    “I” me and “self’ are shorthand symbols for facets of the operation of will, but when will is usurped by conditioned belief, it operates the illusion of freedom under the tyranny of fear. What is given power to, becomes power over the giver, because it is asserted and believed true.

    Hiding a lie or hiding in a lie may be ‘justified’ by the narrative of the liar – such as not publicizing information that reflects badly on one’s institution and thus give ammunition to the perceived ‘heretics’ who must at all cost be prevented from gaining influence. But that has nothing to do with science as a discipline of uncovering the (already) true. It is simply the idea of war upon the hated self.

    The egocentricity of the segregative or separating self is implicit in the use of the term self, in most usage. But corruption operates upon something true or it would have no meaning as corruption. Corruption begins with taking self-image over true relation and protecting it at cost of truth. It operates a mask or deceit by which NOT to know what in fact one knows. It splits the mind. It plays apart as if oppositional and separate, and seeks the validation that only real relationship offers by joining in forms that mimic aspects of unity without actually joining or relating with anything beyond its own strategy.

    Recognizing ‘out-of-true’ is the opportunity to true up. NOW. Blame operates to divert from truing up, punishment to forbid it – save through long diversionary ‘processes of change’ that effectively kick real change into long grass while engaging hypocrisy (acting). Tyranny is first within the mind of refusal to embrace and embody change (life). Freedom is an inside job – an ‘in-place’ shift of perception and perspective that uncovers an already freedom which had been ‘given away’ to a dream of power and self-specialness. But freedom cannot truly ‘leave you’ at the level of your true nature – though one can actively deny it in assertion of imagined right to override true nature. We are free to war within ourself if we want, while it gives us something we believe we need or want enough to pay the price.

    The baby in the bathwater is the uncorrupted service of science to true uncovering of Who we are and what Life Is. Because one begins from a false foundation there is a necessary revisionary shifting as a greater perspective illuminates the error of one’s starting place. However, the inspirational movement to follow one’s joy of discovery and gifting of talent in service of life is itself pure – even if imperfectly appreciated within the framework of egocentric identity and drives.

    • sk1951

      Nice rant. As an erudite of Truth and Reality I have an idea I would enjoy sharing with you. We “exist” in a world where 99.5% of the world population cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality. For a person to elevate to a level to truly grasp your analogy they have to take the first baby step of realizing there is a problem with belief (ego driven). I wish your analogy had a URL. I would enjoy following your works…a rare find indeed. Let me know. Thanks. https://sk1951.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/critical-thinking-analogy-of-the-imaginary-and-intellectual-mind/

      • We participate in agreements and definitions whereby very specific focus is held and whose reflection then operates as if were Reality rather than a reflection within an infinitely more open consciousness. I notice the unfoldment of meaning through experience and am grateful to more consciously participate. However, I also notice that as I give or extend to others, so too do I receive as my own experience, and so I see and serve the unfolding of meaning through experience in others at any apparent level and in any apparent degree. I’m not waiting the world to line up or catch up – and yet in a sense find willingness to rejoin Humanity – indeed the Living Universe – right here and now, and so can live out from wholeness.

        yes the mind does its thing, but what is left unused fades from non use and what one appreciates, appreciates.

        I put some of my comments into articles and events into :

        http://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.co.uk/

        There are a few links off from there. I’ll next drop in on your blog…

        I appreciate joining through the extension of what I hold true of me in any degree – as contrasted with the attempt to join via agreements of self-reinforcement. A shared appreciation that re-Minds and re-Members us in life, rather than subordination of a relationship to ‘what one can get out of it’. The latter is a distorted and filtered corruption or substitution for true currency of communication.

        There is a defensive strategy whereby the inner joy and the honesty of the pain of the sense of loss of joy, is kept hidden for fear of the cost of exposure or unmasking. Appearances can be deceptive. I know the joy and the pain of believing oneself denied and I know it is true of everyone, in an infinite variety of disguises.

        Being true to ourself – that is as an honesty beyond the mind of the mask – can only serve to become more aligned with the truth of others, and so the 99% is a reflection of the idea of exclusion and rejection, that I don’t have to engage with or feed into and thus can engage 100% in the relational purpose that is moving me now – and in ways I don’t need to know, that wholeness extends and knows itself in the whole – perhaps as an inner peace within an otherwise closed system of suffering that opens perspective from which fresh inspiration flows. Or merely a tiny pause amidst a previously unquestioned mind that seems nothing but seeds the possibility of rewakening an integrative appreciation.

  • Haywood Jablome

    What could be better than being s scientist? You are the expert and therefore correct…until…wait for it…YOU figure something else out and change your previous theory! What a racket! For example…global cooling in the 70s became global warming in the 90s and now climate change. All spouted by the same “educated” idiots. Too bad for them there is this thing called the Internet and great web sites (like DB amongst many others) so people can see the data themselves. The profession has nobody to blame for their credibility issue but themselves!

  • Gil G

    This article makes it sound as though the author couldn’t tell the difference between looking out a window or at a television screen showing a video of the outside world.

    • Progressive Republican

      I think it’s less a matter of “sound[ing] as though the author couldn’t tell the difference” and more a matter of being paid to sound like that.

      I wonder how much?

  • objektwerks

    These type of articles are very important — because they reinforce the readily observable truth about fraudulent science. In my small circle of friends, around 50, I know of no one who believes in AGW. And, increasingly, not just educators and politicians, but scientists, are the butt of our daily jokes. That’s right. My little circle thinks scientists are a joke. And that’s food for thought; because that’s a radical perception change from our childhood ( going back, just a few years, mind you ;). How many like-minded friends do we have across the country? And the world, for that matter? Thanks, DB.

  • sk1951

    Peer review is bull shit and it always has been.

    • Pilgrim

      Peer review is a necessary component of scientific inquiry, but it should never be the litmus test of science.

  • Pilgrim

    Science is now political. Despots need crisis’ to expand their power base. Ecological crisis, whether real or perceived, becomes the EPA. Drunken driving back in the 20’s becomes prohibition and the BATF. Demonize marijuana and people will accept government oversight and the DEA.

    Almost every alphabet-soup federal agency today owes its origin to a crisis, a disinformation campaign, acceptance by the people of governmental oversight.

    Government is meddling in scientific circles to create a crisis called “global warming”. Currently they’re orchestrating the disinformation campaign to be followed by legislation creating yet another government agency to outlaw behaviors and industries antithetical to the perceived crisis.

    The time is long past to throw the tea in the harbor.

loading