The Falsification of Science
By Servando Gonzalez
Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved.
According to Barry Glassner, president of Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, there are high levels of disconnection between scientists and the public on issues such as vaccination safety, organic food, evolution, and global warming. His solution to the problem: scientists need to become more skilled in communicating their beliefs, by means that address emotions, fears and values.[1]
What Glassner fails to mention, however, is that all the ‘scientific’ findings he mentions, which a growing majority of the people are not buying, imply the imposition of government controls detrimental to their standard of living, their freedom and even their right to life, property and the pursuit of happiness. Moreover, as he himself admitted, most of these “scientific” findings are not the result of conclusions based on verifiable data, but on “beliefs.”
But there is more than meets the eye in these scientists’ beliefs.
Let’s suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that half of the American people were absolutely convinced that the Earth was flat and the moon made of Swiss cheese. Had the official scientific community been so alarmed before such ignorance? Of course not, because abandoning such beliefs would only meant a better understanding of the material world, not a whole societal change.
But, having a majority of the people not believing in such thing as man-caused global warming implies that it would be very difficult for them to accept higher taxes and diminishing standards of living based on bogus climatological science — which brings us to the very conundrum of the problem Glassner conveniently ignores. And the problem has more to do with politics, depopulation, deindustrialization, and even the black arts and the occult, than with science. No wonder the scientific community is losing its credibility at an accelerated rate.
True science (when I use the word “science” in this article I am actually referring to Western science) means directing the intelligence to something with the only purpose of discovering the absolute truth underlying the complex problems of the universe for the pure enjoyment of it, without expecting any material gain. This love of truth is the guiding principle that should direct true scientific research. To do this, true scientists must follow to the letter the principles of the scientific method.
The scientific method is a set of techniques for the collection of data and the formulation and testing of hypotheses used for the systematic pursuit of knowledge. The principles of the scientific method, accepted by the world’s scientific community, involve a series of relatively simple steps:
Step 1: Ask questions in the form of a hypothesis.
Step 2: Look for patterns in observations.
Step 3: Formulate a theory that can be independently verifiable.
Step 4: Design experiments to test the theory.
Finally, and this is the most important of the principles in which science is based, the hypothesis must be falsifiable, that is, it can be proved false. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it must be possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would prove the hypothesis to be false. For a true scientist, that which is falsifiable, but has not yet been shown to be false, is accepted as scientific; that which is not falsifiable is not accepted as scientific.
That was exactly what Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosopher of science, had in mind when he wrote that, for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, “falsifiable.” That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to verify if it is false. That is what scientific experimentation and observation is about. That is the very essence of the scientific method.
We cannot prove the existence of an all-powerful God who created the universe, neither can we prove that he didn’t. Consequently, any claims of his existence or non-existence falls outside the field of science. But this does not means he cannot exist, just that it cannot be proved false using the scientific method. Actually, the fact that some theory cannot be proved false only indicates that it escapes the domain of what we call science.
Claiming that the existence of heaven and an afterlife is an unscientific “fairy story,” as Britsh physicist Stephen Hawkings recently did,[2] is equivalent to the Pope saying that global warming is a scientific fact. Coming from these two sources, make these assertions totally irrelevant, because both of them are speaking pout of their field of expertise. Science and religion (and music, poetry, literature, for that matther) are different domains of human endeavor, important but totally independent. The fact that Western science cannot study what we call “intuition,” because the scientific method cannot be applied to its study, does not mean that intuition does not exist.
In the same fashion, the obvious fact that we cannot apply the scientific method to economics, psychology, political science, social sciences, and the rest of the so-called “soft sciences,” actually mean that they are not sciences at all. No wonder they have been systematically used by the New World Order conspirators to advance their secret agendas.
Actually, the real problem is not that the social sciences have been permeated by liberal biases, but that social sciences are not sciences at all but religious ideas disguised as facts. If social sciences were true science, the fact that a scientist is a liberal or a conservative would be irrelevant, because true science is based on the scientific method, which is basically based on provable facts, and facts don’t have ideologies.
But the verb “falsify” has another meaning. It also accounts for forge, fake, counterfeit, fabricate, alter, change, doctor, tamper with, fudge, manipulate, adulterate, corrupt, misrepresent, misreport, distort, warp, embellish, embroider and, in an informal way, to cook. Unfortunately, these seem to be the meanings most modern scientist have recently subscribed to. Of lately, many of them have been cooking the facts.
Among the most notorious frauds committed by scientist are the Piltdown mandible fraud, used by SJ Teilhard de Chardin in an effort to prove the Darwinian evolution, and the cooking of data by scientists at the East Anglia university, in an effort to prove that anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact.[3] Though nowadays the falsification of science is pervasive, the most evident case is the “global warming” theory, but we can also mention, Darwinism and evolution. Not surprisingly, all these theories provide a bogus scientific base to the secret depopulation and deindustrialization agendas of the globalist conspirators.
Being based on a materialistic philosophy, the scientific method is not perfect, but its principles are the rules of this game we call science. Either you play the game by the rules, or you cheat, and this is precisely what most scientists have been doing lately. Slowly, but sure, Western science has prostituted itself into corporate science, an activity practiced by people who, while still call themselves scientists, their true goal is not finding the truth, but a “truth” that benefits their corporate sponsors.
The Council on Foreign Relations conspirators who are pushing their secret NWO agenda of depopulation and deindustrialization have also successfully infiltrated most American colleges and universities. The main tool for control used by the CFR is money, which they liberally distribute through the myriad of non-profit foundations they control. Cardinal among them are the Carnegie, Ford, MacArthur, Mellon, and Rockefeller Foundations, and a constellation of minor foundations who get most of their funds from the ones already mentioned. These minor foundations are used as cut-outs[4] to hide the true sources of money.
Just a perfunctory study of the way the “philanthropic” foundations controlled by the Rockefellers and their friends channel their funds, show that most of their efforts is devoted to finance organizations whose main goal, overt or covert, is population control through eugenics. We must also keep in mind their ability to instigate wars and revolutions by playing both sides of conflicts, and to artificially create plagues and famine, the most effective way to control population growth.
Nevertheless, even after the conspirators have devoted much money and effort for more than a century to curb population, particularly by killing the poor, they reached the conclusion that population growth was uncontrollable unless they were to take more drastic measures to stop it. So, after conducting long and rigorous “scientific” studies, they concluded that, in order to guarantee their survival at the levels of luxury and superabundance they are used to, they had to eliminate no less than 85 percent of the planet’s population and reduce the survivors to pre-industrial levels of consumption. And the only way to accomplish it was by the implementation of a worldwide communo-fascist form of government they call the New World Order.
And most “scientists” have willingly joined their camp to help them reach their goals as quick and efficiently as possible. We are now facing a new generation of people who call themselves scientists, but cannot accept that their theories may be false — particularly when their research is based on profitable grants provided by corporate capital. Moreover, some of them resort to all sort of unethical tricks, including the alteration of outright falsification of data, to prove their points.
Am I implying that all the scientist who have received grants from these foundations to do research are told what they should write? Of course not. But, like mice in a psychologist’s maze, scholars soon discover that some research conclusions guarantee a constant input of grant money, while others dry it.
To these “scientists,” there is no scientific fact more convincing to prove their theories than a number followed by many zeroes written on a check — the more zeroes, the more convincing. No wonder a great majority of the people have lost respect for the type of “science” their want to pass as fact in order to provide our puppet government the justification for the implementation of social engineering laws that restrict our freedoms.
As somebody rightly put it,
The very reputation of so-called “science” has been irreparably damaged by the invocation of the term “science” by GMO lackeys, pesticide pushers, mercury advocates and fluoride poisoners who all claim to have science on their side. It seems that every toxin, contamination and chemical disaster that now infects our planet has been evangelized in the name of ‘science.[5]
Contrary to what most scientists believe, things outside the domain of science, like art, literature, music, or religion, are as important, or even more important and useful to mankind, than science itself. Scientists, however, have adopted an arrogant position as self-appointed judges of value, even on things that are fully outside the domain of science. Their mistake is multiplied by the fact that value is totally subjective, therefore, outside the domain of science.
Stating, for example, that the idea of creation has no scientific value[6] is as foolish as saying that the theory of quantum physics has no religious, poetic, or artistic value. The appropriate answer to that kind of reasoning is, “So what?” The two things pertain to different domains of the human knowledge. But, while most people would never accept a religious evaluation of scientific facts, they accept without objections scientific evaluations of religious beliefs. Religion and science occupying different domains, a principle that Stephen Jay Gould has designated as NOMA (which stands for “nonoverlapping magisteria”).[7] However, most people, particularly scientists, seem to ignore that basic principle.
For example, on October 23, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, Pope John Paul II declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact.[8] According to him, Catholics must now accept evolution not as a plausible possibility but also as a proven fact. However, If we accept the NOMA principle, we most conclude that the Pope’s words about evolution are as irrelevant as any scientist’s words about religion. On the other hand, the fact that the Pope, a main religious figure, has finally accepted evolution as a fact, is the final proof of what many people have suspected all along: that the theory of evolution is not a scientific fact, but a religious belief — in which case the Pope has all the authority to express his opinion about it.
The unquestionable fact is that the claims of the validity and scope of the findings of what we call science have been highly exaggerated. Philosopher George Santayana put the matter of the validity of science to rest when he said that “Science is neither a method nor a body of knowledge. It is a body of changing opinion aspiring to be true.” One of the most revealing paradoxes of science is that the so called “scientific method” is not itself subject to scientific proof. It is an assumption and an article of faith that scientists adopt to believe, or to make non-scientists believe, that doing scientific work is worthwhile.
Even more important, allowing scientists to decide by themselves what is science and what it is not, is a very unscientific approach, to say the least. Contrary to what our children are told, science is not, and has never being, the idealized portrait painted in textbooks and spoon-fed to students in our public schools. It has always being skewed by social and political values — that is, beliefs. The intense biases of scientists contrast strongly with the storybook image of the cold, detached scientist widely divulged by historians and sociologists of science — which makes them even more dangerous.
Currently, the discredit of the world’s scientific community, including organizations like the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is so widespread that just the fact that any official scientific organization backs a new “scientific” theory should be motive enough to suspect its true scientific value. But it doesn’t matter. Despite a widespread global skepticism about the scientific value of the global warming theory, the globalist conspirators keep pushing their agenda and using it as a justification for global control.
Granted, no sane person in this planet can deny that we need to curb pollution and take care of the environment. What should make us suspicious, however, is that the same organizations directly responsible for creating the present levels of pollution, that is, big oil and transnational corporations, are the ones secretly bankrolling the environmental movement. If one discards the possibility that the big corporations may be financing their enemies, the logical conclusion is that, the environmentalists are helping the corporations they claim to hate. Actually, just the most perfunctory analysis shows that environmental legislation hurts small businesses much more than it does big corporations.
Moreover, most of the environmental laws proposed give multi-national corporations more competitive advantage and so helps them to get bigger and bigger. Since just by being bigger corporations have the greatest capacity for environmental damage, environmentalists, wittingly or unwittingly, are contributing to the deterioration of the environment.
Further proof that the environmentally correct, progressive scientists are just a tool of the reactionary conspirators is that some harmful forms of environmental pollution are barely mentioned in their studies. The most important ones among these sources of pollution are noise, as well as electric and electromagnetic radiation (e.g., high-voltage lines and cell phone transmission towers).
Much less they mention chemtrails (scientifically called “stratospheric aerosol geoengineering”), unless to ridicule the people who show proof of its existence. The reason for this selective blindness is because stopping these types of pollution does not bring any benefit to the energy monopolies, nor they help the globalist conspirators’ plans for the creation of a New World Order.
—————
Notes:
[1] Barry Glasser, “How to Help Scientists and the Public See Eye-to-eye,” USA Today, March 14, 2011, p.9A.
[2] See, Ian Sample, “Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven; it’s a fairy story’,” Guardian.co.uk, May 15, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven.
[3] The so-called “Climategate,” scandal began in November 2009 when a hacker published in the Internet thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. By the way, what the hacker brought to light was not new, just that had been ignored by the mainstream media. See. i.e., Henry Lamb, “The Other ‘Green” in Global Warming,” WorldNetDaily.com, February 3, 2007, http://www.wnd.com/index.php/%3C/b%3E//www.shopnetdaily.com/store/index.php/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=39997
[4] Cut-out. In intelligence and espionage, an individual, also an agent himself, who acts as an intermediary between a case officer and his agent.
[5] Mike Adams, “The Downfall of Science and the Rise of Intellectual Tyranny,” NaturalNews.com, January 21, 2011, http://www.naturalnews.com/031073_science_tyranny.html#ixzz1CTFf5X66.
[6] This is, i.e., what Michio Kaku hammers almost every day in the minds of his naïve, gullible listeners of his Science Fantastic radio program.
[7] Stephen Jay Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History, March 1997.
[8] “To Academicians: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth!,” Vatican City, October 23, 1996 (VIS), http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm.