MOST of what passes as "science" has nothing to do with the Scientific Method -- it is all dogma and propaganda.
I read scientific papers daily and have for years. There is a lot of bad science, but its (generally) not because of misunderstanding or misapplying the scientific method. There are two main problems with "main stream" science:
There is a lot of incentive to not check other's work, especially in biology/medicine (especially in medicine (lots of money)). This is not in direct contradiction of the scientific method, but it does run contrary to a PART of what makes the method work.
The dogma and propaganda is not in the science part of the papers, but in the choice of topic to look at, and in the non-science part of the papers (abstract, discussion, sometimes intro). For instance, there are quite a few recent papers on the effectiveness of masks. They look at water droplet transmission. The science part is all perfectly fine. The measurements, analysis, all great. Where it fails is in the assumptions. It assumes that viruses are transmitted by exhaled water droplets. Other science does not support that assertion, though inquiry into this particular topic seems to be rare. It assumes that viral transmission of said droplets is of the size of the droplets studied. In most cases that runs contrary to other evidence. They might even say "it has not been established that this is how viruses are transmitted" yet they still go happily forward with the study anyways, then conclude with "if everything you already believe is true, we prove that masks work".
So it isn't science or the scientific method that is failing in the microcosm of any particular study, but a purposeful or unintentional misleading of the starting point, using real science that doesn't (or hasn't proven to) apply.
In a broader scope you could say that is a failure of the scientific method, but it isn't. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and works forward from there. This starting point can be anything an investigator wants. It is the foundational axiom of inquiry. It is the abuse of the hypothesis that is exploited in these instances. Many people don't catch that, either because they are insufficiently educated, or because their biases encourage them not to. That is supposed to be solved by problem (1) (checking others work).
It is the disincentivization of not checking others work where the whole thing falls apart. This disincentivization by control of money or job prospects is what drives this issue. Because it is money/livelihood based, I believe, this is likely the purposeful guidance of the Luciferians on our science.
While I agree with all of that, the only real explanation is that individuals have some reason to be dishonest or unscientific in their research papers.
It comes down to either (a) they do not understand the Scientific Method, or (b) they do but for some reason they do not follow it -- and this must be due to some bias.
Either that bias is due to financial incentive, political incentive, or personal opinion.
the only real explanation is that individuals have some reason to be dishonest or unscientific in their research papers.
They do, money drives what they can research, and it drives not looking at others work. That is not a failing in the individuals doing the science, but in those that control the purse (non-scientists generally).
It comes down to either (a) they do not understand the Scientific Method, or (b) they do but for some reason they do not follow it -- and this must be due to some bias.
Only if you don't realize that money is what controls the scientists. It is easy to justify a line of inquiry if you can get funding for it. It is easy to ignore a line of inquiry if you can't. Experiments costs a lot of money. You can't just "do them."
These have nothing to do with not understanding the scientific method (SM). The SM is not perfect. Legitimate SM inquiry starts with ANY question. You can and indeed are encouraged to explore any question you want. You are just encouraged more to explore questions that fit the narrative. Again, this is not a failure of the SM. Its important to understand that to identify the real problem.
Regardless, it is fraud.
Maybe on some level that is true in a lot of cases. Maybe in some cases it is completely true. But fraud requires intent to commit, and most scientists intend to not do that. They believe they are working within the system that exists by asking the questions they can get funding for. So yes, there is fraud at the highest level (non-scientists) i.e. the London bankers, who ultimately bankroll everything. But that can be said of everything we humans do, not just science or the SM.
Kary Mullis is a shining example of this, where he was interviewed about his skepticism of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
He said he was writing a request for a NIH grant (oh, the irony) for the research lab he was working at part-time. The grant was to request money to research AIDS.
At the time, he believed the "HIV causes AIDS" dogma. He had no reason not to. He was not a virologist, and he just assumed those guys must know what they were talking about.
So, he started his paper with a simple sentence: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." Then, he realized he needed a research study he could reference to back up that statement.
THIS is where the personal responsibilty comes in. He didn't know what the reference was, so he asked around. None of his collegues could name a paper, and many thought he didn't need to reference anything (just make the statement). They were being irresponsible; he was being responsible.
He looked up computer information, books, articles, everything he could find.
Eventually, he would spend the next 2-3 years going to various conferences and would ask the experts of the day to help him find a citation for the statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After all of that, his conclusion: NOBODY KNOWS. There has NEVER been a study to prove that statement. Even the world's top experts could not answer the question.
They were ALL faking it (this includes Fauci, who he specifically referenced).
Mullis was one of the very few, in the entire scientific community -- including the leading virologists -- who stood up and said that it is a lie (or at least, there is no evidence at all to prove it is even likely, much less probable).
That is what I am talking about. You can say that the individual scientist is caught up in the machine -- and he is -- but that does not change the fact that he also has a responsibility.
It is no different than the cop who is not trained properly (most of them these days), who falsely imprisons someone because the cop had no clue what the law actually is, or that what he did is unlawful. He still has responsibility (ignorance of the law is no excuse -- especially for someone who's profession it is to enforce it).
Yet, ignorance prevails because government corrupts everything it touches.
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts, absolutely." -- Lord Acton
And as you point out, the money behind the government is the real corrupting force.
That does not change the fact that people are still responsible for their actions.
That is what I am talking about. You can say that the individual scientist is caught up in the machine -- and he is -- but that does not change the fact that he also has a responsibility.
While I appreciate your point (and you made it well) I disagree with your conclusion. Every branch and subbranch of science starts with axioms. Every single area of inquiry has unproven starting points. If we already knew the real truth about every axiom science would cease to exist.
There are two main inquires in science. Sometimes people look into the axioms, other times they accept them because everyone else does and they use them to move forward. Science works quite well by accepting axioms as true. Science also works quite well by questioning axioms.
There is nothing wrong with accepting axioms, there is nothing unscientific about it, and there is nothing irresponsible about it. There is quite simply, too much stuff to look at. What is important in good science is to state your axioms (as your example did) and move forward from there. He decided to question that axiom and apparently made some discoveries (though I would have to look myself to corroborate). Both avenues are responsible science.
Science is not truth. Science will NEVER be truth. Scientific inquiry is the attempt to get closer and closer to the truth. It is nothing more than that.
Ron Paul is not exactly correct in this case. Science has ALWAYS been controlled by politics and money. That doesn't mean we have made no progress in science. On the contrary we have made great progress using the SM. It would be more accurate to say it would be BETTER science if we lost our Luciferian influencers, but the same could be said for all areas of the human experience.
I read scientific papers daily and have for years. There is a lot of bad science, but its (generally) not because of misunderstanding or misapplying the scientific method. There are two main problems with "main stream" science:
So it isn't science or the scientific method that is failing in the microcosm of any particular study, but a purposeful or unintentional misleading of the starting point, using real science that doesn't (or hasn't proven to) apply.
In a broader scope you could say that is a failure of the scientific method, but it isn't. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and works forward from there. This starting point can be anything an investigator wants. It is the foundational axiom of inquiry. It is the abuse of the hypothesis that is exploited in these instances. Many people don't catch that, either because they are insufficiently educated, or because their biases encourage them not to. That is supposed to be solved by problem (1) (checking others work).
It is the disincentivization of not checking others work where the whole thing falls apart. This disincentivization by control of money or job prospects is what drives this issue. Because it is money/livelihood based, I believe, this is likely the purposeful guidance of the Luciferians on our science.
While I agree with all of that, the only real explanation is that individuals have some reason to be dishonest or unscientific in their research papers.
It comes down to either (a) they do not understand the Scientific Method, or (b) they do but for some reason they do not follow it -- and this must be due to some bias.
Either that bias is due to financial incentive, political incentive, or personal opinion.
Regardless, it is fraud.
They do, money drives what they can research, and it drives not looking at others work. That is not a failing in the individuals doing the science, but in those that control the purse (non-scientists generally).
Only if you don't realize that money is what controls the scientists. It is easy to justify a line of inquiry if you can get funding for it. It is easy to ignore a line of inquiry if you can't. Experiments costs a lot of money. You can't just "do them."
These have nothing to do with not understanding the scientific method (SM). The SM is not perfect. Legitimate SM inquiry starts with ANY question. You can and indeed are encouraged to explore any question you want. You are just encouraged more to explore questions that fit the narrative. Again, this is not a failure of the SM. Its important to understand that to identify the real problem.
Maybe on some level that is true in a lot of cases. Maybe in some cases it is completely true. But fraud requires intent to commit, and most scientists intend to not do that. They believe they are working within the system that exists by asking the questions they can get funding for. So yes, there is fraud at the highest level (non-scientists) i.e. the London bankers, who ultimately bankroll everything. But that can be said of everything we humans do, not just science or the SM.
I understand where you are coming from.
However, there is a level of responsibility here.
Kary Mullis is a shining example of this, where he was interviewed about his skepticism of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
He said he was writing a request for a NIH grant (oh, the irony) for the research lab he was working at part-time. The grant was to request money to research AIDS.
At the time, he believed the "HIV causes AIDS" dogma. He had no reason not to. He was not a virologist, and he just assumed those guys must know what they were talking about.
So, he started his paper with a simple sentence: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." Then, he realized he needed a research study he could reference to back up that statement.
THIS is where the personal responsibilty comes in. He didn't know what the reference was, so he asked around. None of his collegues could name a paper, and many thought he didn't need to reference anything (just make the statement). They were being irresponsible; he was being responsible.
He looked up computer information, books, articles, everything he could find.
Eventually, he would spend the next 2-3 years going to various conferences and would ask the experts of the day to help him find a citation for the statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After all of that, his conclusion: NOBODY KNOWS. There has NEVER been a study to prove that statement. Even the world's top experts could not answer the question.
They were ALL faking it (this includes Fauci, who he specifically referenced).
Mullis was one of the very few, in the entire scientific community -- including the leading virologists -- who stood up and said that it is a lie (or at least, there is no evidence at all to prove it is even likely, much less probable).
That is what I am talking about. You can say that the individual scientist is caught up in the machine -- and he is -- but that does not change the fact that he also has a responsibility.
It is no different than the cop who is not trained properly (most of them these days), who falsely imprisons someone because the cop had no clue what the law actually is, or that what he did is unlawful. He still has responsibility (ignorance of the law is no excuse -- especially for someone who's profession it is to enforce it).
Yet, ignorance prevails because government corrupts everything it touches.
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts, absolutely." -- Lord Acton
And as you point out, the money behind the government is the real corrupting force.
That does not change the fact that people are still responsible for their actions.
While I appreciate your point (and you made it well) I disagree with your conclusion. Every branch and subbranch of science starts with axioms. Every single area of inquiry has unproven starting points. If we already knew the real truth about every axiom science would cease to exist.
There are two main inquires in science. Sometimes people look into the axioms, other times they accept them because everyone else does and they use them to move forward. Science works quite well by accepting axioms as true. Science also works quite well by questioning axioms.
There is nothing wrong with accepting axioms, there is nothing unscientific about it, and there is nothing irresponsible about it. There is quite simply, too much stuff to look at. What is important in good science is to state your axioms (as your example did) and move forward from there. He decided to question that axiom and apparently made some discoveries (though I would have to look myself to corroborate). Both avenues are responsible science.
Science is not truth. Science will NEVER be truth. Scientific inquiry is the attempt to get closer and closer to the truth. It is nothing more than that.
That's in number 1. Money drives our path of inquiry, and it drives not looking at others work.
Ron Paul and others have said that when politics and money control science, it will cease to be science.
Ron Paul is not exactly correct in this case. Science has ALWAYS been controlled by politics and money. That doesn't mean we have made no progress in science. On the contrary we have made great progress using the SM. It would be more accurate to say it would be BETTER science if we lost our Luciferian influencers, but the same could be said for all areas of the human experience.