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.
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.