Tag: critical thinking

Science is horribly misguided and mistaken on a practical level.

Science has been totally corrupted by special interests who fund and determine the outcome of much of the research. They can pay for whatever “scientific result” they want for their agenda, not only because one’s very act of observation determines one’s reality, but also because they can slant, distort and omit data in line with their goals.

Simply put, a scientist discovering the “wrong” result will be quickly rejected and defunded.

This fake and fraudulent science, which is not true science at all but rather corporate junk science which passes under the rubric of science, is all pervasive.

Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends

If you think scientists are immune to the pressure to conform to public opinion – think again. I am not even going to consider the announcements made by scientists under totalitarian regimes (such as racist “conclusions”), because I consider these to be forced aberrations.

Instead I will use the scientific approach to homosexuality.

It was included in the list of personality disorders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) up to its 1973 edition. It was then removed – only to be replaced a year later by a close variant, before being removed entirely in 1986.

Upon what evidence rested the changing decisions to include or exclude homosexuality among mental disorders? Public sentiment, backed by convenient “empirical evidence”, played a leading role.

Most of Science is Unfounded

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Strings and Ego – all of them sound like plausible stories. But can anyone point out the Ego locus in a dissected brain? Or use the concept of Dark Energy for anything besides helping to explain the expanding universe – another scientific theory? There is no actual proof for any of these theories.

That’s right – we have no proof for the existence of 96% of what science thinks the universe is made of – and yet the theories explaining it (we call them theories to avoid calling them stories) we hold to be true. Why? you ask. Because we have faith.

Science Requires Faith

Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right.

Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science. When asked to explain the existence of the universe, they’ll mention the Big Bang and M Theories; when asked to explain the existence of humans, they’ll mention evolution.

When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer – and like much of science, you’ll find yourself well within the territory of religion.

Mainstream scientists will probably feel aghast to hear it, but the truth is that science is a religion with its own high priests – they just wear white coats rather than black gowns. It requires belief (faith) in its theories (doctrine) which can never ultimately be proven (Evolution, Relativity, Big Bang) because they are full of assumptions and contradictions. There is always at least one question that can never be answered, and constantly redefining terms, omitting numbers or inventing new factors becomes, at a certain point, like twisting facts to suit theories, rather than twisting theories to suit facts, as the fictional character Sherlock Holmes liked to say.

Science is not so much about knowledge as doubt. Never in the field of human inquiry have so many known so little about so much.

If this all sounds rather rarefied, consider science at its most practical, scientific experiments don’t end with a holy grail so much as an estimate of probability.

For example, one might be able to accord a value to one’s conclusion not of “yes” or “no” but “P<0.05”, which means that the result has a less than one in 20 chance of being a fluke. That doesn’t mean it’s “right”. They cannot determine The Truth. And Truth, with a capital T, is forever just beyond one’s grasp.

But, the fiction of settled scientific truth is still dangled out there for the homage of the public.

Scientists  are looked upon as wizards, men like gods, who either have more than the regular human complement of little grey cells, or access to occult arcana denied to us ordinary mortals.

They are our secular priests in vestments of white coats, tortoiseshell specs and pocket protectors. We don’t dare criticize them. We don’t engage with them – we bow down before them.

Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics

There are state laws, and there are moral laws. And now, according to science, there are “laws of scientific conduct”. All kinds of atrocities are committed in the name of science – take a doctor, for example, who has to give placebo pills to a number of his patients in a drug trial, knowing that they will suffer or die much sooner than if they had received proper treatment.

But scientific advancement almost always claims precedence over personal morality. And – unless you’re a zealot yourself – its ethics will clash with your personal code of conduct.

Science Has Its Own Priesthood

Newton, Darwin and Einstein serve as the holy trinity of western science. And below these are the elders: Watson, Crick, Dawkins, Hawking, Dennet, Chomsky, Penrose and Sagan. And then you have the High Priests: the Nobel Prize winners, the popular writers and the media celebrities… and recently we have Cardinal Fauci.

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts.

Ordinary people are ridiculed, if they doubt the interpretations of this priesthood. Even for scientists, questioning a member of a higher tier is done only at your own risk. After all, all scientific work (from papers to grant applications) is peer reviewed, remember?

Science is Based on Established Dogmas

Ever wonder how for centuries, the best doctors could insist on blood-letting as a cure – without ever noticing that their patients did worse? The answer: belief in blood-letting was part of the scientific dogma at the time.

Anything contradicting this dogma is simply rejected and ignored, or ridiculed for as long as possible. Currently the doctrine seems to be belief in the mystical power of a yet untested and unproven vaccine. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! Science thus has the trappings of a full blown religion.

Once again, I have posited enough blasphemy to make your average adjunct professor’s head explode. So enough for today. Join us tomorrow for some final heresy’s regarding the secular scientific sacredotals.

Mainstream science, despite all its claims of objectivity, and despite the fact it attempts to lay claim to the truth, is itself a religion.

Science places itself on a pedestal and assures everyone it has dispassionately arrived at its conclusions. Meanwhile, however, it is full of assumptions, denials and limitations, and makes the serious mistake of presenting its theories as facts.

The errors of mainstream science are gladly seized upon by technocrats, eager to use science and technology to further their own ambitions of control, and include forcing the vaccine, GMO, surveillance, man made global warming, geoengineering, SMART and microchipping agendas onto an unsuspecting public.

Materialism, the driving force behind mainstream science, has been shown again and again to lack the capacity to explain the world around us, especially in relation to idealism or other theories that account for the energetic nature of reality. Yet, despite this, we remain collectively bedazzled by materialism, because science is a religion that has induced a certain faith in us.

This is certainly not the first time we have struggled with the debate of whether the world can best be described by materialism. The ancient Greek philosophers and scientists thought long and hard about the issue. 

Materialism vs. idealism is really the philosophical battle between the ideas that matter exists independently (and that consciousness doesn’t exist or is secondary), as opposed to the idea that consciousness, thought and energy are primary (and that matter is secondary).

Democritus championed the first viewpoint (and his ideas were taken further by Aristotle), whereas Plato proposed the second with his famous theory of the World of Forms or World of Ideas. According to Plato, our materialist reality is an inferior copy of a more perfect world.

This is exactly in alignment with what various cultures, shamans, religions and spiritual traditions have been saying about the preeminence of energy and mind over matter.

Over the course of the next week I will share some thoughts on how we have abandoned the spiritual in favor of the “material”, and, in so doing have, as a society bowed down to a secular theology with it’s own catechism, it casts out and persecutes heretics, has and reveres it’s own saints, has it’s own theology to explain our origins, has it’s own ethics and morals, has it’s own priesthood, strictly follows it’s own dogma, tends to be mostly unfounded and requires blind faith from it’s acolytes.

Follow along, (if you dare), during the next few days and challenge beliefs rather than parroting facts.