(NaturalNews) 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."More: http://www.naturalnews.com/031073_science_tyranny.html
Where "science" used to be highly regarded in the 1950's, today the term is largely exploited by pharmaceutical companies, biotech giants and chemical companies to push their own for-profit agendas. Actual science has little to do with the schemes now being pushed under the veil of science.
To make matters even worse for the sciences, many so-called "science bloggers" have been revealed to have financial ties to the very same companies whose profits are shored up by their activities (http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/...).
Rather than defending any sort of scientific truth, science bloggers have become the internet whores of Big Pharma, Monsanto, pesticide manufacturers, chemical companies and toxic mercury factories. There's hardly a dangerous chemical in widespread use today that the science bloggers haven't venomously defended as safe and effective. Many are just blatantly paid off by corporate entities to run around the internet pushing GMOs, chemicals and vaccines.
This realization has caused the science bloggers to be widely ridiculed by intelligent people who see right through their thinly-veiled (but well-funded) disinformation campaigns. Where science bloggers once had credibility, they now are seen as intellectual prostitutes for dangerous corporate agendas that benefit powerful companies at the expense of environmental health and human health.
If they weren't doing all this in the name of science, it wouldn't be so bad, actually. If they called themselves "corporate whore bloggers" instead of "science bloggers," their actions wouldn't be so harmful to the reputation of science itself. But, to the great detriment of actual science, they insist on calling themselves "science bloggers."
My Comments:
Perhaps the greatest opposition to not just 9/11 truth but other movements aswell is the online network of 'science blogs' (NeuroLogica, Respectful Insolence, denialism blog, Pharyngula etc.) and their 'skeptical' & 'rational' followers. Research any alternative view and you'll find the same people 'debunking' that view. On every issue they use the same defence: appeal to 'science'.
We see it in 9/11 truth when the debunkers appeal to 'prestigious authorities' such as NIST, and we see it in the global warming debate when the AGW defenders throw around vague mantras like 'scientific consensus' and 'peer-reviewed studies'. Often in these cases, you'll also read comments like "___ has been debunked by science".
'Science' cannot debunk something unless that something is also scientific. A common charge against alternatives to Darwinism for example is that they aren't falsifiable, and therefore aren't science. Yet the defenders of Darwin are constantly citing scientific studies which they believe 'debunk' those alternative theories. You can't have it both ways. You can't in one breath say a theory isn't testable or falsifiable, but then in another breath point to a test or observation which you believe falsifies that theory!
In many cases, the so-called 'science' that is used to refute an alternative theory either doesn't address the central question, attacks a straw-man version of the dissenting view, or is outright fraud. Skeptics of Laetrile as a cancer treatment for example often cite two studies: One by the Rockefeller-owned Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, which was fraudulent, this is documented in G. Edward Griffin's book World Without Cancer, and another by the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo study is informative, but it does not prove Laetrile to be useless. It merely shows that there are circumstances in which it does not work. No advocate of Laetrile has ever claimed it to be a 'magic bullet'. That's a straw-man that skeptics often employ when critical of alternative medicine.
To say that 'science' itself has debunked a theory is a tactic generally used by clearly insecure people to dismiss their opposition. We see the same dismissive attitude from debunkers. Noone has has never put forward an adequate rebuttal to the Active Thermitic Material paper, they simply prefer to make up crap about the peer-review and dismiss it. At NECSS 2009, after a poor 'debunking' of the wrong paper by Steven Novella, Rebecca Watson - the 'Skepchick' - said "there's been no new evidence in eight years, go away!"
Psychologists have a word for that - it's called denial!
I am not anti-science, far from it. I love science. What I dislike is scientific elitism. In my recent post defending Andrew Wakefield I noted how much control publishing companies and drug companies have over the peer-reviewed scientific and medicial literature. This control is not new. It goes all the way back to the founding of the most 'prestigious' authorities and journals.
Take Nature for example. Nature was created in 1869 with great support from an influential group of ultra-elitist scientists known as the 'X-Club'. X-Club members included 'Darwin's Bulldog' T.H. Huxley, grandfather of eugenicist Julian Huxley and Brave New World author Aldous Huxley, and Herbert Spencer, coiner of the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. The 'world's most prestigious journal' was literally founded by Darwinist elitists for the purpose of promoting Darwinism. 140 years later, it promotes both Darwinism and eugenics (under various guises) dogmatically.
Other leading institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, the AAAS and Britain's 'Royal Society' have similar histories and are also clearly controlled. When it comes to sensitive issues such as global warming, the establishment corrupts the peer-review process to keep good science that challenges their dogmas out, while allowing bad science that supports their dogmas in. This was made abundantly clear by the leaked 'Climategate' emails. Obviously though, it is impossible for them to constantly monitor every journal, so occasionally things slip through. When that happens what usually follows is a smear campaign to discredit that research and the people who published it. And there are many examples of this.
Bottom line, it's not a conspiracy of politicians misrepresenting science, it's a conspiracy OF 'science'. People need to stop putting so much blind faith in the words of scientists. They're only human, and they're as easily corruptible by financial and ideological incentives as anyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment