If the scientific community truly respected the scientific method as much as they claim to, they would respect those who have disbelief in ideas, for which, they possess no first hand experience.
It’s very ironic that those who taught science, overall, have no respect for the core principles upon which the scientific community rests.
This is specifically troublesome as much of the scientific community and the main stream media merge into a coalition which is most unscientific. It is truly a conspiracy against those that wish to see the empirical evidence upon which the claims of the scientific community stand. A conspiracy who shields their malpractices under the supposed authority of their privileged position.
As laid out previously, the scientific community should rely on using the scientific methods by which they make their discoveries with, to explain their findings to the public; rather than using governmental authority and the media to force their findings on the public.
Today, I am diving deeper into this argument, and looking at a few specific cases in which this type of pseudo-science is occurring. And furthermore putting forth the argument that the scientific community is forming, or has formed, a conspiracy built on pseudo-scientific ideologies. Not only in order to censor dissenting scientific opinions, but also to form governments and governmental organizations, some global some localized.
Perhaps it is a side effect of the collapse of traditional information dissemination methods which were undermined by the internet. Whatever the case, the scientific community no longer relies on sharing valid science, or demonstrations of scientific proof. Instead they claim sciences to be “settled”. But settled science is a misnomer, science is never settled.
Scientific censorship begins in the ways in which the studies are conducted, and how funding is received. With funding only being granted to “approved” research topics, and shame being granted to scientists that go against the “norm”. However, that is a different topic entirely and, for the sake of time, I will leave it at that.
My main concern is the “urgency” with which main stream scientific opinions are forced into the broader public.
Rather than taking the time tested approaches of education, and battling in the free market of ideas, modern scientific opinions co-opt the mainstream media, and even the government, to ensure their “science” is accepted.
There are two methods I will cover in this writing by which the scientific community and the political sector have compacted a conspiracy to control discussion and therefore “progress”.
One can be seen with the way in which social media giants are treating vaccine information. Rather than proving safety of vaccines through empirical science, or even pointing to research, they simply use political power, and public shaming to censor vaccine information.
First by pretending that all opinions which even moderately question vaccine safety are “misinformation” or “fake news“. Second by publicly shaming social media networks and their users. Networks like: Pinterest, Twitter, and Facebook have begun throttling results which yield approved information, or out right banning opposition. When they can’t win in the free market, they just change the rules.
A second method, and perhaps a much more dangerous one, can be seen in the climate change discussion. Most obviously, we can look at how some are attempting to create a global government through using political power to establish a global carbon tax.
One attempt at this global carbon tax was the Paris Climate Agreement. This agreement not only required the US to cut emissions, but also to pay a massive tax to a global coalition. This one sided deal gave other nations, like China and India, a decade’s head start, and punished the US. Regardless of how one-sided the deal was, it was brought forth in response: the pseudo-scientific idea of the “settled science” of climate change.
Cui bono? Who benefits from this global tax?
Funny you should ask, for any government to exist, it needs money. To the European Union, it was a Value Added Tax on all goods traded between EU nations. Some seeking extreme political power are attempting to use a global tax on carbon emissions to form a new global government. All under the veil of “doing the right thing” while imposing us with a global government based on the misuse of science.
Regardless of the cause of climate change, simply put, science must remain scientific. Valuing empirical evidence over power and prestige. More importantly, understanding the public’s desire to see proof of science through first hand experience, and not at the point of a gun.
When force is used, force is returned. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And this entire proposal is the beginning of actions brought forth by the rise of pseudoscience.
If you want to convince people of a scientific theory or idea, use the scientific method.
Interested in More Reading?
When a tree strikes a house, who pays? You may be surprised by the laws and insurance practices surrounding fallen trees.
What is legally safe drinking water? What contaminants are permitted to be in drinking water and how much. Lets look into the EPA’s standards for legally safe drinking water and see what makes water legally safe fro drinking.
The history of traffic laws stretches back to 1901, when cars began to be more popular. Since then, we have continued to expand the regulations of drivers on the road. Here is the history of driving laws from 1901-1960.