January 17, 2018

Scientism, Encapsulation, Abstraction, Interface at Work

After publishing yesterday’s article on science modeling fraud, we are treated to an example of the process at work. Two Swedish “scientists” are charged with and found guilty of “scientific misconduct” because supposedly one of the scientists intentionally fabricated data and didn’t properly obtain necessary permits to “experiment” on fish. In addition, if you follow this link you will find many comments about the finding that further supports my claims about the brainwashing in place that makes “modeling” so effective. Whether you agree or disagree, try to get beyond that mindset in order to see the political blinders that just seem to persist at all levels and in everything we do.

As to the corrupt modeling process, clearly, it matters not to all those involved, including those offering comments, the topic of the research and if the claims made are factual or not and to what extent the corruption exists. There is little reason anymore to think that fraud and corruption aren’t deeply rooted in a rigged system.

The supposed “results” of this published study claimed that tiny particles of plastics in ocean waters were harmful to fish. Because to the corrupted rigged system, we don’t know if the intent of the research was to falsely provide “evidence” that this plastic existed and the harm it causes to fish for political purposes and monetary gain. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the charges brought against the researchers are not being done for other political purposes or monetary gain.

That’s how terribly corrupt the entire process has become. One person commented that they just assume that all published papers today are rooted in fraud and deception.



Not Knowing What’s Science and What’s Scientism

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine has placed a link to what they call “science” to prove – “this is the science proving” – that baiting bears changes the dynamics of the animals and the surrounding forests, where bears “could” cause damage to plants.

First off, the fake “study” is not science. It is the result of Scientism and a couple of students who set out to discredit in any way they could, hunting and in particular hunting bear using bait as one of the tools to accomplish the task. In other words, this is very typical of outcome based “scientific research.”

Scientism is nothing more than what some of us have come to recognize as “what scientists say and do.” It is also a dangerous and unrestrained credence of the power and authority realized from the manipulated field of science. This study is a fine example of how the scientific process is foregone and replaced with someone’s belief system because there is power in the publication of “studies.”

The scientific process is almost never followed anymore, due to a myriad of reasons, money being one of them along with political idealism and personal agendas.

Secondly, this “study” takes place within a national park in Canada, where black bears are protected. Without having data at my disposal, an intelligent supposition would be that in a park where black bears are protected, depending upon the cycle the bears were going through during the study period, there are probably too many bears in the park. Those dynamics differ greatly from areas where bears a responsibly managed and kept in check to meet management goals and social tolerances.

The study references bear baiting stations adjacent to the park placed there by hunters. Not all hunters are stupid and thus they realize that with too many bears in the park, perhaps a good place to set up a bait station and a tree stand would be adjacent to the park. Does this tactic actually result in increasing the odds of bagging a bear? I dunno. Neither do the researchers.

The short of all this is that the “scientists” chose a location for their study that is far from being typical of the vast forests that make up Canada and parts of the U.S. So, the dynamics of bears and their habitat is not what one might expect to find in the majority of the rest of the world. Observations might prove interesting but for what purpose other than political?

So, what good then is the study? I alluded to that above. And when the study was all said and done, the authors state that with hunters having baiting stations adjacent to the park, bears “could” cause some damage to the trees and vegetation. I wonder if this “could” happen even if the bait stations weren’t there. Did the “scientists” set up a comparative study area outside of the park, in a location more typical of the forests?

The purpose of the study, more than likely, has been exemplified as we see an animal rights, environmental group emotionally grasping at anything, even when it doesn’t even closely resemble the scientific process, to promote their totalitarian agendas aimed at ending a lifestyle they don’t agree with.

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine, in their posting (on Facebook?) states that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) doesn’t consider this dynamic change possible. Actually, I’ve never heard or read anywhere that MDIFW doesn’t believe that baiting bear changes the dynamics of the forest in places where bear are being baited. It doesn’t take a science degree to understand that any and all “changes” within a forest ecosystem can and will have an effect on the dynamics between animal and ecosystem. It then is left to a person’s, or a group of person’s, perspective on what they want to see or have before them.

I think that it is wrong to make a statement about MDIFW of this kind. MDIFW has made it perfectly clear from the beginning that they would like to continue with baiting bear as a tool to help keep the growth of black bears in check in order to assume responsible management of a healthy bear population. Should numbers of bears drop to management’s desired levels, I’m quite certain that MDIFW would cease bear baiting.

But, within this entire debate, both sides cherry-picking convenient products of Scientism to bolster their arguments, in the grand scheme of things, there is so little baiting going on anywhere that it is akin to somebody dumping a cup of coffee into Sebago Lake (47.68 sq. miles) and declaring that the lake dynamics have changed and thus the lake has gone to hell.


Big Science is Broken

Below are some excerpts from the article titled “Big Science is Broken.” By design, all Government agencies that deal, even in the slightest, in science, base their entire decision-making process on “Best Available Science.” We are, of course, programmed to believe (True Believers) that Best Available Science is what the title states – the best, most accurate, honest, well-researched and reviewed science.

But, some have come to discover that science, the process anyway, is seriously flawed and laced with corruption driven by money and greed. This should come as a surprise?

Big Science is Broken, examines the faults of the “new” scientific process, to a point where it discovers that intentionally flawed written works were placed before other scientists for “peer review.” The scientists were told there were serious flaws and yet they could not find them, or didn’t want to.

At issue also is the fact that the “new” scientific process has become an echo chamber. What was once a structure designed to question and prove scientific theory has become a means of echoing personal beliefs and agendas as scientific process. Instead of peer reviewing, the information was used by the peer scientists to support their own agendas.

Unless you are a well-trained, and honest, scientist, a person will latch onto those statements of theory as truth – even those so-called “peer reviewed studies” that have bounced around criminally and emerged as some kind of viable “settled science.”

This criminal process may pad bank accounts and serve to offer chicken feed to anyone wishing to promote agendas, but, unfortunately, it does nothing to substantiate a normal, honest, scientific process. For that, we are doomed.

When we consider the administering of the Endangered Species Act, it is driven by “Best Available Science.” When it is discovered, as one example, that in the utilization of “Best Available Science” administrators decided at what threshold determined gray wolf recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains, was nothing more than a number that was pulled out of thin air, what does this accomplish scientifically? We are witness to what it accomplishes politically.

The fraudulent broken/corrupt science netted the introduction of wolves. This kept the program running, which pleased the environmentalists and the wolf lovers, as they heavily depended upon the mythical, broken science that 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs equaled “recovery.” Scientifically it meant nothing. Politically it meant everything.

On the flip side, the fraudulent and broken science set off anger among those who opposed unchecked numbers of wolves, claiming the system was rigged and the science no good. Don’t be mistaken here. Fraudulent science has no separation of bounds between right and left, conservative or liberal, or any other such false paradigms. Fraud is fraud and it can pay large dividends when used correctly within a population of non thinking sheep eager to head for the slaughterhouse.

Of course presenting information that will suggest and convince that the scientific process is broken will result in the same predictable responses. When one person’s “peer reviewed science” is questioned, they will defend it to the end. Then, when another discovers the claim that peer review is broken, all peer review becomes broken. What results is nothing more than a bigger divide, by design, that further destroys the scientific process.

What a mess!

But don’t go look!

From Big Science is Broken:

Science is broken.

That’s the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that’s not even the worst part.

For starters, there’s a “replication crisis” in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can’t be reliably replicated. But it’s not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren’t right. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced. Even in physics, supposedly the hardest and most reliable of all sciences, Wilson points out that “two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.”

Then there is outright fraud. In a 2011 survey of 2,000 research psychologists, over half admitted to selectively reporting those experiments that gave the result they were after.

The peer review process doesn’t work. Most observers of science guffaw at the so-called “Sokal affair,” where a physicist named Alan Sokal submitted a gibberish paper to an obscure social studies journal, which accepted it.<<<Read Entire Article>>> (although this link takes you to a website I am not responsible for, I apologize for sending you to a sight that forces unwanted videos and ads on you.)


The President’s Unfinished Promise: The Federal Government Still Lacks a Meaningful Scientific Integrity Policy

*Editor’s Note* – This is comical in a way and a great example of smoke and mirrors propped up in front of an unsuspecting population.

Some people are frustrated with fraudulent science. Laughable, however, is that the frustration is often times rooted in one’s ideological perspective of what they want things to be. Understand that this affliction is not restricted to one false political ideology over another.

In the examples spoken of below, “scientists,” and others, were happy to hear from Barack Obama’s mouth that he was going to “restore science to it’s rightful place” saying that no longer would science take a back seat to ideology. Right! The problem that exists is that the entire world operates within a snow-globe of ideology. Ignorance strangles us rendering us incapable of independent thought and the desire to find truth in answers. Therefore, whatever the issue indoctrinated into is, we can only perceive it as being right and all else is wrong.

There’s too much money to be made promoting political ideology masked as science. Once again we see the mistake, nay, insanity, our world is afflicted with. We believe, we want to believe, the words of man. Man lies. Man is deceptive. Man makes bitter promises. Man has no truth.

In this case, some wanted to believe Obama’s words when he said he would put science back in it’s rightful place. Our desire as True Believers, failing to learn from history, and we cannot see that Obama’s “truth” was, yet again, a lie. In his mind, like the minds of some many others, science’s “rightful place” was that cesspool of corruption and deceit that will yield the greatest of political favors, payoffs, and immense power and control.

It’s easy to say that the next administration needs to do a better job and get it right, but they never will. It is not their intention to get science and the scientific process right. It is their intention to continue their criminal activities that will best line their pockets. To think otherwise is insanity.

It has been common for scientists, including me, to criticize previous federal administrations for condoning scientific misconduct when it comes to denying climate change or ignoring environmental concerns. So when, in April 2009, President Obama told the National Academy of Sciences “ we are restoring science to its rightful place“, and “ the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over,” the scientists in the audience, including me, gave him a standing ovation. The president then instructed his science advisor Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), to issue uniform guidelines for a strong federal scientific integrity policy within three months. But nearly seven years later, there is still no meaningful federal scientific integrity policy, and parts of the Obama administration have continued to misuse science to support ideology. The next administration can, and should, do better.

It took OSTP more than 18 months to issue feeble guidelines that gave individual federal agencies complete discretion to develop their own policies. How effective are those individual policies? The answer is that the policies vary from strong to very weak.

Source: The President’s Unfinished Promise: The Federal Government Still Lacks a Meaningful Scientific Integrity Policy