Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: fraud by censorship in science

  1. #1 fraud by censorship in science 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5
    We see plenty of physics in criminology but not a lot of criminology in physics, medicine and biology, I'm sure there are many other scientific disciplines where crime pays off.

    I find it very refreshing how the precision in criminology and forensic science is really elevated high above many disciplines of discovery and investigation. The standards are really shamefully much more accurate.

    This is why I think while making mistakes is acceptable intentional misrepresentation of scientific discovery should be looked at as crime because it is a crime. The term doesn't include it but in my opinion it really is a crime against humanity.

    The example is not the topic but I feel we could investigate some nice examples to clarify this topic.

    It is an oxymoron to say: An eye witness testimonial is not rated as~if it has the same value as the "testimonial" from a person who was not on that location at that time.

    cold fusion results, cures against cancer, anti gravity, inertial propulsion, zero point energy etc etc

    While established scientists publish peer review material other persona seem to think they can reject the whole idea of a murder taking place even tho they didn't witness it.

    In court such statements simply are without value.

    If there is a corps, a murder weapon and some one who made a confession it becomes ridiculous to state the whole thing didn't happen.

    It didn't happen and oh... I'm not aware of such reports. Do not make for any case of any kind.

    Lawyers might be skilled in twisting the facts in favor of their client, just being a lawyer with a good reputation doesn't allow imagining truth into a reality.

    Hiring a ghost writer and having a respectable scientist sign the marketing material into peer review shouldn't create truth out of thin air either.

    The persecution and the defense both follow opposing world views while both subjected to the same rigorous analysis, no special favors are granted.

    Of course many fabulous assumptions have nested themselves into mainstream science, some levitated into truth by calling them fundamental laws.

    It might sound reasonable to say the laws of entropy must be true because most of our science is based on them.

    In reality it is the same quality statement as to say Jesus must have existed because he is the basis of Christianity.

    The big difference is that Christianity can not exist without Jesus and science can not exist without proof and validation.

    If we are honest we have to admit the idea of entropy got in a whole lot of trouble when nuclear reactions found their way into science. Excuse after excuse was invented to preserve the apparently flawed idea. However, even today there are plenty of scientists who know no better than to dismiss any energy creating process on the bases of law enforced conservatism.

    The idea has become the excuse not to validate the idea.

    You might think this isn't a topic of criminology but where medical discoveries are brushed under the carpet we are really talking about mass murder.

    Killing people for personal gain is every bit a crime it needs to be.

    Like Rontgen devices use to be in every shoe store and the appropriate medical issues got dismissed as folk tales we today have people running around with mobile phones and laptops communicating with radio towers radiating entire cities. Court cases have been won, peer review science existed before the first phone was sold but still we have scientists lending themselves for genocidal propaganda. Even ordinary electricity is not as safe as those who market it have us believe.

    If cold fusion wasn't killed 30 years ago we wouldn't have this oil spill today, we wouldn't be in a financial crisis and our global economy wouldn't be on the edge of the cliff.

    It is easy to prove millions of people died as a direct result.

    Likewise, besides from prevention the dozens of cures for cancer successfully suppressed have accumulated into hundreds of millions of victims.

    To the anecdotal "it are all lies! I tell you" I simply respond with "you wasn't there! no you wasn't!" yours is a non witness testimonial.

    The evidence against the discovery simply was never presented. In science we don't just accept anecdotal rejections.

    Not being aware of such reports really doesn't prove they do not exist. I'm not aware of the murder taking place, I didn't read the documentation so it didn't happen? ....whut?

    No I don't believe anything, things should pretty much speak for themselves and if they don't I will be happy to wait until they do.

    What proof is there in: I believe the butler didn't do it?

    It seems to me besides from criminology any other scientific discipline tends towards being a circus of dogma and logic fallacy.

    I'm posting this in the hope you can disappoint me in this

    Regards,

    -Gaby de Wilde


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: fraud by censorship in science 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Hello gaby. I see this is your first post on the forum, so I suppose I should be nice. That is rather difficult to do when I am faced with such a peculiar piece of writing. I shall set aside the fact that you are having real difficulty writing in English - I appreciate the difficulties of working in a foreign language and applaud you for your effort. However, much of the time it makes it difficult to understand what you are actually trying to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    Hiring a ghost writer and having a respectable scientist sign the marketing material into peer review shouldn't create truth out of thin air either.
    What!!!
    I do not know of any scientists who hire ghost writers. Even if they did that would hardly be a bad thing. (Your post would have benefited greatly from having been reworked by a ghost writer.)

    While I agree that scientists try to sell their hypotheses it is trite, inaccurate and ignorant to describe such efforts as 'marketing material'.

    So, they don't use ghost writers, who don't produce marketing material, therefore this non-existent material can hardly be subjected to peer review. your sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

    Were you trying to say that scientists make stuff up then try to pretend it is real by pushing it through the peer review process? If so you are describing a tiny, miniscule percentage of submitted research and an even smaller percentage of what makes it into print. Moreover this eventually gets exposed, since science demands repeatability.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    Of course many fabulous assumptions have nested themselves into mainstream science, some levitated into truth by calling them fundamental laws.
    This is plain silly. There are very few Laws in science. The practice of calling something a Law dates from earlier centuries. All the Laws I am aware of are fully verified observations and descriptions of reality. Did you know of some that aren't?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    It might sound reasonable to say the laws of entropy must be true because most of our science is based on them.
    No, it does not sound reasonable to say that. It sounds really dumb to say that. Let me go further. It is really dumb to say that. The Laws of Thermodynamics must be true - in the scientific sense - because we do not find exceptions to them in millions of observations, nor do we find any theoretical objection to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    In reality it is the same quality statement as to say Jesus must have existed because he is the basis of Christianity.
    You have erected a strawman and are attacking it with gusto. That's entertaining for the rest of us, but it does nothing for your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    If we are honest we have to admit the idea of entropy got in a whole lot of trouble when nuclear reactions found their way into science.
    No, I don't have to admit that. Please tell me why you think nuclear reactions present a challenge to the concept of entropy?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    However, even today there are plenty of scientists who know no better than to dismiss any energy creating process on the bases of law enforced conservatism.
    What are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    You might think this isn't a topic of criminology but where medical discoveries are brushed under the carpet we are really talking about mass murder.
    which medical discoveries have been brushed under the carpet?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    Like Rontgen devices use to be in every shoe store and the appropriate medical issues got dismissed as folk tales
    And who determined that the folk tales were revealing an underlying truth? Scientists.
    And how was this truth conveyed to the world at large? Through peer reviewed journals.
    Where is your objection to that?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    Even ordinary electricity is not as safe as those who market it have us believe.
    even if this was true, scientists do not market electircity, so this is not relevant. Is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    If cold fusion wasn't killed 30 years ago we wouldn't have this oil spill today, we wouldn't be in a financial crisis and our global economy wouldn't be on the edge of the cliff.
    Poppycock. cold fusion doesn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    It is easy to prove millions of people died as a direct result.
    If it is so easy you can go ahead and prove it here and now.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    It seems to me besides from criminology any other scientific discipline tends towards being a circus of dogma and logic fallacy.
    The only circus of dogma and logical fallacy is emanating from your keyboard.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: fraud by censorship in science 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Hello gaby. I see this is your first post on the forum, so I suppose I should be nice. That is rather difficult to do when I am faced with such a peculiar piece of writing. I shall set aside the fact that you are having real difficulty writing in English - I appreciate the difficulties of working in a foreign language and applaud you for your effort. However, much of the time it makes it difficult to understand what you are actually trying to say.
    Makes me wonder what you are like when not being nice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: fraud by censorship in science 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by gaby de wilde
    Hiring a ghost writer and having a respectable scientist sign the marketing material into peer review shouldn't create truth out of thin air either.
    What!!!
    I do not know of any scientists who hire ghost writers.[/quote]

    A corporation hires a ghost writer then a scientist is paid to sign the paper. Actually, it often isn't subjected to peer review but published in a journal as advertisement in all the shades of gray you can imagine. The signature lends it credibility.

    There have been some court cases but not enough.

    To give an example: Any scientist still advocating water fluoridation should be in prison. Their fancy marketing material (fluoride is industrial waste) doesn't have any scientific credibility, many countries have banned all food prepared with it. Even they could prove it not to be harmful (which they cant) it still doesn't justify forced medication.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Would I be correct in saying that your attack, perhaps justified, on science and scientists is very much focused on medical research? Would you make the same claims in relation to research on, for example, plate tectonics, or the mating behaviour of mountain gazelles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •