Consensus Science Violates Free Speech
Science today violates the right of free speech. This has led to Fake Science. It is called Consensus Science.
In school teachers (working for the
Communist teachers unions) taught us majority rules, over population, and
atheism through Darwin’s Free Mason Illuminati propaganda. Today they added
Critical Race Theory Communism, one world government i.e. Globalism, and
Weather Change.
I was pleasantly surprised that the author of
Jurassic Park believes the same as I do! I note this
in my book Mysteries of History Revealed.
Our country was not set up to be a
Democratic Mobocracy, it was supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Lynch
Mob Rule takes away the rights of minorities. A Republic is based on just
natural laws, created by God.
Dictatorship in science is based on atheism/naturalism,
evolution theory which has never been proven, but accepted by the majority.
TRUTH is never determined by a majority
vote. Truth comes from experience, observation, logic, research, repeatable experimentation.
Most scientists obey dictators who come
up with theories, and all other scientists must fit their conclusions within
these excepted theories. Any dissident scientist who has another theory is
ridiculed, surpressed, and ostracized. However, most of the time these rejected
alternate science theories usually end up being accepted as truth much later. Like
my discoveries in books Mysteries of History Revealed.
Most scientists are faced with a growing amount
of new discoveries and have specialized. As a result none of them know what is
going on in related fields that adds to or contradicts their conclusions. This
has caused many to draw incorrect conclusions.
To
understand any facts requires that you know the important overall facts in
other fields other than your own. You cannot understand paleontology unless you
know something about geology, zoology, sedimentation, meteoritics, hydraulics, and volcanology. And the Bible. For
example can a paleontologist understand dinosaurs if he doesn’t know about
zoology and the habits of animals living today?
However, the majority of scientists frown on
scientists that delve into other fields. Even though most of these come to more
accurate conclusions.
Here’s
what Michael
Crichton had to say about “scientific consensus” back in 2003 when he
gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology Pasadena titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”:
“I want to
pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has
been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely
pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels;
it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of
scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re
being had.
Let’s be
clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or
she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In
science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The
greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the
consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it
isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In
addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing
to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest
killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this
fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were
infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843,
Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented
compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849,
Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated
puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a
Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no
agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the
consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right
conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world,
skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths
of women. (Lies and ignorance always causes destruction and death.)
There is
no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of
people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of
scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the
“pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr.
Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the
crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. (Naturally,
the facts contradict the theory, so the facts are wrong.)
Goldberger
demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated
that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient
into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses
with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from
pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody
contracted pellagra.
The
consensus continued to disagree with him (Naturally, never mind the truth, support
the theory.). There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked
the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was
required. (Right, the establishment wanted to kill off the poor and minorities
anyway.) They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth
century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably
every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together
rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in
fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years.
The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961,
when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took
the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees. (Yes, and
continents could not have separated, because that would support what it says
about this in the Bible during the Days of Peleg.)
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied
endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine
(Bad for you), repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement
therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
(The
geologists insisted that Arizona’s Meteor Crater was created by a volcanic
steam explosion not by rocks falling from the sky.
This crater
was discovered by settlers in the 1800s collecting tons of iron meteorites for
miles around the crater. This was too
catastrophic for scientists because it was too catastrophic for Charles Lyell’s
uniformitarian theory the foundation of Charles’s Darwin’s evolution theory.
Scientists continued to lie till they were forced to acknowledge that it was
the first recognized meteorite crater in 1955.)
Finally, I
would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus
is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody
says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus
is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to
speak that way.
Related: From John Kay’s 2007 op-ed “Science is the pursuit of the truth, not consensus“:
The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what
scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively
so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in
debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in
which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There
is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.””
(Amen. A
science fiction writer is more of a scientist than so called establishment scientists.
Makes you think of Dr. Fauci and the CDC. This is why the creation account of
the world wide Flood forming the geologic column and fossils about 2348 BC is
rejected.)
Comments
Post a Comment