Science and truth: a reality check
You are here because you are interested in science, or perhaps you are even a top research scientist. Whatever the case, we all have to obey the laws, or "truths" of nature. To me science is an extension of my love for nature, and truth. When I was a kid, I had to always see what made things tick. In Ontario Canada I began to develop my love for the natural world, at our home on the lake. When I grew up, I studied biology at the University of Victoria, Canada. Science to me represents truth. Opinions are born and destroyed; concepts that are true, hopefully survive, while false ideas perish.
Dr. Hayward spoke to his UVic Biology 100 class; he was promoting his biology courses like most faculties. "Why study biology?" he asked. "Philosophy of life," he said answering his own question. The freshmen sat there absorbing it all - in wonderment of how fortunate they were to get this new knowledge. The same year, a petition was going around the campus to legalize abortion. Yes indeed, a new philosopy of life was in the works alright.
Carl Linnaeus - The Swedish father of taxonomy
Ozone: Deadly Poison or Medical Miracle?
See Junk Science
An interesting topic on Coast to Coast AM (the Art Bell show January 5, and November 21, 2000) was Cold Fusion. Apparently all this talk about yes it works, no it doesn't is just that under certain conditions it works, but make a slight alteration in the setup and it fails to go. So, the "experts" pronounced it a fraud and bingo, everyone stays away from it like the plague. Art discussed with his guest the fact that not much research is required to see the dream come true. But threats to pull research grants at universities has blocked research as usual. (Personal note: You know, I have a strong feeling that this phenomenon is real and you may find yourself waking up one morning to a new world, but as for you, you have missed the chance to get on board - just like the computer revolution.)
So what is doable in the near future according to the discussion? An energy device the size of a breadbox, that can power your entire house. Can you imagine the devastation it would cause in human society. Power stations would close, oil wells would grind to a halt, Middle Eastern economies would collapse. No more need to annex oil-rich countries...peace on earth. Even the Arab States sense this impending doom to their source of wealth. If it happened tomorrow, even Russia might collapse almost totally, becoming several dozen countries, which it should be anyway. The United States would be powerless to prop up all the chaos. When the smoke clears, however, the world will have entered a new age where greenhouse gasses would be a thing of the past, and our cars would be getting a hundred kilometers for $0.10, or perhaps they would even fly! Air transportation would be dirt cheap - like catching a bus. You could visit your relatives on the other side of the world on the weekend for a few bucks. A totally new and cheap energy source would revolutionize our lives even more than the computer.
War against Cold Fusion - what could be behind it?
Laura Lee Show - Cold Fusion
Infinite Energy - Dr. Eugene Mallove
Biliography:
Fire
from Ice : Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor 
Nunclear
Transmutations The Reality of Cold Fusion
Hardcover - 151 pages (December 1, 1998) Infinite Energy Press;
ISBN: 1892925001 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.71 x 9.34 x 6.26
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 143,592 Avg. Customer Rating: Number of Reviews: 1
Or - "If you think life started by itself, you're crazy."
Tearing apart a bad theory with no foundation in good science.
Just when you thought you had it all figured out, along comes information to confuse the issue. Admit it, if you are part of the establishment majority you think science has solved much of the mysteries of the Universe, and how we got here is just one of them. If you are in any scientific or technological field you might be proud that you are an atheist, because you don't believe in all that silly non-scientific mumbojumbo. Right? And to be a real scientist, you believe in Evolution. Upon the rare occasion I mention the topic to close friends, they look at me with that knowing grin, like I was the one who was crazy. It seems that the general population just assumes that we started from nothing and when we die, we are again, "nothing." Unless we get reincarnated, that's it for us.
So what's crazy about believing life started by itself? In this section, it will be shown that life could not have started by itself; to think it did is irrational - because it is based on a belief, or just on poor science. Mathematicians, who by the way put man on the moon, have also calculated the impossibility of such a thing. Biologists came along and said mathematicians don't know what they are talking about. The new idea that God did not create the Universe and life, suited the long-term goals of the government so that became the official policy. Dinosaurs, which appeal to kids, became a favorite topic to show how life "evolved." Biology became an exercise in evolutionary, humanistic thought. Prayer and God no longer had any place in the schools because now science has "proved" that things just happened by themselves.
But did they? So what is this so-called "proof" presented by science? The story of how life might have started is simply speculation, based on evolutionary thought, not science, much of which is based on the meeting of preassembled parts, by chance, as if the universe were inexorably driven towards - life. Like Marxist ideology, or feminist ideology, evolution is just that, ideology, and does not necessarily hinge on any solid scientific fact. But when we speak of evolution versus creationism, the media constantly refers to science versus superstition - which is not totally true. Evolution is not based on scientific fact, and therefore we may in fact be something special rather than a mistake of nature. Which would you prefer, to be an error or a being with a purpose for existence?
For many years it was thought that the nerves of the body were hollow tubes through which hot air called "animal spirits" puffed first here and then there. Finally someone cut open a corpse and found that things really weren't that way at all. Even modern times are not all that enlightened or free from rash conclusions made without bothering to look and see. Much of the writing passed off as being "scientific" is nothing more than speculations or assumptions on the part of the writer which were made without bothering to take a peek. The scientific attitude of Empiricism means that the phenomenon must be observed regardless of the difficulty, before statements can be made regarding it. Most teachers of science violate this key principle of science without batting an eyelash.
All the proof evolutionists can come up with is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," which simply means that embryoes undergo evolution all over again within the mother's womb. And on this basis, furthermore, they "prove" that a fetus is not a human being! A woman was no longer "heavy with child," the child's status as a human being having been taken away, and the fetus made a part of the woman's body, like an arm or a leg. (it is not human and it is not alive) Science proves that the genotype determines what an organism is, not the phenotype and that stages in embryonic development do not mean that it is not alive (eg. kangaroo embryo which come out of the mother to finish development). In other words, to determine what an organism is, the scientist examines the genes, and determines whether something is alive by the normal criteria of what constitutes any life. And looking at the genes of a developing human, it is still a human, not a fish, monkey, or a parasite, and it is alive. But women cannot accept this because it is in conflict with their own desires. Scientists, wishing to be politically correct, say it is not alive, and it is not human, which is a lie. (Because to say otherwise would be politically incorrect and would change the way we would view some important "medical" legalized killing procedures in the eyes of the law.) Remember the frog.
Evolution is totally dependent on the theory that life started by itself from nothing. Life "knew" how to assemble itself in a goal oriented way. There is absolutely no proof of this, and it doesn't even make sense to a healthy brain. Sure, there was a rumor in the old days that bugs are born from dust, but it is just a rumor, superstition. The same holds true for the broth theory that says if you have the ingredients together in one place, they will try to create life. Well, nobody has shown that in the laboratory, so it is not fact.
Before any serious scientist can speak of Evolution of life, they must prove the start from nothing. Anthropologists, biologists taking the evolutionary perspective must be prepared to show what premise they are using. But when you ask for proof all they can come up with is some amino acids, papers showing certain chemical reactions. Big deal! That's not proof. But since most people are awed by the scientists' credentials, it is often assumed they know something we don't, but they aren't saying. They say that life began as a "primeordial soup," like spontaneous combustion. If life did start by itself, how did it start? Show me the data! Ask yourself this: would the evidence for the origins of life, and evolution be enough to convict a murderer? Where is the smoking gun? The proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
"From the movements of a number of nearby stars we have now detected unseen companion bodies in orbit around them that are about as massive as large planets. From our knowledge of the processes by which life arose here on the earth we know that similar processes must be fairly common throughout the universe." Carl Sagan
What processes? Where? When? How? Scientists want us to assume that these processes have been demonstrated, and followed through to living cells. This is stretching the truth. Perhaps life is common in the Universe, but how it got here, and there, has not been added to our knowledge by science.
We sometimes hear the statement: "do you believe in evolution?"
The reason for this is that it is a belief and students are told to believe
something nobody has observed. The actual fact is that creationism does
not have less evidence than evolution. The educational system wants us
to believe we are nothing more than fancy pond scum, from which we evolved.
Creationism wants us to believe we are wonderfully created by a superior
being that takes interest in us, and that we have a component that is separate
from the physical body - that is immortal! Evolution is a classical example
of ideology and opinion being peddled as Science. Evolution, the new religion,
is now taught as fact, without the usual lab experiments to prove or disprove
it scientifically.
Certainly evolution was taught in schools along side Christian morals for hundreds of years. Concurrent with the removal of Christian teaching from public schools was emphasis on evolution, and a skyrocketing abortion rate. The message was loud and clear: "children, science has discovered that we were not created by God, we evolved." The scientists all agreed that the fossils say we came from nothing, and we are nothing. The implication is that if there is no God, perhaps there is no right or wrong either. If this is the case, we can do anything we want, and life really has no value except what we want it to have - mostly material. They have built a circumstantial case for Evolution and against Creation - beginning with the "monkey trials," and ending with the value of human life gradually disappearing. We did it all by ourselves, struggling up from pond scum to be who we are today - the heights of human development.
Imagine if the government suddenly told the Universities to either prove Evolution and the origin of life from the inanimate, or stop teaching it as fact. Can you imagine the scientists in their labs scratching their heads and wondering how in heaven's name they can do that! Test after test proves negative. Panic sets in, what would they do with all the biology and anthropology text books? There would be mass confusion. Would the bible then be brought back along with creation science? Would archeology and biology center more on what happened during the Flood? And there would be the people who would refuse to believe in creation and go against the system...
A brief note about the Flood. Some scientists believe that prior to the Flood, atmospheric pressure was much greater, and therefore the partial pressure of oxygen would be greater. In fact, some have recreated the conditions they believe existed - hyperbaric conditions - and grew some very large plants, such as tomatoes. This may explain why people lived longer and why flora and fauna were so large.
There does not seem to be room for any supernatural origins for the cosmos and life on earth, nor for a creator who might take an interest in us humans. It is said that teachers are neutral when it comes to religion, but you cannot be when you teach a different, new "gospel." To even suggest that God was involved, is scientific heresy. They say, "we have scientific proof, you don't." But their proof is nonexistent. Did you know that more mathematicians believe in God than biologists? There is a good reason for this. Biologists think that given enough time, anything can happen, while mathematicians know the impossibility of life forming and giving birth to itself. Let's face it: we have been duped into thinking that we've got everything solved - "just leave it to science."
There are only two possibilities: 1) life was created by a supreme being, or 2) life started by itself. The United States and Canada were founded by men and women who believed in the former. Then along came some "scientists" who said no, it started by itself. In violation of the scientific attitude of Empiricism, that says "let's look and see" they made some statements. Scientists, especially those under public payrolls, do not have the right to make unproven assertions. Hypothetical assumptions - these are the substances of evolution: if this is true, then this must be, and this and so on - A priori. However, they forgot to deal with the first assumption of cause, not being able to identify it, and enthusiastically embraced the first effect, second and so on - and you cannot do that in science. Well, they say, you can't prove one way or the other, what happened. Then perhaps we should stop acting as if we have proved it.
The scientists who are looking for the truth regarding our origins would
probably present you with the strengths, but also the weaknesses, in their
theory, right? Nice try. What are the cards they are not showing? They
sit in a big room, with pieces all over the place, when something seems
to nearly fit a spot in the picture, it is forced into place. Pieces are
pulled inward that seem to fit the Theory, and pushed out if they don't.
Before we jump to any proposed links between apes and man, we must dispose
of the theory that Evolution is predicated upon: accidental, rather than
purposeful origin of life. The underpinnings of the Theory of Evolution
are the theories that life began from a primeordial soup, accidentally;
it "just happened," don't ask scientists how or to replicate
it. Knock a leg off the theory of accidental origins of life and the whole
superstructure caves in. That has been accomplished. Further, these scientists
have put their signatures on diplomas awarded to others, which are based
on a significant amount of unproven science. Almost the whole fields of
comparative anatomy, anthropology, psychology and general biology, not
to mention taxonomy, (classification of life forms) are riddled with examples
of violations of basic scientific attitudes such as empiricism and parsimony,
which will be described later.
Let's call a spade, a spade: Evolution and its foundations, have been devised
and adopted because we do not want to believe in something that controlls
us, we want to be "free." We don't want to be told what to do,
and no responsibility for actions. Evolution fulfills this basic requirement
of modern man. It is therefore quite easy to debunk Evolution, because
it is sheer fabrication. Let's continue.
The point here is that discussing Evolution until the main cornerstone is proved is premature. Most scientists "believe" that matter has a tendency, under the right conditions, to "produce" life, contrary to Entropy. They "believe" that life began in a certain way, just like others believed nerves were hollow tubes. Somehow, they believe that Entropy reversed itself to produce negative Entropy, or life. Is a scientist's reasoning more valid than ours? Have we given our minds over to their "better" judgement? After all, what do we know?
Matter can sit there under the "right" conditions forever, under any condition, but no life will spring from it, guaranteed. (call me a liar or even crazy if it does) I have not seen, nor do I know of anyone else who has seen life developing from the inanimate. People point to biological manipulation of genes as proof that new life can be created by man, but these life forms are merely alterations - often with disastrous results for humanity. Imagine if men tinkering with bacteria developed the single cell or viral (AIDS) equivalent of killer bees! Think about it for a moment. Science is not palmistry. Chemists fomulate a theory, and carry out experiments, and make wonderful, and some not so wonderful, chemicals such as plastics. Physicists send rockets to the moon and beyond and probe the secrets of the Universe. Biologists (in the broad sense) tried to create life but failed. End of story.
The idea of God has become so revolting to many people that they are
willing to accept theories without proof and to even pay professors to
keep saying those things, fueling their new freedom. In fact, all manner
of immorality is acceptable in our schools, but God is not. And there is
a humanist movement in the world to remove God from being mentioned. God
is out, Gay is in. They don't mind little kids being taught about the gay
lifestyle, and how great that is. (eg. Johnny has two mommies) I mean little
kids who should not be thinking about such things (Aids and sex) in their
beautiful innocence until much later. And the Surrey B.C. Canada teachers'
Union has succeeded in having municipal laws passed (court precidents about
descrimination), preventing parents from taking their children out of a
class whose teacher they disagree with for any reason. This has angered
the parents who attend protests at the School Board offices. The problem
with humanists is they don't want to see the truth. If they did, they would
know that in the former Soviet Union, scientific atheism, or humanism,
and evolution, was taught for seventy years. The leaders are in a panic
because their youth have been destroyed, and they even ask Christians to
come and help teach their kids real values. Now it's our turn to ruin our
generation? No.
Life was supposed to have started accidentally, so how come scientists
cannot create it purposefully in vitro? Can things really happen
accidentally, but not purposefully? Billions of dollars are granted to
scientists who work on projects related to the origins of Homo sapiens
that should be going into medical research. So at least part of the reason
for pushing Evolution is money related in the United States, in the FSU,
it was political. Neither one is interested in the truth because they have
alterior motives. And all government funded agencies have at their cores
one goal: to maximize the amount of money they receive from the people.
To do this, all means are employed.
Now, it is certainly true that intraspecific evolution does occur. There is room for change within species, but never has one speci turned into another. This is where the environmental forces shape creatures within a species, like Darwin's finches.
Here is what they aren't telling you.
Do you realize that scientists have run away with this theory and getting money from you to push something they have not even proved to you. Have you ever thought about which paper, or piece of evidence convinced you that 1) life is an accident, and 2) that evolution is a fact? Or did you just assume it to be so? You may say "what about the dinosaurs?" Yes, what do they prove? Just that they existed. Look at all the exitinct animals today, what do they prove? (Perhaps anything you want them to prove?) I'm talking about the agrument for evolution, what in particular proved it to you, from a scientific point of view, not just "well, how else could it have happened?" One does not need a Phd to know which conclusions certain observations demand. But the observations always had to be evaluated from an evolutionary perspective in class. The student was never allowed to give any other explanation for observed phenomenon such as simple and complex morphology. A feeble metaphorical attempt was made to show how life might have started from the inanimate. Life was said to be like an "eddy in a river" propelled by energy flowing through space - all philosophical explanations, not scientific. Ofcourse, that is the science of energy, but it doesn't explain how it happened to be formed so perfectly. It didn't seem to matter, their minds had been made up. Don't confuse us with the truth seems to be their attitude.
The complexity of life is just too great for it to fall into place by itself; and even if all the parts could be assembled, the result would be a dead "thing." Now I�could accept that since a complex system is being created, that there is some guiding force, but definitely not if you say the whole assembly has to come about by a series of coincidental accidents, which just happened to occur in the precise order to create life. Do you understand what it means to make the statement that it all came about "by itself?" Most don't understand that idea, and how hard it would be in reality. I would sooner believe that if you left open paint in the back of a truck with canvass, and you drove around long enough, the paint would eventually splash around and create the Mona Lisa. Or a tornado swirling through a junk yard and assembling a 747! If indeed life did begin through sheer probability of reactions, it did not do so under ordinary laws of probability. The probability to produce a simple DNA molecule by chance would be 1 in 1.0 X 1040. In other words - impossible. This mathematical evidence against spontaneous origins of life is largely ignored. Perhaps it is time to rethink your beliefs.
Let me put it another way. Life happening spontaneously would be like a person with hardly any programming experience sitting at a computer, typing randomly, and coming up with the DOS operating system, which, gradually transforms into Microsoft Windows, after which it teleports to Helsinki and turns into LINUX. Get the picture?
What would "almost" life be? Like a computer program, it is or it isn't, there is no middle-ground. It would have to be a system somehow assembled waiting for a kick start to get it going. My scientific education says: "show me." If there were such a thing, we would see lots of evidence of it and all kinds of transitional forms everywhere, but we don't. Show me some broth where life is being assembled, or fossiles of these prelife. I have not seen any, nor has anyone else, because cells come "all found" including the quality we call life. The world around us with its myriad life forms does not demand the conclusion that the only way it could have happened was evolution. Teachers should teach the biology basics and not make any far-fetched, unproven claims. There is enough to learn in anatomy, physiology, and ecology and so on. Science, and teachers, came to a dead end and instead of giving proof, they threw up their hands, made a huge leap of faith to state how life began, and that is why it is no longer science, but philosophy and ideology - the "new religion" or belief structure which harmonizes with the political aims of the globalism in today's world. The New World Order is exactly what teachers are trying to create with their humanistic teaching - not a pleasant thought. Remember the frog.
Just imagine that the first car assembled itself (and life is far more complex, even the simplest form) and that it was able to turn its own crank to start itself up. If scientists are so intent on being able to reproduce something in the laboratory before they believe it, why do they believe that life started spontaneously, if they can't replicate it in the lab under conditions that they can choose? Something pretty fishy here. Given all the resources, man still has not assembled even one thousandths of the required elements of life. Another example would be a jet liner. Could any of the parts fly by themselves? Ofcourse not. Everything must be assembled FIRST, for it to fly. A little common sense will tell you that to make the leap into a flying thing, to bring in the genes to make a bird fly, necessitates all the genes to be present all at once - not in stages.
The argument that given time, it would happen is an assertion without proof. Can you demonstrate that in one year, this stage was reached, in two this, and finally organelles start to appear, and active transport across the developing cell membrane starts at such and such a time, and after so much time the developing thing is almost alive, with DNA precursors replicating themselves? No, it does not happen, not even enough to make an extrapolation. You are not an accident; there is a reason for your existence.
Physics and chemistry can produce results for everyone to replicate. Can evolutionists? It's easy to make statements knowing nobody can test their validity. Their science is a type of palmistry - interpreting certain signs their way, where anything including diversity itself is proof of evolution. We need proof, not opinion. It's a theory that is almost believable, but the critical evidence such as proof of the origin of life from the inanimate, the continuity of evolution, and the laboratory experiments proving these, are missing. We are digging up discrete fossils; instead we should see a progression from one species to another, or "frames." But we always dig up certain ones we can recognize. The necessary frames from the motion picture are missing. Instead we see an ever increasing complexity in relatively large steps, and nothing proving a direct link between the species, just adaptive variations of individual species. In fact, these quantum steps are evident right from the inanimate to humans.
Challenge: Teachers, scientists, submit proof of evolution and win $250,000!
Look, if you believe that science has proved the theory of the origins of life, and Evolution, you can submit your empirical data and win $250,000, or you can conclude it is simply a belief that is in competition with another belief: Creationism. Are there any other options? One of the scientific attitudes is parsimony - which means we don't postulate a complicated theory (especially one we can't prove) until we have ruled out the simple one - which to me means starting with the simplest explanation: creation. And until we prove something else, we should stay there.
How we view "where we came from" has everything to do with how we behave as human beings, towards ourselves as well as our fellow human beings. It therefore has great implication for the future of our civilization - perhaps even its survival.
Since evolution is not proven, it is just part of a larger cosmology, a religion, nothing more. So why is it taught in our schools while the whole creation idea is labelled unscientific and therefore has no place in our schools? Perhaps our schools have really been teaching about the value of life, its origins as accidents, unborn babies as fetal tissue, all of which causes our kids to conclude life is not worth living, there is no future, no hope; and there is no right and wrong. So they go on drugs and destroy themselves, and others - and society is the loser. The eductional system does not get the blame - guns, drugs, movies, video games and parents do! Notice that guns have always been around, but something else has changed, so why blame guns?
You may be one of those that feel that God has no place in schools
or government. That is your freedom, but don't go around replacing the
Bible teachings with your own philosophies either then. God in the daily
life of people is a stabilizing force for the good. It isn't meant to condemn,
but to help people find what is good and beneficial for their lives and
society as a whole. Unfortunately certain powerful lobbies have removed
God from our lives. This is disastrous, because the world's values are
totally screwed up: they know the price of everything but the value of
nothing.
The disease in our society cannot be stopped by trying to stop drug smuggling,
or banning guns - the change has to come from within, and the place to
begin is by showing kids that they are special beings created by God. Now
the very same thing their great grandfathers and grandmothers came to American
for: the freedom of worship, unbound by European persecution, is called
"traditionalist, fundamentalist" nonsense.
They stopped moral (spritual) education, which the United States government had endorsed for several hundred years and built the most free, prosperous culture in history. The courts took over the governing of the people by precident and common sense and decency died in the courthouse. All the president had to do was put his own judges in, which he did. Now the courts could interpret the Constitution any way the wind blew. Abortion started to be abused. The United States is heading for 40 million babies killed in their mothers' wombs and now they are trying to have killing born babies approved. The bad "traditionalists" are mocked for their beliefs, which is allowed, but saying anything against teaching homosexuality or abortion is not. By so doing, they are mocking their own kin and all the decency that grew up in the "land of the free." Is this the society the Founding Fathers had in mind? Hardly. What would they say about gays in the military, abortion, prayer taken out of schools, abuse of executive orders...? If the Founding Fathers had meant prayer to not be included in schools, wouldn't THEY have removed it? Ofcourse. The only thing that should have been done, is let kids step out of the room if special permission was asked for by the parents. Crime increased, and the courts again just let the criminals back into the streets. The system began to show cracks - moral cracks. Morality started its swift downward spiral, until finally the United States got a morally bankrupt president, who made a point of being seen coming out of a church with his wife on Sunday! Remember the frog.
They took the Bible out, and it had to be replaced by something: you
got it, evolution, the new religion. But evolution is cold and uncaring,
like replacing the soft cloth mother with wire-cage mother. God didn't
create us, we just "happened," they preach now. To explain why
kids are going bad however, they blame the parents, not the educational
system. Everything is OK now it seems, go in any direction, it's all the
same. Without a concept of a loving God, a moral code based on absolutes,
humans have problems, like lost sheep. They try to teach morality to some
extent, but without a moral code to refer to, such as the Bible. Psychologoy
tries to fill the gap but they end up screwing things up even more. They
come up with theories such as Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy and similar
stupid theories that have caused tremendous suffering for families. So
the attempt to teach "morality" is doomed from the beginning.
Could society's illness be the natural results of a bad, and erroneous
theory of the origins of life? Remember, every society has its own explanation
for how they got here, that's how important it is. For an alternative,
more plausible, and much friendlier to mankind explanation, consult The
Holy Bible.
Teaching Evolution as a violation of your rights to your own beliefs about Creation.
August 1999: Kansas removes mention of Evolution from school books. This is one step in the direction of parents taking control of the children's eduction, and on that basis, it is a good move. Parents, not some teacher's union, should be in charge of what their kids are taught, because that determines what their kids become. Scientists say diversity, with simple forms on one end and humans on the other, proves that life evolved from simple forms. But back up a bit, they say life began from a soup too. So, show us proof of that FIRST, then let's talk Evolution of that life; the two are irrevocably linked and both must be proved for Evolution to stand.
Homosexuality
Exposing Evolutionary/Science Frauds:
Scientific objectivity in dealing with science and scientists.
Most scientists are honest to the laws of nature. There is no choice
- you must obey. It is the scientists who are in a position to manipulate
results for political or economic reasons that are the problem, and many
of them are on the public payroll. Dishonesty in science knows no boundaries.
Medicine is just one of the areas where people die because scientists allow
themselves to be controlled by those who finance them, (perhaps by necessity)
and do research looking for a certain politically correct result. I already
mentioned one such area - ozone. The only way for us to stop it, is by
knowing certain attitudes of science, and to use them critically. We cannot
turn our minds over to the "experts," we have to always ask some
questions. I would start with these four attitudes of science:
Visions
: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century by Michio Kaku List
| Search: | Enter keywords... |
|
� 2000 Osmo Joronen