The Science "Conspiracy"

This is a topic dedicated to the conspiracy that every scientist is claimed to be a part of. Over the past few days I have been reading a lot of topics regarding earthquakes, evolution, and mental health and every time someone brings up a scientific fact it is shot down because scientists are always trying to push some agenda that makes their data and findings untrustworthy. As someone who has taken part in the scientific method, I can only see this belief either stemming from a lack of knowledge about how the process works or people are simply coming up with some reason to deal with empirical observations that prove their theory wrong.

In many cases these people will often cite the fact that science used to think the world was flat as a reason that science cannot be trusted. Yet, this just shows that our knowledge of the universe is constantly evolving. If we already knew everything then there would be no need for science. As it stands however, we clearly don't know everything and as a result need the observations that can be gleaned through the scientific method.

Then there is the sheer impossibility of the entire scientific community being a sham. The scientific method requires studies to be reviewed by other scientists before they can even be published. After that it must also be demonstrated that the results found can be reliably produced every time the experiment is performed. This provides a built-in system of checks-and-balances. Therefore, in order for scientific findings to be worthless, every scientist in the world would need to be a part of this conspiracy, which is completely impossible.

While I will admit that politics do come into play, they do not prevent findings from being published. Take for example the work of Michael Merzenich, who discovered neuroplasticity occurring in adults. Prior to him it was thought that the adult brain was static, and while his work was contested at first, it was still published and as more researchers found similar findings it became accepted as fact.

Without the careful guidelines of the scientific method we would only be able to explain the world in terms of faith and the arguments of those who are more eloquent. It was science that discovered the world was round and without it we'd still be living in a world that is flat, where we'd burn people for being witches, and believe that illness is caused by humours. While you may have your beliefs, do not try to discredit science just because it finds problems with your beliefs. These findings are the product of empirical observations and controlled experiments, whereas in many cases your beliefs are based only in faith.

If anyone has evidence of a widespread conspiracy within the scientific community then please feel free to post it. As a scientist I am more than willing to look at all evidence and if it is valid and actually proves a widespread conspiracy I will be more than willing to concede defeat, but if all you have are your beliefs and youtube videos, don't complain when I say that it doesn't prove anything.

I agree with you entirely. Except for one thing. One really, really important thing.

SCIENCE HAS NOT THOUGHT THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT SINCE 500 BC!!!!!

A lot of uneducated people thought that it was flat in the interval, and some still do. (actually, those people are well-educated and weird, but whatever.) What you should be talking about is the fact that they thought the sun revolved around the Earth. That is a much more important change in science, even if they had thought the world was flat, because it's really really simple to prove that the world is round, and significantly less so to prove the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Other than that, great post, S&F.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Solasis]

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Thank you for this. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only sane one left on this site and it takes posts like this to remind me I'm not alone. I've heard tons of claims like the ones you mentioned, that there is some horrific scientific conspiracy. That the LHC is really a weapon or that the scientists KNOW its dangerous but want to use it anyway. That HAARP is a weapon that can shoot aliens or cause quakes. That there is some vast anti-god pro-evolution movement covering up evidence of a creator while deceiving billions, that NASA is covering up aliens or faked the moon landing, etc...

It boggles the mind just how many scientists it would take to make these conspiracies work and yet people still cling to the idea that there is a conspiracy and many claim to have "proof" of one. Clearly none of these people understand the peer review process and that science is always changing and always admitting when its wrong. They don't realize that if life on another planet was discovered or something that would rewrite history was found the scientists would be right on the forefront of research announcing it to the world readily and they'd probably be more excited about the discovery then the average person.

Star and Flag.

I don't have a problem with science. However I do have a problem with scientific research or evidence being withheld because it refutes the popular science, a la global warming.

The problem is not science per se but what influences science. Politics and Religion heavily influence what science becomes main stream. Once again Global warming was refuted by many scientists, as well as the time line of man, in forbidden Archeology.

Science Has made us fly and travel the depths of the oceans, so it has been right.

So influence is the theme I'm going for here.

reply to post by oppaperclip

However I do have a problem with scientific research or evidence being withheld because it refutes the popular science, a la global warming.

The peer review system isn't perfect.

If a scientist with interests gets to review a study, he/she then can vote against the publication and try to censor/suppress that said study from ever being released.

The move many journals are starting to employ, away from blinded peer review to open peer review is a move in the right direction.

Historical evidence proves this occurred many times.

The most famous one is tobacco cigarettes, a more recent one is water fluoridation, and the latest is Climate Change.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by jjjtir]

Very good post OP and i agree on many of your points, but i think you fail to understand something. And i think there are plenty of examples that lend evidence to your statements, such as the recent experiments that might disprove general relativity.

It's not science that can't be trusted it is humans.

Scientists are humans. Humans can fall victim to herd mentalities and as such may not be as apt to review data that contradicts the current census, instead relying on other peers judgement's (because they trust them and their judgment) instead of actually going out and verifiyign the results. Do you have any idea how little progress we would make if we were actually testing EVERY SINGLE theory to the extent that is required by the scientific method?? We are still working on proving and refining theories that are hundreds of years old. If a contradictory theory comes up, that might challenge the status-quo of something as major and politically powerful as say Climate Change or the existence of god then it stands to reason that there Could be active attempts of suppression.

For the sake of argument lets say that a scientist submits data from experiments that may offer conclusive evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials or "gods" interfering in the development of life on our planet. The theory/data does not actually interfere with the current theory of evolution. The theory of evolution can still work. What it does do is it lends credibility to a field of science that is regarded as "psuedo-science" by many other scientists and as such will open up a floodgate of challenges to other axioms and consented upon theories.

This type of bias is not limited to matters such as creationism or climate change although these are probably the two most powerful issues that we have on our scientific and philosophical slates right now.


Let's take the Case of Georges Lamaitre for example? Do you know who he is? He was a catholic priest who proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called ' the hypothesis of the primeval atom'. At first there were atheistic scientists who rejected his notion because this suggested that the universe was "created" (although it did not state that the universe was intelligently created, although it could be considered as evidence that may support that notion. But still it is debatable if the creation was spontaneous or not.) To quote Wikipedia, " This proposal met skepticism from his fellow scientists at the time. Eddington found Lemaître's notion unpleasant. Einstein found it suspect because he deemed it unjustifiable from a physical point of view. On the other hand, Einstein encouraged Lemaître to look into the possibility of models of non-isotropic expansion, so it's clear he was not altogether dismissive of the concept. He also appreciated Lemaître's argument that a static-Einstein model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past" In fact Lemaitre ended up finding evidence that supported some of Einsteins work, namely the theory of general relativity.


The point is that his initial proposal was originally met with skepticism and resistance by members of the scientific community, instead of an initial undertaking of peer review.


It is because of these people who blindly defend the current scientific models and standards of the day that people develop suspicion of conspiracy of all scientists. It is because of this that scientific progress is halted. If we are to progress in our science and above all our knowledge. We must not fall victim to herd mentalities or personal bias, be it in our universities, churches, public schools or scientific journals.


Lemaitre's theory and quantum physics have done a good job of displaying how science should work. And that is the beauty of science, theoretically the systems of checks and balances can work. But this does not render them fool-proof. Skepticism should be met with skepticism, be it philosophical or scientific. That does not mean that there are not idealistic conservatives who would fight progress tooth and nail due to whatever reason to prevent our science from progressing beyond current knowledge.


If you have any questions i will gladly clarify.

reply to post by DeathShield


As I said, scientists can have their own agendas and this can affect the process. This does not however allow people to discredit the entire system. Some people seem to think that whenever science does not agree with their viewpoint it must be because of some insidious agenda, and not because that's what the actual science is. Yet many of these same people will be all too willing to support science when it supports their claims. They can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by DeathShield

 

As I said, scientists can have their own agendas and this can affect the process. This does not however allow people to discredit the entire system. Some people seem to think that whenever science does not agree with their viewpoint it must be because of some insidious agenda, and not because that's what the actual science is. Yet many of these same people will be all too willing to support science when it supports their claims. They can't have it both ways.

Oh i absolutely agree. My point is that you shouldn't rule out the possibility of bias because it is more than possible for it to exist, and it can exist on a massive scale as well. for example 85% of the NAS here in the USA is Atheist. Do you think they would by default be accepting to say a report that offers evidence (though not conclusive) that could bring an intelligent-design from hypothesis to theory? I mean think honestly about that. Now that is not to dismiss or discredit them on any ruling they may make in regards to intelligent design, but it must be considered and investigated before we can claim that there assessment is truly objective and without bias. This can be especially difficult if scientists do not have access to the same equipment. For example i could not independently verify the results found at Fermilab or the LHC because i have access to neither of those. I have to essentially have faith that the peer review process has not been subverted by personal or political bias or sheer dishonesty.

It saddens me that this topic has died off, considering that science underlies everything we discuss on this site. Without it we would never have any of hope of discovering the truths we spend hours looking for. Yet, I continue to see posts claiming things like scientists are corporate shills without anything to back these claims up. So, I ask once again where is the proof that every scientific journal cannot be trusted and that evey scientist is a paid disinfo agent? Until this is resolved I don't see how we can properly discuss any of the topics that appear on here.

Science does not occur in a vacuum. Science and politics are intertwined, and when certain researches see increased funding and political policy making as more central than truth, this is what we get.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


However, if the research continues to support the phenomena it is designed to explain then there is no problem. If the research stops explaining a phenomena then the funding stops. Also, this in no way means that every journal article and every scientist is part of a conspiracy and as a result we can't believe anything they say. The things that are published and claimed by science are still much more trustworthy than claims like HAARP can control the weather and earthquakes, which are based on sensational journalism and a fear of the unknown.

Sure I'll bite this bullet. First of all there's my Actual Matrix Plan expose nonduality.com...

For critiques of science I recommend Professor David F. Noble's books -- "America By Design" and "Forces of Production" and "Religion of Technology" and "World Without Women" -- he's got a more recent book out I have not read yet and a few others -- he was an M.I.T. professor but fired for political reasons. Now he's in Canada -- he does not use email though.

I also recommend Professor H.M. Collins works -- especially Changing Order:

www.amazon.com...

Now then if someone wants to "defend" science -- that's pointless -- technology is a structural phenomenon -- via supply-side economics -- it's FORCED onto people and there is no "pure" science. So nuclear power is considered military -- and that's why it's uninsured. On and on -- read the "Paper Economy" -- it goes back to Plato combining patent law with sacred geometry with imperialism. Which is what made the West different from China or India or Egypt or the Incas or Mayans, etc.

O.K. from the science perspective read Professor Steven Strogatz in his Edge comments -- on quantum chaos complexity -- or read Professor Robert Nadeau's Environmental Endgame:

www.chris-winter.com...

www.edge.org...

In my own field of complex systems theory, Stephen Wolfram has emphasized that there are simple computer programs, known as cellular automata, whose dynamics can be so inscrutable that there's no way to predict how they'll behave; the best you can do is simulate them on the computer, sit back, and watch how they unfold. Observation replaces insight. Mathematics becomes a spectator sport. If this is happening in mathematics, the supposed pinnacle of human reasoning, it seems likely to afflict us in science too, first in physics and later in biology and the social sciences (where we're not even sure what's true, let alone why).

Of course none of us has a "choice" about science -- technology is IMPOSED on people -- going back to chariots and catapults. Patents are controlled top-down via the military. There's a 60 billion a year black budget for military science:

www.youtube.com...

So if you want to critique science it's easy to do but why is there a need to defend science? None of us have a choice about science -- if you question it too much then you can just be declared insane and put on psychotropics or something.

My contention is science is very convenient for the Westernized elite -- but for the working class, the underclass and the 2 billion people now living in slums -- science is something that can be leveraged only as an up-hill struggle.

Consider how the Peace Corps put wells throughout India and now they're running out of water!

There's a blatant disregard for reality when science thinks itself as "pure" -- the concept of irrational magnitude is not pure science -- Archimedes combined physics, math and philosophy as the latest "Archimedes Codex" documents -- including the modern concept of infinity as the calculus and irrational magnitude. But this even goes back to Plato and Archytas -- and originates in India, etc. as math Professor Abraham Seidenberg documents.

I have a whole book on this subject -

74.125.113.132...:J97mzHbW41QJ:naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com/2009/11/deep-disharmony-blogbook.html+naturalresonanc... erevolution.blogspot.com/2009/11/deep-disharmony-blogbook.html&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Again there's obviously no need to "defend" science as it has spread around the globe -- on the back of colonialism. To pretend science is "pure" though is just a self-delusion -- the global ecological and social crisis is inherently part of the rational world view of science. Does this preclude a deeper understanding of how science fits into a larger worldview?

No -- I use music -- nonwestern music -- as a model for reality. I have no need to convince anyone of anything or sell anything, etc.

Logical inference of the I-thought is the logical basis for reality -- called "self-alterity" by Professor Dan Zahavi -- or read Pythagorean philosopher peterkingsley.com... to find out how science has LIED about real Pythagorean logic.

So you have asked about why science is critiqued -- the question is are you really interested in learning? Personally I don't think so because if a person is interesting in learning about what is wrong with science then that means they are already willing to critique science as a whole.

This is called the framework of debate -- it's an epistemological issue. I can assure you I've been banned from many a forum and website for bringing up the deeper psychological reasons -- the psychophysiological reasons -- which goes back to left-brain and right hand asymmetrical dominance for modern humans -- in contrast to the Bushman culture (humans from 100,000 to 10,000 BCE).

So I do not have a moralistic argument -- it's a structural argument based on logic -- and I can certainly understand WHY science has developed and what it means -- and it's immediate "advantages." But I am not pretending that science has not had huge implications -- beyond any rational analysis. In other words everything is connected as a whole -- beyond spacetime even -- which is hinted at in quantum physics.

www.freerepublic.com...

[edit on 4-3-2010 by drew hempel]

It's when science is influenced by politics and big business i get worried, which has probably always been the case but not to the extent it is now. Peer review is also something that can be cheated. The pfizer case in regards to drugs they produced and it taking over a decade before scientists finally realised much of the data used in the peer reviewed paper was false or manipulated at the behest of pfizer. Or how big scientific names take precedent over the actual science, i can't remember his name now but a well known scientist in his area intentionally wrote a paper full of pseudo science which was held in high regard and passed peer review. Simply to show how easily other scientist can be manipulated.

reply to post by Solomons


Well the politics of science is a well-worn path to be sure:

books.google.com... en&ei=eg6QS5vEA9Hh8AaHzsyoBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=14&ved=0CEUQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

There's the "politics of cancer" research as well --

but I'm talking about math as a conspiracy!

Professor Strogatz' review of the book on the Riemann Hypothesis said it demonstrates a "conspiracy between atom and arithmetic, nature and number."

Yeah I mention it in my Amazon reviews:

www.amazon.com...


[edit on 4-3-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by Xcalibur254


As we're seeing an increase in Western skepticism of the global warming theory, let's ask the same question here: Are we getting the whole truth of the story, or just propaganda? It's safe to say both camps are deluded.

As far as "HAARP" and it's ilk, it's safe to throw conspiracy theories around, because what you in fact do is casting the blame on a group without stating any facts whatsoever. It's a rhetorical move, but it doesn't impress me, nor anyone else whose IQ is equal to or above Western European standard. Instead of taking a handful of positive visions and at least making some of them reality, paranoid men regard themselves as victims of a group more successful than them. It's a mind-game: I can't beat X, so I'll keep saying X keeps me from doing good, therefore I have a moral argument against why I'm not doing good. Don't be fooled by this; it is laziness camouflaged as insight. Powerless people are sometimes sad, but powerless people who try to convert others to their cause is a societal problem.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


Aristotle LIED about Pythagoras -- peterkingsley.com... documents this in his "Mystery, Magic and Philosophy" (Oxford University Press, 1996) -- Science is based on lies.

No need to be moralistic about it.