Posted by
clodhopper on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:02:13 PM
Appeasing the ‘there is no god’ god. By keeping dissent out of peer review
journals they protect their god.
Author, Philip Johnson wrote that he visited the ‘origins’
exhibit in NYC in the 80’s. He was
struck by the paradox of a scientist bound by faithfulness to objectivity,
getting misty eyed when he talked about holding the skull of his ancient
ancestor in his hand. His point? When emotion clouds reason, you get false positives.
Science has abandoned their commitment to objectivity in
favor of prostituting themselves to atheism and become active participants in
cultural hegemony.
There are different kinds of scientists. Empirical scientists are those that
require scientific method, their work is reproducible and falsifiable. Even if they kiss the ring of atheism,
they are still bound by results in REAL TIME. If an engineer has a theory about constructing a building,
he builds it and it falls down; he is proven wrong. His work is tangible and it has application in life
TODAY. If he fails, people get
mad. If a computer scientist had a
theory about producing an ipod, then he made one, sold 100,000, and none of
them worked, people would be mad that they wasted their money and they would
want retribution. People aren’t
satisfied carrying a theory around in their pocket, but that’s essentially what
we’ve done with global warming. We
paid dearly for a theory.
Theoretical scientists are much more vulnerable to their own
emotions or world view. They believe
something, then they pursue it. A
theoretical scientist can be empirical, but their theories are not falsifiable.
An archeologist can log data, but can not with certaintly tell you what
happened 3000 years ago. Theoretical science isn’t a science that has value in REAL TIME, or for
today, because their theories are ever changing and a moving target. So why are the theoretical scientist
involved in global warming allowed to help make policy today??? Nothing they give us is
falsifiable. They would say it is,
and maybe tiny elements are, like when two fronts collide you get a storm, but
all the variables are constantly changing and interacting, so you can’t with
certainty predict the future and say it’s reproducible and falsifiable.
If the archeologist has a pet belief, even the data he collects can be biased. Lets say he sees something in a tomb but omits it, that's a bias. The same thing is happening in journalism to further a liberal world view. It seems like they're all working together.
Theoretical scientists can SAY they can reproduce data, but they can’t. They
use our money to push their beliefs further into our culture. The worst thing is that their theories
aren’t useful for TODAY, they are always looming in the future. They are able to perpetuate their lies
for years and years, extorting billions from us, which gives them time and
resources to destroy us.
The worst thing to me is that these theoretical scientists masquerade as empirical scientists.