Skip to main content

True believers in (establishment) science

In the modern age there are many seemingly intelligent people who are "true believers" in establishment science.

That is: they accept the truth of what is promoted as the "consensus view" among scientists, without questioning or digging deeper.


These people believe that establishment science is free of political or financial pressure to promote a certain view above others.

They believe that it is impossible for science to become corrupted due to built in safeguards and so they accept whatever notion mainstream science promotes through the mass media.

There is another group, generally more broadly educated (particularly in the history and sociology of science) than the first group, I would suggest, who believe publicly promoted science not only can be corrupted, but that it is corrupted by political and financial concerns, and largely "owned" by them.

As a result, this group takes what is expressed publicly ​about "scientific consensus" with a grain of salt.

Instead, they look at the vested interests of the players involved before taking their claims too seriously.

True believers in science call these people "conspiracy theorists" for questioning scientific dogma, as they believe science is self-correcting and that any mistaken scientific pronouncement will be soon corrected.

However, this assumption assumes a freedom within the scientific community that many believe just doesn't exist.

They see science as serving vested interests much of the time and being unable and unwilling to change when to do so would be very costly to those same vested interests.

What they see are processes in place to actually shut down alternate opinions and even the studies that disagree with preferred beliefs in the scientific/corporate community.

This can be so pernicious that when much is at stake it proves almost impossible to overturn false scientific beliefs.

Instead, it may take a flood of results that run counter to existing beliefs for anything to change.

By this time much damage may be done.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
Proof?
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.


That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!


If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.
SHARKA TODD

The governments role in health care

"Let the consumer decide, not the government."
The government has a role in freeing up the healthcare market, making sure it is free of collusion and big firms bullying smaller firms out of the market, and in ensuring the poor have access to adequate health care.
Currently, health care is deeply corrupt in the west, with too few companies controlling the market and with governments only exacerbating the situation by providing market protection for these firms.
The end result is high prices and poor products leading to poor health outcomes.
What needs to happen is opening the health care market up to competition by leveling the playing field with the government getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. That is for consumers to decide as they do in other markets, and is based around branding.
Good products and manufacturers will do well as their brand succeeds in the marketplace, while poor and overpriced products and their providers will disappear.


The level pla…