After reading (and re-posting) the last few articles,
I felt that it was past the time that I needed to weigh in on the debate about what we call today, “science”. I grew up with a very inquisitive mind, and a passion for finding answers from as long ago as about the age of six (6). It all started with one of my earliest presents (when I was recuperating from the Measles [OMG – those dreaded Measles!]), a book about Science and how many things are explained through a scientific understanding. From this book I learned about Thunderstorms, Flight, Thermal currents, and even how fuses work and the magnificent invention of refrigeration! It was a very thick, hard-bound book that would have been suitable for a good school textbook for second and third-graders. Yet, at almost six, I was reading it.
By the time I was in the first, and later second grade, I had a healthy appetite for knowledge and reading detailed books about how things worked, and so on. I took an acute fascination to prehistoric creatures and evolution, all from the wonderful books from the school library. By the time I was finished with the third grade, I was able to name and know the meanings of the various names of these long-extinct prehistoric creatures. I also understood some of the possible theories, floated then, on why most of these creatures became extinct.
During my later childhood school-years,
I had several great influences towards my extra-curricular studies into the advanced topics in science, especially some of the physics, biology, and geology. I had a genuine love of understanding how our world came into existance, and how it changes all the time. I also had some help in beginning my understanding of basic health and nutrition’s role in it. It is amazing how much influence a few good teachers can have upon one’s life, from so very early onward!
By the time I reached highschool, I had a very healthy understanding of science as a process in which we try to answer some of the many questions about our world, and all things within – and – about it. I became well-versed in the “Twelve-Step Scientific Process” [which is sadly not very well known by most of today’s students – >;~(p==== ]. This Scientific Process was something I had to know, intimately, if I wanted to conduct any form of experiments, and have any credibility in the findings and conclusions of those experiments. So, my sincerest thanks to my eighth-grade science teacher, “Mr. Stewart”, and a few of his friends – who were also science teachers in the same school – for being such the stalwort inspiration in my scientific endeavors! My quest for answers (and more questions needing answers) never stopped when I graduated from school.
What I have seen in the years since my “tutoring” in the field of the sciences, have been many inconsistencies that have caused me to question if these “experts” were using the same Scientific Process I had grown to learn?!? So far, much of what I have seen and examined with my own scientifically-oriented mind, has me seriously questioning the credibility of these “experts” and “scientists”. Yet, all the more pressure, as applied by the “main-stream” media, to take them all at their very words, with NO debate nor any conceivable question about their findings. It seemed to me that their conclusions where to be treated as on par with the Natural Law, and all of it be their “final answer” (THANKS, Regis!). I thought Science was all about continuing debate and even re-examination of some of the previously-accepted-as-true theories, suppositions, and whatever other declaratory statements. I always thought that a Hypothesis was an “educated guess”, based on what basic data was available? I always thought that “Theories” had the basis of some supporting data and evidence to their claims, and were still NOT “cast in stone”, and therefore, still open to debate? I always thought that absolutely NOTHING was a complete certainty in the field of science? – Maybe I have it all wrong ? ? ?
One is NOT practicing good science if he/she/they: *
- Filter and/or select from the raw data, only that piece of data which will or could lead to the expected (favored?) outcome or evaluation,
- Put supporting the “pet” theory, above all things, as the most important part of the experiments and/or evaluations,
- Deliberately alter or “massage” the raw data before conducting the evaluative process upon it,
- Deliberately ignores results and/or evaluations that do not fit the presupposed results,
- Does not repeat the evaluations upon revising/re-examining the theory/process/methods using exactly the SAME format of data towards the evaluative conclusion,
- Does not understand or recognize that Science, as a PROCESS, may have to be a repetitive process in order to come to a sound conclusion (upon the SAME raw data),
- Does not include a “control-group” so as to account for ALL the possible variables by comparing to a neutral standard (in a neutral environment),
- Does not consider the importance of doing “double-blind” studies and using true “control-groups” in the experiment(s) and/or evaluation(s),
- If one strays too far from the normative part of the “Twelve-Step Scientific Process” in its adherence to a strict standard of accountability of its step-by-step evaluative process,
- If there is a “conflict-of-interest” element in the “process” whose effects are not minimized and/or accounted for,
( * I am very sure that I may have missed a few points, but that list should be at least a reality-awakening bit of info, and show where my skepticism of the current “science” is warranted. )
For what I have seen, repeatedly, of the current practices (all in the name of “science”), I am very skeptical if these “scientists” and the many “experts” in their credibility and their sometimes ASSININE conclusions.
It gets pretty bad when some of the former experts, are the ones coming out of the shadows to become some of the biggest whistle-blowers, and aptly able to expose the sheer corruption going on in the various agencies, bureaus, organizations, and especially – the private industries. In speaking with a few former scientists (especially one who claims to be a physicist), I must agree with a few other folks whose posts I have read on-line: “Many scientists receive very little training in philosophy in school.” – This may be a very large part of the problem, as the Twelve-Step Scientific Process is not only very structurally method-oriented, but is also a philosophical expression on how to properly DO science!
Science is about the search for answers (and more questions), regardless of how much we may like or dislike them! Science is supposed to be neutral in its stance, and devoid of any weighted interests in one answer over another.
– Rev. Dragon’s Eye,
Founder and Chief-Elder Dragon of the Temple,
TEMPLE OF THE ANCIENT DRAGONS