Global Destruction by Fake Science
Indeed, outside physics, fake science, mistaken for true science, is wreaking global destruction. There are true scientists, but most so-called “scientists” are only serving the dogmas of their fake science. They mimic some of the activities of true scientists, but do not understand that true science is never “settled”, as it is always challenging itself. Climate science, medical science, economic science, political science and all social sciences are not true science, but fake science.
As a former US Secretary of the Treasury and past Harvard President, Lawrence Summers, recently quipped3: “Anything that calls itself a science, isn’t”. Mostly, the appearance of science is faked with activities involving data, numbers, mathematics and more recently computer models, in an imitation of physics. The originator of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener 4 observed: “The success of mathematical physics led the social scientist to be jealous of its power without quite understanding the intellectual attitudes that had contributed to this power”.
The intellectual attitudes of a true scientist include a deep respect for facts, a humility in admitting the possibility of being totally wrong, an open mind prepared to be falsified by facts and putting empirical evidence above theories and ideas. It is a Platonic fallacy to ascribe a higher reality to “ideas” than to empirical experiences. Plato’s ghost still haunts the world. One of the greatest theorists, Albert Einstein 5 , who called Galileo the father of modern science, said: “Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it ”.
Science is definitively about facts and their relationships. Fake science excludes inconvenient, but relevant facts to protect preconceived dogmas. In physics, if you don’t like or believen empirical fact, you repeat the experiment in the sameway or in different ways to falsify or confirm that fact. The more tests conducted to verify aparticular fact, the more certain one is of the validity of that fact, particularly if it is a fundamental assumption to an important theory. For example, the constancy of the velocity of light is so critical to the Theory of Relativity that the fact has been tested many dozens of times with increasing technological sophistication and with increasing accuracy now to 17 decimal places.
True science must allow facts to challenge established dogmas. Outside physics, facts are determined by the fake science of authorities which ignore inconvenient facts. There are many examples in the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, only clinical trial results 6 on “vaccines” are considered facts, while contradictory facts from real-world data are ignored as misinformation.
Scientists and doctors communicating inconvenient facts are tagged “conspiracy theorists”, censored, threatened or silenced with professional disqualification. The media have been co-opted to propagate fake science as the established consensus. In fake science, little importance is given to the need to replicate and verify empirical facts. For example, in 2020 before “vaccines”, dozens of clinical experiments were commenced to assess the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19 infection. Surgisphere came out with the first paper 7 in The Lancet claiming HCQ is ineffective and potentially dangerous.
Immediately, all HCQ experiments including those which were well-advanced, were terminated by withdrawal of funding and HCQ was banned. This demonstrates, in medicine, a lack of appreciation of replication and verification, which is essential to science. In the event, the Surgisphere paper was later retracted8 due to the discovery of “unverifiable” data or fraud, but HCQ remained banned.
This and many other practices prove that medicine is generally fakescience controlled by establishment authorities.The fake science of economics has been destroying the global economy. Barbara Bergmann9, former President of the Eastern Economic Association, accused economics as being created by economists “ sitting in a chair, making it up”. The Nobel laureate Robert Lucas explained 10what he does is “the construction of a mechanical, artificial world, populated by the interacting robots that economics typically studies, that is capable of exhibiting behaviour the gross features of which resemble those of the actual world”.
He explicitly defended 11 the robot model of humans in economics: In any case, that is what economists do. We are storytellers, operating much of the time in worlds of make believe. We do not find that the realm of imagination and ideas is an alternative to, or a retreat from, practical reality. On the contrary, it is the only way we have found to think seriously about reality.
Failed economic theories of fake science, have been recycled repeatedly in history without developing a better theory. The famous economist Joan Robinson 12 has suggested to “scrap the lot and start again”, which is needed to create a true economic science of facts.
Instead, to suit the economics of fake humans, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been proposing transhumanism 13 , to turn humans into robots or cyborgs, so that they can be managed for economic production though computer control with artificial intelligence.
In confusing technology with science, computer models are mistaken for science in fake science. The models, which are “black box” tools used as “crystal balls” have been particularly successful in deceiving the public, including politicians and bureaucrats. Computer models predicted many millions of deaths in the first months of the COVID pandemic. Computer models have predicted increasing climate disasters due to human activities.
They have been proven wrong or inaccurate time and time again, but ignored in fake science to preserve the illusion of computer “science”. A computer forecasting model is little more than a machine extrapolation from a set of assumptions about interacting variables with initial conditions. Since models never accurately specify reality, they are merely extrapolations of errors. Weather forecasting gives an indication of the limitations of highly sophisticated computer models. In a nonlinear system, where there are feedback loops, such as the existence of sentient humans who react to emerging economic data in an economy, accurate forecasts or predictions may be impossible.
A nonlinear system with three interacting variables called the Lorenz 14 system has been shown to be potentially unpredictable with irregular or chaotic solutions. The Lorenz system is fully deterministic and yet its trajectories are unpredictable. With complex systems such as a pandemic, an economy or the climate, it is virtually impossible to specify fully the determinism, let alone their trajectories. It is fraudulent to claim computer models can predict the future of complex systems with any certainty. Fake science has no deterministic laws even to make reliable predictions. Faking it will not be making it. Apart from the laws of physics, there are no non-trivial, accurate empirical laws in other “sciences” which are adequate for predictions or deductive theory.
Regardless of advanced technology, central planning may be scientifically impossible and fraudulent. Global planning is leading to blunderous global destruction, as economic collapse, war, famine and death are all upon us.
Fake science needs to be recognized as such. Lord Rutherford was right: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting”, but this must change if humanity is to survive the global destruction by fake science. Fake science can be replaced by true science, as Norbert Wiener indicated; what matters is having the right intellectual attitudes, and hopefully the charlatans may be replaced in time.
References
1 3 July 2022. PhD, Director Biotechnology, Investment Analytics Research. Comments by Jeremy Beck and Lex Stewart are appreciated.
2 Joseph, K (2022), “Ernest Rutherford’s Famous Gold Foil Experiment”, Principia Scientific International, 30 June 2022; available at: https://principia-scientific.com/ernest-rutherfords-famous-gold-foil-experiment/
3 Others have similar sayings, but Lawrence Summers admits the lack of empirical foundation to economics, e.g., in Summers, L. (1991), “The scientific illusion of empirical macroeconomics”, Scand. J. of Economics, Vol. 93, No. 2, pp. 129-148.
4 Wiener, N (1964), God & Golem, Inc., The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
5 Einstein, A (1954), Ideas and Opinions , A Condor Book, Souvenir Press (Educational & Academic) Ltd, Great Britain.
6 Sy W (2022), “Randomized controlled trial limitations: a case study of vaccine efficacy in COVID-19 epidemiology” ResearchGate, March 2022; available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359518408_Randomized_controlled_trial_limitations_a_case_study_of_vaccine_efficacy_in_COVID-19_epidemiology
7 Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN (2020), “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis”. The Lancet. 2020;(published online 22 May 2020); available at: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140- 6736%2820%2931180-6
8 Mehra MR, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN (2020), “Retraction – Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis”. The Lancet.
5 June 2020; available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext
9 Bergmann, B (2009), “The Economy and the Economics Profession: Both Need Work”, Eastern Economic Journal, 35, pp. 2-9.
10 Lucas, RE (1988), “On the mechanics of economic development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 3-42.
11 Lucas, RE (2011), “What economists do”, Journal of Applied Economics . Vol XIV, No. 1, pp. 1-4.
12 Reported by Harcourt, G (2010), “The crisis in mainstream economics”, Real-World Economics Review, Issue No. 53, pp. 47-51.
13 World Economic Forum and Schwab, K (2017), The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Penguin Random House, UK: Shift 22 Designer Beings (p. 168) and Shift 23 Neurotechnologies (p. 170).
14 Lorenz, EN (1963), “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, March 1963, Vol. 20, pp.130-141; available at: https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/atsc/20/2/1520-0469_1963_020_0130_dnf_2_0_co_2.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2022).
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alcheminister
| #
Geometry first.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
And a big problem with “science” happens to be math itself (abstraction, entropy).
Also, in physics, there is FAR too much error in explicit, extrapolatory methods. Very simplex, symplectic even.
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
Mathematics is a tool, not normally a science when properly defined. Errors in physics are normally correctable and corrected, which is your flight does not crash due to physics, whereas economic “science” or medical “science” are a joke. The editor of PSI has mangled my paper to be less readable.
Reply
Russ D
| #
Climate change is the biggest scam the world has ever seen. Be careful if you think these people are stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They took over 1/6th of the economy with healthcare, they are using climate control to get gobs of money and funnel it to their supporters and themselves. They are stirring discontent with local police to get police nationalized. They are opening the flood gates for illegal immigration to gain future voters. You can call them dumb if you want, I think they are clever and quite evil.
Reply
itsme
| #
https://rumble.com/v1awwk2-dan-pena-greatest-climate-change-hoax-smackdown.-ever..html
Reply