Lies, Damned Lies, and Scientists
Something is rotten in the state of science. Or perhaps what is dreadfully wrong,
and what scientists illustrate in a spectacular fashion, is that we are not what we claim to be,
and that perhaps there are very good reasons for that.
The central themes are built around climate science for a start, but seem to apply to ALL
areas of science:
- the catastrophic failure of [rational, logical, scientific] thinking by essentially ALL
scientists, with the exception of a currently fuzzy concept of LOCAL reasoning based on
the current consensus scientific belief frameworks for that LOCALITY, plus the obvious
exception of [simple, dead] systems analysis;
- for high-profile, politically-correct scientific issues, what we see is that the thinking of
INDIVIDUAL scientists, or small groups of scientists, is generally conformant, and their
defenses of their orthodoxy against
non-conformant [lunatics, liars, corporate greed, political powermongers]
(right OR wrong - it doesn't matter!) are [dysfunctional and/or dishonest and/or
delinquent and/or hypocritical], with at least ONE of those traits being present strongly
and often extemely. Even in a court of law it is typically impossible to clearly determine
which of those dark behaviours apply, but as third parties we cannot know, and in the end
we can't care - the end effect is essentially the same in all cases!
- It is the rule, rather than the exception that CONSENSUS science is [dysfunctional
AND dishonest AND delinquent AND hypocritical AND vindictive], all of these traits being
present to extremes
with respect to [rational, logical, scientific] thinking. Given scientist's education, training,
expertise, and erroneous claims of doing [rational, logical, scientific] thinking, my conclusion is that
is that this failure is a UNIVERSAL PROPERTY of homo sapiens.
- Almost of the strong thinkers (one in ten thousand or better, where the payoffs seem to start)
are NOT scientists, and few scientists (the same one in ten thousand or less) are strong
thinkers. That is why, when a science issue start causing a lot of damage and
costing a huge amount of resources, scientists get over-ruled. The really smart guys start
looking at what the scientists are doing, and put a lid on it. (Note: I don't necessarily
believe that such really smart guys, the one in ten thousand, exist, but it comforts me
for now, and explains partially why some can see what almost no others can.)
- In complete contrast to near-universal thinking, I maintain that it's not the funding,
it's not the greed,
although those are likely important factors for at least a small portion of scientists.
Taking for example, climate science, even though a huge number of scientists get funding
according to that theme, most scientists don't get funding for climate, and these
scientists with NO climate funding have most often been strong, repressive advocates.
- Through evolution, and massive catastrophies repeatedly over history:
...........The reason for your success as an individual, an organisation, a society, or civilisation
...............has everything to do with cheating theory and game theory,
...............and almost nothing to do with [rational, logical, scientific] thinking
...............(the schmucks can do the latter...you're too busy leading)
- Other problems solving approaches are better suited GENERALLY for [complex dead systems] than
[rational, logical, scientific] thinking, which can be highly misleading for those systems,
and is GENERALLY wholly inadeqaute for living and human systems.
- Obvious scientific failures include very high profile, long-term scientific mainstays:
- Climate science - the starting point for this theme for me (actually, dioxins, ozone in the past)
- Special and General Relativity - including neutrinos
- Big Bang theory
- The treatment of Immanuel Velikovsky and many other "lunatics"
- Many of the health and environmental issues (I'll finish listings later)
- Amateurs, and non-expert scientists addressing other fields of expertise, have long been
important to the identification of consensus failures and the generation of the great scientific
revolutions. With the advent of the internet and "free and quick access" to scientific
publications, more and more they will dominate the conceptual side of science, besting the
top scientists and the nobel prize winners in their own fields of expertise. Professional
scientists and engineers will still dominate instrument and equipment design & development,
and data gathering, as only they can access the funding (for now).
- I, Bill Howell, am NOT a strong thinker, easily outdone by most scientists and anybody else.
However, I seem to be
OK at seeing problems that don't generally seem to register with scientists, even those at
the center of the storm. My friends, family, and colleagues will be quick to point out
that an entirely easier hypothesis is that I am hugely [dysfunctional
AND dishonest AND delinquent AND hypocritical]. Touchee - and if I'm the only one,
please forgive me for assuming that everone else shares my flaws!
- ...many other points to add later...
This is a long overdue, frightfully incomplete, and error-replete draft of a long-overdue
work hinted at in several of my postings over the last few years. An initial draft presentation-format
dates to 09Apr2007, and several updates were made in 2007 and 2008, with activity dying until starting up again
at the end of 2009 (I had moved back to Ottawa, bought a house, then had number laptops
and hard drives die). The pdfs of the end-of-2010 Word files were were created and posted
to my websie on 06Sep2011. As with most of my work, I'll never finish it anyways, and
it's important to track the progression of ideas, to check back and see what I was thinking,
to see how far I went, instead of mis-remembering the detals.
Title, table of condents, copyright
Intro - The impossible conclusion, Scientists can't think
A1 - The Kyoto Premise and the catastrophic failure of rational,
logical, and scientific thinking by essentially all scientists
A2 - Failures in the other massive science issues with high public
A3 - When the wind blows the other way – Observations of the
behaviours of Scientists when their belief systems are
challenged, and when they crumble
B1 - Why do scientists fail so badly at Rational, Logical,
and Scientific Thinking?
B2 - Cheating theory and Game theory
B3 - Pre-and-post-Science Philosophies for Thinking
C1 - A Brave new world
C2 - The rise & fall of Enlightenment
C3 - Suggestions for science, policy, and society
D0 - Conclusions
Appendix A - Definitions
You will note that about half of these chapters are empty! Additionally, my writing starts out as
harsh and judgemental, and those parts are the more complete sections. Later writing
flips - accepting the failure of logic for good reasons, and accepting the behavioural extremes
of scientists and others (as a parallel, from a historical perspective, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao
were moderates, and of the three, Hitler was the nice guy).
But I haven't done much on those chapters, yet. Moreover completion of this work may take
forever to develop -
I want to work on a pile of other things, and I may leave this "to ripen" for a year or two before
getting back to it. My "main interest" is neural networks and neuroscience - not climate
science, nor spending all of my time chasing the endess progression of screw-ups by professional scientists.
It's more fun chasing the crazy, lunatic science - at least until it becomes accepted, distortionary,
and vindictive. The truth can only lie with a lunatic - unfortunately, there are about
six billion lunatics on Earth, each with several thousand lunatic ideas. Finding the right lunatic
idea of the right lunatic is harder than guessing at the answer yourself.
Figures, pictures and tables are the property of the original publishers (my apologies as
perhaps not all sources are cited in this mid-project draft).