Just discovered this interesting book, "Not Even Trying" (2012), which the author has made available free online as a long blog post:
https://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/2013/07/not-even-trying-corruption-of-real.html
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
The book is also available as a proper ebook and it's on libgen if you search for the title or author.
The author, Bruce G. Charlton, who I had never heard of before, is an interesting guy. This quote from his wikipedia page:
From 2003 to 2010, Charlton was the solo-editor of the journal Medical Hypotheses, published by Elsevier. After HIV/AIDS denier Peter Duesberg published a paper in Medical Hypothesis arguing that “there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS", the journal came under fire for its lack of peer review. The paper was withdrawn from the journal [by the publisher, Elsevier] citing concerns over the paper's quality and “that [it] could potentially be damaging to global public health.” Elsevier consequently revamped the journal to introduce peer review, firing Charlton from his position as editor, due to his resistance of these changes.
At October 2012, a worldwide campaign including 198 researchers published a critical paper defending Charlton and the idea of editorial review.
I include it despite it's critical tone to show he's not a criticizing outsider, but someone who spent his career as a doctor and scientific researcher. This book was written in 2012, after the journal debacle, and 25 years into his career. A quote:
looking back on 25 years in professional research – I am forced to admit that, although I certainly tried, I wasn’t actually doing science.
He says real science was "exorcised" from the scientific community/industry almost entirely around about 1940s-1950s. This is a conclusion I had also come to from my own independent research. This happens to be when viruses were first claimed to have been isolated and proven to be the source of much disease, and also around about when electron microscopes began to be used to examine biological samples.
I've yet to read much of the book, but I am excited to do so.
An aside: The publisher, Elsevier, who quashed his unconventional journal over "AIDS/HIV denial" is (Ghislaine Maxwell's father) Robert Maxwell's baby, a publishing company he built from the ground up. (EDIT: I misremembered this, Maxwell's company was Pergamon, which was acquired by Elsevier). Maxwell is credited with revolutionizing (destroying might be a better word) the Scientific Journal. He made Science Journal publishing the behemoth industry it is today. Before him papers and journals were published semi independently, in a not very profitable way and in small quantities. They were printed on "bible stock" paper and only available at conferences where the authors would actually present their work. Of course, there was absolutely no advertising. They were more like a formal and extended version of the scientist's lab notes. While it had it's limitations, it was more in line with Charlton's idea of "Real Science".
So Maxwell is one big cog in the machine that destroyed "Real Science" - he encouraged scientists to pursue the audacious, bombastic type of research that would grab headlines, sell (increasingly flashy) journals and pull in loads of investment and grants. He would go to these conferences and gather up the most appealing scientists, rent hotel rooms and provide them with hookers and booze. If you want to read more about all that, here's along article from the Guardian of all places:
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? - It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google – and it was created by one of Britain’s most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell**
I want to add something very telling. A top science school, Caltech, has been colonized by leftists and is run by politicized administrators now. Various top scientists have left the school in the recent decade as things got worse there. The school still gets plenty of research money because the admins are very good at PR, but there are signs of rot.
For example, the admissions director is a black possible lesbian who came from the highly leftwing Pomona colleges, and she has vowed to reduce the number of white male students and increase the amount of immigrant females. Now the undergrads are heavily Indian and Chinese, a few blacks - but the school has abandoned SATs for admissions. Weakening the requirements is not going to bring in top academics. And now the faculty states their pronouns on their web pages. In addition, now the school has multiple tracks, some for weaker students. A Caltech degree is not quite what it used to be. How this will affect science research in the future is an open question. I do not know the conditions at Stanford, Harvard, and MIT, but I have concerns where it's all going.
I watched a video by "The Slow-Mo Guys" on youtube last week, the guys who video things in slow motion, because Youtube suggested it - and I was amused to hear one of them casually refer to his time as a student at Caltech. So there you go; Caltech - producing the content creators and social media influencers of the future.
Caltech was awesome in the 50s and 60s, began changing in the 70s and 80s, turned commercial in the 90s and 00s, and is no longer the free place it once was. Now the admin clamps down on the students and it's not as much of a place of freewheeling geniuses as it used to be. Now it cranks out corporate technoslaves eager to make bioweapons for sociopaths, quantum computers for the MIC, and trains scientists who go back to China. I now tell students to go to MIT, Stanford, or Harvard. The movie Real Genius is an accurate portrayal of what it was when I went there, but now it has lost its soul. For christ's sake, the bookstore no longer stocks books, it sells profitable souvenirs. And the liberals forced Tech to change the name of the library over something scientist Millikan said 85 years ago that they find offensive to Marxist SJWs. WTF.
Thank God for MIT, Stanford and Harvard. Those Jewish universities are still totally pure and don't have any Marxist corruption at all! /s
Could you explain marxism without looking it up? Just casually off the top of your head.
The insane ramblings of a Jewish leech taken as an ideology by the most depraved and insane leeches of the modern age.
Karl Marx was a windbag full of shit. He spouted overbroad assertions.
Karl Marx: "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property."
Klaus Schwab: "In 2030, you will own nothing, and be happy."
Get the picture? Marxists suck and the WEF is Marxist.
Think you own your house?
Try not paying property tax.
Think you own your vehicle?
Try not paying car insurance.
Peer review has become another form of knowledge filter.
I think it was Chapter 16 of Brave New World that explained what government "science" really is, where they have a team of experts all affirming the party's version, while hiding true higher sciences from the public that might set them free from their controllers.
You can search "science" and find some of the sections.
Then Chapter 17 explains how they know God exists but they hide the Bible and all Christian books and flood everyone's mind with mindless entertainment so they never think about God or death.
After pulling out "The Imitation of Christ" and the Bible:
“Then you think there is no God?” “No, I think there quite probably is one.” “Then why? …”
Mustapha Mond checked him. “But he manifests himself in different ways to different men. In pre-modern times he manifested himself as the being that’s described in these books. Now …” “How does he manifest himself now?” asked the Savage. “Well, he manifests himself as an absence; as though he weren’t there at all.”
“That’s your fault.”
“Call it the fault of civilization. God isn’t compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness. You must make your choice. Our civilization has chosen machinery and medicine and happiness. That’s why I have to keep these books locked up in the safe. They’re smut. People would be shocked it …”
The last few chapters of Brave New World everyone should be familiar with, it's giving us exactly what they have been doing to us and why. The entire system is made to make humans worship government and forget about Jesus Christ, who they very much know is real and in rebellion to Him. Much of it is in anger God created us at all.
“Science” has become “The Science.” Branding ruined it. It was hyped and shaped to counter religion more and more since 1750.
The majority of scientists are also conformist types, ironically. They won't speak up even if they disagree e.g. the average medical professional from 2020 onwards.
It's not that scientists don't believe in truth, it's that the machinations of society has filtered them out. Truth cannot be leveraged to generate wealth nearly as effectively as lies can.
I've never heard of this "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" narrative until recently. Is this another one of those big narrative shifts priming us for something like how the anti-vaxx narrative was strong in the late 2010s to prime us for the mRNA jabs?
SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know aka to perceive]...reality is perceived (inspiration); not suggested (information), those who fall for suggested (scientism) over perceived (scio) ignore reality for a fiction shaped by the choices of others.
Understanding suggested information represents standing under the will of those suggesting it; while comprehending perceived represents compressing (comprehending within form aka information) the impressed (flowing inspiration through perception).
Reality moves everything within from inception towards death; which allows those within to perceive (scio; science). Scientism suggests affixed labels upon the moving system; thereby tricking those who consent to ignore reality for fiction.
Seeking (want over need) represents ignoring that everything already exists, hence being perceivable. Truth vs lies represents a) a rebranded want vs not want choice towards a suggested information and b) the conflict of "reason". Before the spoken word can be suggested comes the perceived sound.
Nature doesn't lie. Those who ignore perceived nature for suggested "truth" (want) can only then be contradicted with "lie" (not want). Nature doesn't proclaim any truth it doesn't put labels on anything; it just moves everything. The few are suggesting affixed labels as "truth" to be able to racketeer the consenting many with contradictions (lies). Nature cannot be contradicted...form (life) cannot contradict flow (inception towards death); since it exists as the temporary resistance (form) within the ongoing velocity (flow) of it.
Aka choice (consent to believe in suggested information) to choice (suggesting information) contract law; as the inversion of perceived balance (need/want offer) to choice (responding center) natural law.
To believe vs to not believe represents yet another rebrand of the same want vs not want conflict of reason.
Life's duty (response-ability of choice) represents resisting being moved towards predefined outcome (death); which one does within the ever changing moment aka the momentum of motion aka the balance for the choice at the center.
What's missing represents each ones comprehension of all perceivable; which represents ones growth within all loss aka one seed within the soil of all with the responsibility to express self through resistance.
Temporary form within ongoing flow represents growth within loss aka temporary chaos within the ongoing natural order aka the reaction to enacted demolition. Living implies within the process of dying. Life is dying while it grows...the many are tricked to ignore growing; which in return allows the parasitic few to be the fat cats claiming all of ignored reality for themselves while tempting the rest to keep destroying themselves.
SCIENTFIC (through perception) METHOD (Latin methodus; Gr. with, and way.) aka expressed through perceiving form with the way of perceivable flow.
Any one here awake? Any one? Bueller?
One exception in the STEM fields where real science is still the only science and still honestly pursued: Mathematics (and its children like statistics and theoretical computer science). Also the most democratic of sciences. With the advent of sci-hub and libgen, even some janitor at MIT (hehe), can go head to head with ivy league types.
The diametric opposite is probably medical science (at least as it is practiced in doctors' offices and big pharma labs). Lots of promising research directions not getting funded as well.
Science hasn't changed one bit. Very few ever had the funding to do research and those who did were filthy rich or had filthy rich benefactors looking for something. Europeans didn't travel the oceans for "science" they did it looking for riches and cool animals to hunt/put in private collections.
You are very naive if you thought science was ever a pursuit of discovery and not the playground of the rich to chase niche interests for personal glory or ideology.