Science Is Not Democratic

Science Is Not Democratic


“I’m not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctor's tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I’ll say, OK.” - Barack Obama

This was a quote from a speech he gave to a league of conservative voters. I stopped reading after that. I felt weird inside. I sounds like passive mind control. I hope others can see his tricks. Take what you hear from your doctor and use it to do your own research. If it jives with the doctor's advice and you feel comfortable, then take it slow.

During his speech, Obama lambasted members of Congress who espouse either an active distrust of our scientific community or passive ignorance of its findings. The distrust of scientists in the U.S. has become an effective political tool since the 1980s. But it is also extremely dangerous to our democracy.

Science isn’t a belief system. It’s proven knowledge. It either knows the answer to a problem, or admits it doesn’t and keeps looking for it. Every time we ignore the scientific community, bad things generally happen.

The question is, what exactly is the scientific community? The scientist, the investor, the shareholder, the highest bidder, the most ruthless, the most wealthy, the most agreeable, the most trustworthy, the most willing to lie?

Before 1980, Congress and the President generally deferred to the scientific community to interpret science. Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t argue the merits of the Bohr atom with Oppenheimer when he wrote to him 1943. Yes, the Moon landing was driven by military and Cold War aims, but no one in politics questioned how NASA went about getting us there.

I forgot, it doesn't take a genius to run a country. Just a person surrounded by geniuses. My doctor knows what he learns just just like anyone else is capable of doing. If you are not in immediate jeopardy, do some research and try a few natural remedies. You will be surprised.

Beginning in the 16th century, it took almost 200 years for the scientific method to develop to the point where it provided demonstrable survival advantages to civilization. It is not coincidental that this realization by the monarchs and governments of those times came first through military applications and the advancement of material sciences, since they were the original funding agencies.

Does survival of the species dictate who we take scientific advice from or does what will give dictators the greater advantage over those they wish to segregate from? Science for the wealthy and slave magic for the poor and useless.


If those in power didn't show so much desire to use science as a way to separate us, then we as a species would not be suffering. The poorest person on the planet can still afford to have an outstanding idea but it will usually never make it past their own lips. There is little motivation or funding for those who don't play the role.


At some point we spun out of control and those who were taught to be trustworthy and reliable became more obsessed with their own self interests than our own. Doctors receive kickbacks for prescribing certain medicine, get paid vacations disguised as learning seminars by drug companies. Kind of hard to make a heartfelt diagnosis and treatment after being bought out. Do you trust your doctor? Your lucky if you have a good one. Mainstream science is usually bought and sold as well.

But things began changing in the United States about 30 years ago. Basic Science began being cut in favor of Applied Science. Research budgets for agencies like the Department of Defense exploded while basic research funding for Universities and scientific societies began drying up. The Directors and Chiefs of those science-based government agencies, previously held by scientists in those fields who worked their way up that agency’s ladder, became political appointees. It was worrisome.

I thought this would be a good topic for ATS because there are people on this site with some serious trust issues, including myself, when it comes to science and medicine. Does anybody have faith in science anymore? Are there some bright minds on here willing to share their thoughts on where we stand? Do you trust companies who conduct their own safety testing? Do you trust global warming research? Do you trust your electric company? Do you trust cancer research to be cutting edge? Phage, do you trust NASA!!! lol

Well, the truth is that science doesn't happen in a void, the way science is done is influenced by all the ideologies that exist at the same moment. Science is not independent of the economic ideology, or the education ideology, or political ideology etc., scientists are just humans like non-scientists are. My 2 cents.

a reply to: eisegesis

We should vote on it.

Science is how we map our understanding and interpretaions of our replications of Nature and Natures processes.

Science is NEVER the answer, however it is ALWAYS the roadsign to Natures answer which is always the optimal one.

I am reminded of Eisenhower's farewell address.

originally posted by: eisegesis
I thought this would be a good topic for ATS because there are people on this site with some serious trust issues, including myself, when it comes to science and medicine. Does anybody have faith in science anymore? Are there some bright minds on here willing to share their thoughts on where we stand? Do you trust companies who conduct their own safety testing? Do you trust global warming research? Do you trust your electric company? Do you trust cancer research to be cutting edge? Phage, do you trust NASA!!! lol

There are many things I stay on the fence about due to lack of trust.

originally posted by: eisegesis
The question is, what exactly is the scientific community?

I see it as a cult...

The fact that so many defend it fanatically confirms this fact.

originally posted by: KOGDOG
Science the magic behind the thugs who rule this planet.

The High Priests perform their statistical rituals and the cultists genuflect reverently before their idol, Science. And it's all very impressive until the truth is discovered spectator.org...

How do you know if you have fallen prey to the cult of 'Scientism'? Answer this question: Can you differentiate between the collective human understanding of 'how' things work in our material world, and the 'why' of how they came to be that way. (or even why it does what it does at all.) Those are two very different questions, that scientists, (who frequenty are very bad philosophers,) often get mixed up. Never forget that 'science' can be as abused for the sake of religious or anti-religious preconceptions as equally as the Bible can be, on both sides of a debate.

This becomes readily obvious when you investigate the unquestioned assumption that most Atheist-leaning scientists tenaciously hold on to as their 'modus operandi'. One way to state this foundational belief is: "Only statements that are verifiable through a scientific method can be held as truth, or objectively knowable."

Combating the cult of "Scientism."

With respect to its great contributions to society, I think it is important to make a case that science is really affecting society more like a religion now than a field of study or a resource base of useful information. Many everyday people do not understand it at all and accept ALL its teachings on faith. It has become a belief system based on faith and therefore another form of religion. Scientists, like priests can explain their beliefs but the everyday people accept it all on faith. Scientists and doctors are the priests of this new religion, getting angry and crying "heresy" when anyone respectfully disagrees with them.

Has Science become a Religion

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

"Blinded by Science" This card basically is a depiction of blinding people through the notion that a thing is false if it cannot be explained by science. Its like making science look like the real thing. Many empty headed people buy into it and that allows the corrupt science groups (controlled by illuminati as shown in the card) to publish false stuff.

Short of becoming an expert in a given field and conducting independent research, the best a person can do is evaluate the information they're given. Do your due diligence. When you read research, consider the source. Familiarize yourself with a large sample of opinions.

I trust science way more than I trust politicians. But I trust science in the hands of politicians the least.

Buyer beware always seems to apply.

a reply to: Murgatroid

The difference between science and a cult is simple, science is repeatable.

Is someone claims they can turn water into wine it is a cult. If someone gives you the formula to turn water into wine it is science. (replace with 'miracle' of your choice)

Science is an excellent tool,

but the problem are the people. Scientists are people and they must get paid to make their families eat, hence people scientists are vulnerable and depending on whoever is paying them. (Nikola Tesla is an excellent example: when his investors found out they will not make money with his World system, they destroyed him and he died hungry and forgotten, demonized)

This means whoever has the money is capable of controlling the science.

In my opinion, seeing the situation today, the science is deeply corrupted, results are over rated, skewed or even falsified (google: peer review scandal) and no one knows what is really true or not.

The other problem with the science is the scientists' ego. No scientists wants his lifetime work to be trashed away with the new proven ideas, so they are doing everything to stall, hide, attack or refuse to publish anything that goes against their obsolete knowledge.

This all makes me very skeptical about modern science today, and I laugh when some people fanatically, without these facts in mind, believe everything that 'scientists say'...

a reply to: eisegesis

Science is a process for discovering things about the world around us, a methodology. This methodology can be applied to many things. It requires no faith or belief; anyone with the proper equipment and powers of observation can repeat any experiment and achieve the same results. If the results are not repeatable, the hypothesis the experiment was intended to prove is rejected. This is an extremely democratic process, as anyone can participate who wishes to. On the other hand, it is not democratic because the body of knowledge derived is not the result of people voting based on their personal opinion.

Can science be abused? Yes, anything can be abused. The fault is not with science, but the abuser.

By all means, do your own research: if you do it properly, it makes you a scientist.

Until the Western World brings in an Integrity Law where it is known by all that should you purposely try to profit from causing physical, mental or financial harm to another you will go to prison for a minimum of ten years, what you are concerned with will not stop.

The problem is the majority of our economy is based on gaining through deception so a law like this will struggle to see the light of a reasonable day in our present culture.

a reply to: donhuangenaro

Nailed it: money and ego

a reply to: donhuangenaro

The whole point of science is not to believe everything that anyone says. (the royal society's motto is pretty much 'don't take anyone's word'). However science is pretty much the only area of human endeavour where fact checking is build into the system.

of course you get dishonest or corrupt scientists, and scientific results can be abused ir misinterpreted by politicana and business. But the methodology remains the best yet created.

a reply to: eisegesis

Thanks for the OP. It's so important that young people understand the nature of science and the ways it is distorted and in some cases fabricated to achieve human agendas. Studying the characteristics of memes and meme operatives will help identify when science is off the rails. The US is a cesspool of spent science.

Knowledge is power. Critical thinking is restraint. Ignorance is slavery.

Understanding food the #1 way to be healthy and live a long time. A Doctor will spend little or no time educating you about that. The goal is always zero prescription drugs but they won't emphasize that.

The body is a fine-tuned, holistic machine and a Doctor is the equivalent of a Jiffy Lube tech trying to up-sell you on their authority. Do some research and surprise them with a few questions some time. You'll see.

You are your own primary doctor, they are (or should be treated as) consultants.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I am reminded of Eisenhower's farewell address.

originally posted by: eisegesis
I thought this would be a good topic for ATS because there are people on this site with some serious trust issues, including myself, when it comes to science and medicine. Does anybody have faith in science anymore? Are there some bright minds on here willing to share their thoughts on where we stand? Do you trust companies who conduct their own safety testing? Do you trust global warming research? Do you trust your electric company? Do you trust cancer research to be cutting edge? Phage, do you trust NASA!!! lol

There are many things I stay on the fence about due to lack of trust.

I agree, trust and respect can take a very long time to earn but both can be destroyed in a matter of seconds. I prefer to work with people that can explain what their doing. Someone who helps me understand not tells me what i need to understand.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: eisegesis
The question is, what exactly is the scientific community?

I see it as a cult...

The fact that so many defend it fanatically confirms this fact.

originally posted by: KOGDOG
Science the magic behind the thugs who rule this planet.

The High Priests perform their statistical rituals and the cultists genuflect reverently before their idol, Science. And it's all very impressive until the truth is discovered spectator.org...

How do you know if you have fallen prey to the cult of 'Scientism'? Answer this question: Can you differentiate between the collective human understanding of 'how' things work in our material world, and the 'why' of how they came to be that way. (or even why it does what it does at all.) Those are two very different questions, that scientists, (who frequenty are very bad philosophers,) often get mixed up. Never forget that 'science' can be as abused for the sake of religious or anti-religious preconceptions as equally as the Bible can be, on both sides of a debate.

This becomes readily obvious when you investigate the unquestioned assumption that most Atheist-leaning scientists tenaciously hold on to as their 'modus operandi'. One way to state this foundational belief is: "Only statements that are verifiable through a scientific method can be held as truth, or objectively knowable."

Combating the cult of "Scientism."

With respect to its great contributions to society, I think it is important to make a case that science is really affecting society more like a religion now than a field of study or a resource base of useful information. Many everyday people do not understand it at all and accept ALL its teachings on faith. It has become a belief system based on faith and therefore another form of religion. Scientists, like priests can explain their beliefs but the everyday people accept it all on faith. Scientists and doctors are the priests of this new religion, getting angry and crying "heresy" when anyone respectfully disagrees with them.

Has Science become a Religion

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

"Blinded by Science" This card basically is a depiction of blinding people through the notion that a thing is false if it cannot be explained by science. Its like making science look like the real thing. Many empty headed people buy into it and that allows the corrupt science groups (controlled by illuminati as shown in the card) to publish false stuff.

Science can illuminate ones path or lead them into darkness. It seems most humans choose to disengage from science and the quest for knowledge. There will always be those with enough passion to carry the torch but unless we start showing a major interest in our species as a whole, pretty soon there will be no one to pass that torch to.

OUR scientific community itself cannot be defined. The scientific community that Obama refers to can, a cult. You have your dense, thick headed in the middle, the outer fringe, and those who independently move in between. I would prefer to be between thoughts rather than choosing one and discarding the other. Play with both ideas and notice what works you you.

Obama is the new Jim Jones. Everybody drinks from the same punchbowl.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

Science is a process

Ideally, yes.

However, it is also an industry that operates on the same principles of self-preservation and profit as any business/industry. We are at a point where fewer and fewer are familiar with the process, and only know about the industry. Of course, this creates great job security and control. Some would say it is a vastly superior method of control than religion, as it has real life results. If one can make the process proprietary and solely sourced in the industry, then it is just using an age old method of control with new means.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Short of becoming an expert in a given field and conducting independent research, the best a person can do is evaluate the information they're given. Do your due diligence. When you read research, consider the source. Familiarize yourself with a large sample of opinions.

That is the first step. The more sources you read the more your understanding becomes clear. I have often not understood something until I found the right person to say it to me in a way that I could. Too many people will not go past the first page of Google and often cut themselves short.

There are those that understand what they read.
Those that don't understand and admit it.
And those who don't understand, can't admit it and act like they know.

My name for example...

While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

Take away what you think the message was intended to convey. Not what you want to hear. Ask questions, don't assume.

originally posted by: loam
I trust science way more than I trust politicians. But I trust science in the hands of politicians the least.

Buyer beware always seems to apply.

I agree 100%