Fraud by censorship in science - Science Forum
We see plenty of physics in criminology but not a lot of criminology in physics, medicine and biology, I'm sure there are many other scientific disciplines where crime pays off.
Science Forum - fraud by censorship in science
I find it very refreshing how the precision in criminology and forensic science is really elevated high above many disciplines of discovery and investigation. The standards are really shamefully much more accurate.
This is why I think while making mistakes is acceptable intentional misrepresentation of scientific discovery should be looked at as crime because it is a crime. The term doesn't include it but in my opinion it really is a crime against humanity.
The example is not the topic but I feel we could investigate some nice examples to clarify this topic.
It is an oxymoron to say: An eye witness testimonial is not rated as~if it has the same value as the "testimonial" from a person who was not on that location at that time.
cold fusion results, cures against cancer, anti gravity, inertial propulsion, zero point energy etc etc
While established scientists publish peer review material other persona seem to think they can reject the whole idea of a murder taking place even tho they didn't witness it.
In court such statements simply are without value.
If there is a corps, a murder weapon and some one who made a confession it becomes ridiculous to state the whole thing didn't happen.
It didn't happen and oh... I'm not aware of such reports. Do not make for any case of any kind.
Lawyers might be skilled in twisting the facts in favor of their client, just being a lawyer with a good reputation doesn't allow imagining truth into a reality.
Hiring a ghost writer and having a respectable scientist sign the marketing material into peer review shouldn't create truth out of thin air either.
The persecution and the defense both follow opposing world views while both subjected to the same rigorous analysis, no special favors are granted.
Of course many fabulous assumptions have nested themselves into mainstream science, some levitated into truth by calling them fundamental laws.
It might sound reasonable to say the laws of entropy must be true because most of our science is based on them.
In reality it is the same quality statement as to say Jesus must have existed because he is the basis of Christianity.
The big difference is that Christianity can not exist without Jesus and science can not exist without proof and validation.
If we are honest we have to admit the idea of entropy got in a whole lot of trouble when nuclear reactions found their way into science. Excuse after excuse was invented to preserve the apparently flawed idea. However, even today there are plenty of scientists who know no better than to dismiss any energy creating process on the bases of law enforced conservatism.
The idea has become the excuse not to validate the idea.
You might think this isn't a topic of criminology but where medical discoveries are brushed under the carpet we are really talking about mass murder.
Killing people for personal gain is every bit a crime it needs to be.
Like Rontgen devices use to be in every shoe store and the appropriate medical issues got dismissed as folk tales we today have people running around with mobile phones and laptops communicating with radio towers radiating entire cities. Court cases have been won, peer review science existed before the first phone was sold but still we have scientists lending themselves for genocidal propaganda. Even ordinary electricity is not as safe as those who market it have us believe.
If cold fusion wasn't killed 30 years ago we wouldn't have this oil spill today, we wouldn't be in a financial crisis and our global economy wouldn't be on the edge of the cliff.
It is easy to prove millions of people died as a direct result.
Likewise, besides from prevention the dozens of cures for cancer successfully suppressed have accumulated into hundreds of millions of victims.
To the anecdotal "it are all lies! I tell you" I simply respond with "you wasn't there! no you wasn't!" yours is a non witness testimonial.
The evidence against the discovery simply was never presented. In science we don't just accept anecdotal rejections.
Not being aware of such reports really doesn't prove they do not exist. I'm not aware of the murder taking place, I didn't read the documentation so it didn't happen? ....whut?
No I don't believe anything, things should pretty much speak for themselves and if they don't I will be happy to wait until they do.
What proof is there in: I believe the butler didn't do it?
It seems to me besides from criminology any other scientific discipline tends towards being a circus of dogma and logic fallacy.
I'm posting this in the hope you can disappoint me in this
-Gaby de Wilde