Have I Ever Told You About Preconceptual Science?

By Rich Kozlovich

 

My now passed friend Dr. Jay Lehr was at Princeton when Einstein was there, and he told me when Einstein first came to Princeton he delivered a series of lectures, and I think it was seven, but five for sure.  He said at the first couple of those lectures you couldn't buy or steal a seat in that room it was so packed, but by the last lecture there were plenty of seats.  

 

I was a bit surprised and asked why.  He said a lot of these people, many of whom were among the smartest people in the world, didn't have a clue what he was talking about, and clearly they didn't dare suggest is was Einstein who didn't know what he was talking about.  Can you imagine what that must have done to their egos?

 

Over the course of my almost 78 years respect for science has gone from the top of Mt. Everest to the toilet, and for good reason.   During and right after WWII science exposed the world to the atom bomb, sputnik, men to the moon, and amazing medical advances at disease prevention.  And as a result some scientist could look up from his microscope, or turn from his blackboard with all sorts of gibberish only they and their peers understood, and mumble out incomprehensible babble almost no one would understand, but everyone would be sure to believe.   And it might be true, and it might not.

 

As my friend Mike Shaw noted:   

 

Science, once indistinguishable from a search for truth—has become fatally corrupted by academia in a rapacious search for dollars.

 

With all the scientific jargon, and arrogant ivory tower isolation, we just didn't know any better, but time and truth are on the same side, and before now we just didn't know scientific integrity has always been a serious issue.

 

Evolution was at the heart of much of it, and was the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity, until global warming, and this fraudulent coronavirus pandemic, and worse yet, the shots they forced on much of humanity they fraudulently called "vaccines".  The negative health consequences as a result of these vaccination mandates of are world wide, and will continue for decades.

 

Let's try and get this once and for all. Government grant money has made

 

Nothing has changed, and in point of fact it's getting worse, and will get far worse in the coming years because now any nitwit, or group of nitwits with computers and a "twitter" account can force science to reject anything they don't like. Nitwits are now part of the peer review process.  The article about the study in question went on to say:

On January 4th, the paper "Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average," was accepted to the journal. That same day, the abstract was published with the notice that the "final, formatted version of the article will be published soon".

Apparently the average IQ for college undergraduates has dropped, and a lot from "around 120 to 102, just slightly above the average of 100."  Let's  not delude ourselves, that's huge, and apparently it's true.  The authors went on to point out the ranks attending college is no longer from the higher IQ members of society, and as a result, "academic standards and curricula might have to be adjusted."  After what we've seen at Harvard, does anyone doubt that?

Well, this set up a fire storm of protest because they really didn't like the author's "tone".  It was demeaning, and lacked sensitivity, and criticized the peer reviewers for not finding fault with their paper, including the Frontiers in Psychology handling editor.  

The editor  of that journal, Eddy Davelaar, overrode all that and attempted to refute the evidence presented, and he did so....... with his opinions.......and has refused to respond to challenges over his actions and his opinions.  

But none of that changes the fact these young academics are dumber than ever, and are no longer required to perform mentally challenging tasks.  Academia is more about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion than it is with honest education, that teaches critical thinking, versus Critical Race Theory.

Diversity without accomplishment is philosophy without form and incompetence without consequence.  Unfortunately, as with all these schemes, humanity pays the penalty, and in the future the consequences are going to be dramatic.  Negatively dramatic.  

One more thing, this whole Preconceptual claptrap mentality doesn't just apply to science.  It works for economics also. 

P&D Today

By Rich Kozlovich 

Leftist just about have a monopoly on "outrage".  Why do I say that? Because I can't find an issue that doesn't outrage them.  You can't reason with them because they're "outraged".  You can't even find common ground with them because, they're "outraged".   The other thing they have a monopoly on is being wrong.  I can't find a leftist position that hasn't been a long term disaster. 

So they've totally embraced "outrage" and being "wrong", yet we're letting them order us to all get experimental drugs for an affliction that has a recovery rate of between 97 and 99 percent.  

What could possibly go wrong?

---

---

• Vaccine Mandates: Truth and Consequences, Part II
• SCOTUS Decision to Review EPA’s Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide is a Victory
• Defense Department Pulls a Bait and Switch on Vaccines

CCD and Neonics: Scientific Corruption and Conspiracy!

Neonics ban tied to corrupted bee research by scientists at EU’s ethically-challenged IUCN? Part I

By David Zaruk

Within a day of publishing the internal document and the first part of his investigation, one of the scientists behind the IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides threatened and then started legal proceedings against him. The blog host in Brussels, EurActiv, took his article down. Then, as the GLP reported on Thursday, the Times of London reported the key findings of Zaruk’s story, calling it one of the biggest scientist scandals since ClimateGate. EurActiv agreed to restore the blog, conditioned on an “apology”, which he amended to this report. When I asked Zaruk how he felt about the circus, he said: “Welcome to Brussels”.

Here is Zaruk’s article, the first article in a multi-part series scheduled to appear on EurActiv, and reproduced in full for the Genetic Literacy Project:

The Risk-Monger recently came across a strategy document carelessly left on-line by activist scientists that lies at the heart of the founding of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides. The Addendum to this document (see page 3) spells out a rather distasteful anti-neonicotinoid campaign strategy lacking in scientific integrity. The process has been tried and tested before by activists, but their behaviour has never been so clearly articulated in writing. I thought this document should be shared so we know the type of people are standing behind the “science” defending the bees.

[Note: The Genetic Literacy Project’s Jon Entine uncovered a similar case of possible research corruption in the United States in an investigation of the disputed studies on neonics and bees by Harvard nutritionist and organic activist Chensheng Lu.]

How did this story unfold?......To Read More....

Bee-gate: European IUCN task force mired in corruption scandal over neonics ban plot. Part II

David Zaruk

 

The IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides has demonstrated how activist scientists can exploit the weaknesses in the peer review process. The group is set up like a private club of like-minded researchers who publish articles citing each other and recommending each other to peer review their papers…..If one needs any further proof of how this taskforce confirms their bias among themselves, look at the list of references at the end of the “high-impact” concluding publication. Of the total of 14 sources, 10 were to articles from the same very authors of the report. Was there really so little other credible science out there that they had to keep referencing themselves?……It was sadly neither published in Science nor Nature (as the 2010 anti-neonic strategy document had expected), but instead, the journal of Environmental Science and Pollution Research. Rather than being in the upper echelon of scientific publications, this tepid, dare I say mediocre journal is an open-source, pay-per-publish service (it has an Impact Factor of 2.76 – for comparison, Science has an Impact Factor of 31.48 and Nature has 42.35 – Impact Factor, to simplify, is based on the average number of citations each article receives). Environmental Science and Pollution Research’s publisher, Springer (along with IEEE), recently had to retract 120 articles from open-source journals for being computer-generated gibberish. Was this high impact paper even subjected to a peer review?....To Read More....

 

Scientific Integrity is an Oxymoron