Field Control Therapy Support Forums

We live in a ‘scientific’ era, but what does that represent? It means that scientists have figured out a lot of things, and we can therefore know a lot about the world on good authority from them. . . . right? So if a statement is prefaced by “Scientists say. . .” or “Studies have proven. . . ” then we had better sit up and pay attention?

There is an essential fallacy here, and this ultimately explains how it is that such large groups of “scientists” can be so very wrong about something as catastrophic as poisoning the population for so long with amalgam fillings – so it seemed a topic worth bringing up here for discussion! Please share your thoughts.

The fallacy is that the above has nothing to do with the scientific method, it seems to me. What is described above is the process of (a) giving away our authority to so-called experts; (b) erecting their opinions on a pedestal as so-called fact; & (c) thereby creating what we can call a consensus opinion that most of us share about something.

The scientific method is something very different: it is a process of open-ended inquiry and reality-checking through experimentation, observation and – above all – humbling oneself to evidence. That’s worth repeating: science is a process of inquiry, not a process of forming opinions, definite statements and certainties about the world. In fact, strictly speaking the latter is deemed an unfortunate universal human tendency – to formulate certain ideas about the world – whereas it is precisely the role of science to question, challenge and check these, not to support them as unchangeable certainties. Science does not deal in fixed certainties, but in an ever-changing landscape of ideas that we are continually seeking to improve and make as accurate a reflection of reality as possible.

Certainties are actually the province of superstition; uncertainties and possible hypotheses are the province of science. Scientific proof is thus actually an impossibility (for further reading, please refer to Karl Popper’s writings on the philosophy of science, as I know Dr Yurkovsky has done): science can be used to disprove something, but never to prove something, because new evidence may always later arise which contradicts our current suspicions. So instead of certainties, we instead formulate temporary ideas that fit current evidence as best we know how, but all the while recognizing that later on we may find new evidence which will change everything.

In physics, for example, this has happened many times: Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and others. . . each time, new evidence and hypotheses emerged which disproved earlier models, and new models had to be made, completely transforming our world view. This is the normal process of scientific truth-seeking: the trouble is, the same is not often applied to other fields such as medicine.

There are far too many certainties in medicine, which is far too unscientific for my liking. For example, there seems to be an extraordinarily entrenched certainty that amalgam fillings are safe, and those who scientifically question this in the open-minded spirit of scientific inquiry are usually unceremoniously ridiculed and ostracized.

How did this state of affairs arise? It seems that the scientific community forms “consensus opinions” just like any other group of people, not scientifically, but for other reasons, be they political, social, economic, personal. . . I found the following passage an interesting reflection on this topic from Michael Crichton, who raises interesting points regarding scientific uncertainty vs. scientific bias. He feels science has become too politicized:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Source: www.crichton-official.com/speeches/spee ... ote04.html