The Scientific Method Versus the Religion of Science

October 31, 2010 by  
Filed under Commentary

Knowledge is power. That is something that men have known for a long time. If I know something you don’t know, there’s a chance I’ll be able to take advantage of that fact. I can do so honestly by providing a service, for instance if I know something about electronics and you need something fixed, or I can do so dishonestly, for instance by engaging in some questionable activity like a shell game. I can chose to impart my knowledge upon others and help benefit mankind, or I can keep my knowledge secret and try to use it to my advantage, or I can deliberately misinform, obfuscate and lie in an effort to try to control the behavior of others and elevate myself in their eyes. It is this third option that is the most insidious when exercised.

People should not take anyone at their word, especially not opinionated bloggers like myself. You should always do your due diligence and check out any claims you may read for yourself before forming your own opinion. Seek out facts and figures, use your own feelings and observations, and even check out opposing viewpoints. Always question. This is the very essence of the scientific method, to never take anything for granted and to always seek out ways to prove or disprove established tenets. This is something that can be done by everyone, not just scientists.

The scientific method is one of testing and observation. The tests verify or disprove theories which are formed by observation. But tests aren’t always conclusive. Things don’t always happen the same way or follow the same rules. This is especially true with large, complex systems. In many cases, there are simply too many variables to draw definitive conclusions 100% of the time. Even gravity, something we all know exists and we’re very aware of, is something that scientists constantly test, looking for tiny variations and a better understanding of its nature. True scientists are always open minded and though they may reach conclusions from their research, they should always remain open to changing those opinions when new research becomes available.

The religion of science, however, is quite a bit different. It works like any other religion would. It is based on beliefs that usually can’t be proved or disproved. It is preached by the clerics of the scientific communities and remains unquestioned by the general populace. Most of all, the members of its church are often evangelized and radicalized to forward political agendas that have nothing to do with solving the problems these peddlers of scientific propaganda claim afflict the human race. They claim consensus and seek to force their worldview upon all, increasing their personal stature and power in the process, and they seem to have no conscience as they tend to stop at nothing to achieve their agenda.

The religion of science works because of trust. An individual or a group of individuals will somehow become pre-eminent in their field and suddenly anything they say must be true. They become trusted by the general public. Anyone who disagrees with them will be discredited and shunned. Their data will be supreme and contradicting data and studies will be ignored, even to the point where legitimate and valid research is denied the exposure needed for the scientific community to suggest and test informed hypotheses. This can quickly degenerate to the point where other scientists see the trend and start tailoring their research to meet the needs of those dominating the field so that they can reap the benefits.

When the religion gains too much power, resources tend to be used in efforts to further an agenda or to solidify the base of the power rather than being allocated to those who wish to conduct research that may actually help mankind’s understanding of a problem or natural phenomenon that needs to be explained. After all, the claim will be that there is a consensus, so why should additional resources be used up in an effort to discover something that’s already been explained? Instead, resources will likely be used to create propaganda for public consumption in an effort to garner public support and increase public demand for the solutions to the perceived causes of the problems offered by those with the agenda.

We are all scientists. We can all make observations. We can all form hypotheses and test them. We can all formulate theories about why things are the way they are and use these observations and tests to judge for ourselves how accurate or inaccurate our theories likely are. The trick is to not close your mind. The trick is to not fall so in love with a theory that you become emotionally attached to it. Yes, you can feel strongly about a given theory and defend it vehemently, but be ready to admit when someone else makes a good point or offers contradicting evidence and be willing and prepared to explore that avenue of possibility a little more if you are so inclined. Remember, just because something occurs that is inexplicable within your theory, doesn’t make your theory wrong, it just makes it less likely that your theory is correct, or more likely it isn’t the only correct one.

It is helpful when evaluating the worth of science to look at a few things outside the realm of that science. It is not just data and a desire to understand the nature of things that drives science. Human nature is also involved. Look at the things that motivate people’s behaviors. Ask a few questions. Does someone benefit from presenting the theory and the data in a certain way? If so, who? In what way do they benefit? Money? Power? Control? How much do they benefit? Greatly? Only a little? Will morality be a issue? How big of an issue is morality? What evidence is there that the benefits outweigh the morality issue? These are questions that can help an individual decide what to believe when science is muddled and data conflicting.

There are many issues in the modern world where science, government and industry are entwined. Energy. Overpopulation. Food. The impact of modern society on the natural environment. These are important and complex issues that have many variables. Any one size fits all solution to these huge issues is going to be flawed. There are likely as many solutions to these problems as there are questions about them. Who should we leave the answers up to? Well, one thing is certain, with government’s record of failure, it certainly shouldn’t be up to them. They should not be allowed to monopolize science, especially not a bureaucratic centralized world governmental organization. Carbon taxes, for instance, are not a solution, they are a way to empower governmental and corporate bodies and stifle competition.

We all have a stake in our future. The market should be open for all who wish to try to solve these problems to compete and the consumer should be able to chose which solutions he feels would work best for his personal needs and spend his money where he believes it is best spent. In this way, we as individuals are maximizing the possibilities. We are maximizing our power. We are maximizing our independence. We are maximizing the efforts to find solutions and we are producing many different answers to the problems we face. Our wealth will expand, both our economic wealth and our wealth of knowledge. Governments, despite all their power, will limit and restrict the possibilities. They will monopolize the answers. They will produce only the solutions which will help those in power or their friends. That is the nature of government, for it is the nature of power to corrupt.

It is worth repeating, we are all scientists. Let us not forget that. Let us not fall prey to those in power who would try to pervert science for their own gain and keep true information from being disseminated. Don’t simply believe the religion of science or the word of the scientist preacher, but try to look at a bigger picture and engage in the scientific method on your own. Let us try to remain informed by our own tests and observations. Remember, education doesn’t stop just because you’re no longer in school. Become involved in your own education and remain open minded when it comes to alternative explanations. Weigh evidence from all sides and maybe even try to come up with an alternative explanation of your own. After all, we all have brains and the more they’re used, the smarter they become.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled “The Ouijiers” by Matthew Wayne.

Deadline Live – October 29 2010

October 30, 2010 by  
Filed under Archive

In this Friday edition two days before Halloween, Jack-o’-lantern Blood is sitting in, ALLEGEDLY!

We get a breakdown of news and general topics in hour 1. Also some Flobots and Marilyn Manson bumper music. Always good!

Hour 2 welcomes Brad ‘Blood’ Friedman back to Deadline LIVE for more tenacious debate. He authors ‘The Brad Blog’.

Deadline Live – October 28 2010

October 29, 2010 by  
Filed under Archive

Jack Blood’s commentary on the news & topics of the day in the first hour.

Hour 2 welcomes Jon Schaffer to Deadline LIVE. He is a heavy metal guitarist and songwriter from ‘Iced Earth’, ‘Demons & Wizards’ and his newest project ‘Sons of Liberty’.

Deadline Live – October 27 2010

October 28, 2010 by  
Filed under Archive

Jack Blood’s commentary on the news & topics of the day in the first hour.

Hour 2 welcomes Katherine Youngblood Glass to Deadline LIVE. She is the Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Texas.

Electronic Voting and Stealing Elections With Media Complicity

October 28, 2010 by  
Filed under Commentary

I don’t trust establishment politicians. I don’t trust the establishment media. I don’t trust that the two groups don’t have unwritten agreements to scratch each others backs. I don’t trust the establishment, period. The establishment is not out to look after my best interests, your best interests, or the best interests of the common folk on the street. The establishment is out to look after the best interests of the establishment, and unscrupulous people inside the establishment will stop at nothing to make sure they maintain their power and keep their wealth stream flowing. There isn’t a principle they won’t forsake nor a law they won’t break in order to protect their interests, including trashing any system that may help protect the interests of the less powerful individuals within society.

One of the basic principles of a democratic republic is the right of the people to be able to fairly and honestly select a representative that a majority of the populous can agree on. While the merits of this system are debatable, the reality of its effects is not. The vast majority of people will see this system as legitimate and go along with its dictates so long as the laws passed and requests made of the populous remain reasonable. In order for this type of system to maintain its perception of legitimacy, it also must remain transparent. Both these requisites have become extremely compromised over the past decade and more and more people are adopting the perception that our system is no longer legitimate.

I first began to suspect that the electoral system in this country had problems back in the late eighties, early nineties when Ross Perot was running for president and founded one of the most successful third parties in modern times. I voted for Mr. Perot. I remember asking many others who they voted for and the vast majority voted for Mr. Perot. I don’t believe that most of the people I know are anything other than average Americans. I couldn’t understand how so large a percentage of the people I asked had voted for Mr. Perot and yet he had obtained so low a percentage of the vote when the ballots were counted. I realized that I knew only a small percentage of people and understood that my sampling wasn’t scientifically sound, but I still had a bad feeling in the back of my mind that something had gone rotten with the system.

(As an aside, I was reminded the other day of something Ross Perot said about passing NAFTA and a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country. Seems like his statement was very prophetic considering the present high unemployment rate and the gloomy outlook for creating jobs in the future.)

I think that the elections in which George W. Bush was elected showed us just how devious our electoral system had become. I’m not talking about the Electoral College or hanging chads, I’m talking about pure and simple corruption and the compromising of the very principle of free and open elections.

Now I am reading stories of electronic voting machines flipping votes. A few years ago, it was the Republicans who were benefiting from such mishaps. Now it’s the Democrats. I’ve read stories of early voters in Nevada being unable to vote for Sharron Angle and instead Harry Reid and the whole slate of Democrats is registered by the machine. I’ve read stories of service technicians talking about how easy it is to hack into the machines.

As one who’s had experience with computers, machine level programming code, RAM and ROM memory and other digital electronic basics, I understand perhaps a little better than most the holes in securing data on electronic voting machines. It is nowhere near as secure as good old paper ballots and a paper trail. In fact, I would suggest that electronic voting provides near zero security and the voting public should show near zero confidence that their vote is even being counted. But don’t take my word for it. Bev Harris and Black Box Voting have done a marvelous job documenting the flaws and corruption of our current election processes. There is also a wonderful documentary available called Hacking Democracy. If you haven’t seen it yet, I suggest you find the time to watch it.

How are we to have even the illusion of legitimacy when we can’t even be certain that the candidates elected to be representatives of the people were put into office by a majority of participating voters? How are we supposed to “throw the bums out” when we can’t be sure that our votes against corrupt and criminal incumbents won’t be flipped and counted for them? How can we hold anyone accountable when our electoral process is secretive and controlled by individuals and companies whose interests may conflict with or be served by certain politicians on the ballots?

Yet the problem goes deeper than just the voting machines. It takes confidence in the system by the majority of voters for the system to maintain its appearance of legitimacy. The voting machines might easily be done away with if the problems with them were widely reported. Yet one hardly hears anything about such problems in the establishment corporate media. With a few notable exceptions like the documentary mentioned above, one needs to go to alternative sources if one wants to really get the low down on these highly suspect election practices.

The press was supposed to be the de facto fourth branch of the American republic, a kind of watchdog over the other three branches of government in case the checks and balances failed. It was specifically mentioned in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. President Kennedy, emphasized its importance in a famous speech admonishing secrecy and concealment. The establishment press has failed miserably in carrying out this important duty. In fact, I would suggest that the modern day press has done the opposite of being a watchdog and has empowered the federal government to usurp the control one should have over his own life and to grow well past the limits written into the Constitution that were put there to constrain it. That’s one reason why the citizen press, the blogs and opinions one finds on the Internet, is so important.

The establishment press has a tendency to attack those who may threaten the status quo. It seems to embellish insignificant faults and mishaps involving candidates who might threaten the establishment while ignoring glaring corruption of the candidates who likely serve the interests of globalists and the corporate elites. This is not new. It has been going on for quite some time. Remember how Ross Perot was painted as crazy? Remember how they did the same with Ron Paul back in 2008? More recently, it was Debra Medina in Texas who was painted with the crazy brush. It seems that any time a candidate espousing freedom principles and advocating more power to the individual and less to the government gains steam and starts to become popular, the establishment media jumps all over that person and tries to demonize or discredit them. It’s the same MO, over and over. Perhaps that’s why establishment news programs are losing viewers and establishment newspapers are losing readers. People aren’t stupid, and they do remember.

I don’t even trust the pollsters anymore. It seems to me that they have no accountability either. It seems to me that they can do and say what they want, and that they can do and say anything those paying them would like them to say. The polls seldom seem believable to me. They almost never seem to mesh or reflect the sentiment I encounter in my personal life. I don’t know why.

Consider this, polls say that the approval rating for Congress is only 11%. I can believe that. That seems right. But when polled, often more than 11% of the people are planning on voting for their incumbent congress critters. That just doesn’t seem to make much sense. Why would so many disapprove of the job their “representatives” are doing, but then go ahead and re-elect them? Where’s the disconnect? Is it apathy? Could it be because they see both major parties as bought and paid for so they don’t think there’s any difference between the two candidates? Is it the “devil you know versus the devil you don’t” meme? Perhaps it’s the “lesser of two evils” saying at work. Whatever the case, it seems to me that a decent third party or independent candidate (with the exception of one Joe Lieberman) might help and a principled one reported on in a favorable light by the mainstream media outlets might have a chance.

So, go to the polls next Tuesday and vote. Vote the incumbents out of office. Vote for candidates that seem to you to be the most anti-establishment. Vote for those who claim to want to shrink government and give the common folk more power. Vote for whatever candidate you feel will best represent your interests. Just don’t expect too much. Don’t expect too much to change. Don’t expect the system to roll over. Don’t expect honesty. Don’t expect truth. Don’t expect any real investigative reporting from the media. These are things the common folk will likely have to do on their own. The system will not change until the common folk stop paying for and putting up with it. It will not change until we make it known in no uncertain terms that we’ve had enough.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled “The Ouijiers” by Matthew Wayne.

Deadline Live -October 26 2010

October 27, 2010 by  
Filed under Archive

Jack Blood’s commentary on the news & topics of the day in the first hour.

Hour 2 welcomes the return of Charles Goyette to Deadline LIVE for discussion on his latest book ‘The Dollar Meltdown’.

Deadline Live – October 25 2010

October 26, 2010 by  
Filed under Archive

Jack Blood’s commentary on the news & topics of the day in the first hour.

Hour 2 welcomes the return of Michael Shaw to Deadline LIVE for further discussion on Agenda 21.

Democrats Can Be Tea Partiers Too

October 26, 2010 by  
Filed under Commentary

There is a popular notion going around that the Tea Party has great influence in this election year. Candidates endorsed by the Tea Party are quite popular. It is also popularly believed that Tea Party candidates are basically revamped Republicans and Neocons. That may be what the Tea Party has become, but it certainly isn’t what the spirit of the Tea Party is all about. Indeed, the Democrats could have hijacked the Tea Party early on if the had been politically savvy enough, but it was the Republicans that saw the power in the grass roots movement and took control of it early to use public sentiment to their advantage.

The Tea Party movement, however, is likely to prove more powerful than even the Republicans can contain. That is because at its core, and at its inception, the Tea Party is not about left or right, conservative or liberal, or Democrat and Republican. It was created as a vehicle to discuss freedom over tyranny, individualism over collectivism. That is the framework where we need to focus our discourse. These are the philosophies we need to make the politicians address. The concept of the United States of America, as a nation or as a lose affiliation of a group of nations, was to provide a structure under which the individual was honored and big government was not allowed to flourish. That idea has floundered in recent times and is in grave danger of being lost.

This is what the people of the United States need to regain, the spirit of individualism. We need to realize that by granting others the freedom to deal with their own lives as they see fit, to earn and to spend their resources as they feel is best for their lives, we can start to build a more prosperous society for all. We, above all others, should understand the importance of honoring the rights of others. We, above all others, should understand the power of individual liberty over big government directives. After all, America prospered while other places languished and failed in their collectivism because of the individualist nature of our founding documents. Now we have fallen on hard times along with the rest of the world and those in power seem to want to throw away what is left of our heritage and adopt collectivist ideologies that have already failed worldwide.

So, in a few days we will go to the polls and once again vote. This time we’ll show them. This time we will put the Republicans back into power and things will be right. Yeah, sure. Remember how that went last time? Remember how the Democrats got into office because of our anger at the Bush regime? Remember change and hope? Well the change was for a bigger, more intrusive government than even the Republicans could dream up and the hope was dashed upon the hard concrete of the Wall Street where the elite pull the strings of the political establishment.

Do you think putting Republicans back into power will bring about the change necessary to restore our great nation to the prominence it once held? Do you think prosperity will return because we shuffle the deck of bought and paid for politicians? Oh sure, there are a few out there who may actually believe in following the Constitution and limiting the federal government to the powers enumerated in it, but I fear that there are not going to be enough in positions of power to make that change happen. I fear that there are not going to be enough good men and women in congress to force political obedience to that document. I fear that, like the British in the 1700s, our modern day political and elitist establishments will ignore the men throwing the tea into the harbor and go forward with their plans to fleece the affluent middle class despite the warnings that the anger is roiling beneath the surface.

Big government Republicans are mostly the same as big government Democrats. Both these parties want to grow the government in one way or another. The Republicans wish to do it through war, espionage and turning peaceful people who harm no one into criminals by cracking down on victimless crimes. The Democrats wish to do so by forcing everyone into a welfare state where all wealth is thrown into a bureaucratic pot and then redistributed where they feel the need is. Oh, and they don’t seem to mind the war thing either. Oh yeah, and recent events involving marijuana legalization suggest they also don’t mind keeping the prison/industrial complex healthy. And through it all the wealth of this nation is funneled to the top of the food chain, the central banks and the multi national corporations they protect. All the marbles seem to be going to an ultra rich elite class who own the politicians and the media.

We have been propagandized for too long by the left/right Republican/Democrat paradigm. Framing the debate this way has kept us from focusing on real issues. It has prevented us from seeing the transfer of wealth to an elite ultra rich class that has been happening for decades. It has kept us from understanding the true nature of the societal change the elite want to foist upon us with their collectivist agenda. They seem to want all the wealth for themselves. They seem to want you dependent and indebted to them. They seem to want to own everything, including all of humanity. That is the nature of collectivist ideologies.

The elites of the world have been using their political pawns to take our wealth and use it against our best interests. They have used it to corral us into a system that was destined to break down. They created the financial system so that they would end up with all the real wealth and now they look for scapegoats for the populace to focus on. They don’t want the public eye on them and their incredible wealth as the rest of the world is impoverished. They want to maintain their control of the system. That’s what their collectivist system is really about, making sure they have all wealth and can dictate where and how the money flows. An individualist system, on the other hand, puts wealth into the hands of those who earn it and lets them determine who is the most deserving and where the money is best spent.

A Democrat can be a tea partier too. The Tea Party, as it were, was originally set up to protest the actions of the state. Like the original Boston Tea Party, the modern day version was supposed to be about saying “No” to those in power. It was about telling the big government of the day that enough was enough, that we weren’t going to take it anymore. The British government responded with violent force, and the people defended themselves. Hopefully, it does not come to such extremes in these times. Hopefully, the politicians stop thinking they can keep doing what they’ve been doing, keep growing the government, keep making pretty speeches but taking no positive actions, keep breaking their word and their oaths.

Politicians everywhere, Democrats and Republicans alike, Independents and Libertarians, left, right and center, need to adhere to the law of the land. They need to serve the interests of the people instead of the powerful elite class they presently serve. It’s time for them to take action rather than making slick speeches full of promises they can’t keep. Stop these occupations we can no longer afford. Repeal the laws that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Investigate the fraud of the recent bailouts. Do a full and complete audit of the Federal Reserve. Audit the gold in the treasury. Recover the wealth of the middle class. Shrink the over bloated federal bureaucracy. These are the issues that must be dealt with. They are the issues which affect us all and our way of life. Words and promises are no longer enough.

Free market economics might not be perfect, but they’ve proven to be the best system we’ve found for bringing prosperity to the majority of people. The politicians of this country have been slowly shutting it down for a very long time now, likely exercising the wishes of the ultra rich special interests that seem to own them. They’ve even gone as far as demonizing and blaming the very system that made us prosperous in the first place and removing restrictions that were actually working to keep the ultra rich corporations in check. Genuine Tea Partiers and other liberty activists should want to see these policies halted. They should want to see the fraud stopped. They should want to see freedoms restored and respected. They should want to see independence restored to the populace. That should be the spirit of the Tea Party, the spirit we as Americans need to rediscover in our hearts and souls, no matter what other party we might be affiliated with.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled “The Ouijiers” by Matthew Wayne.

Deadline Live – October 22 2010

October 23, 2010 by  
Filed under Archive

Jack Blood’s commentary on the news & topics of the day in the first hour.

Hour 2 welcomes activist, writer and journalist Joshua Blakeney to Deadline LIVE.

Deadline Live – October 21 2010

October 22, 2010 by  
Filed under Archive

Jack Blood’s commentary on the news & topics of the day as well as your calls for the entire show.

Next Page »