How then can we know just what is true and what is false anymore? How are we supposed to trust even educators who perpetuate frauds as if they are established facts and allow curriculums that teach intentional misinformation and engineered lies? It can’t happen here? It certainly has been happening here for a very long time.
In 2012, R Grant Steen of Medical Communications Consultants, out of Chapel Hill, NC, pointed out that “Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing.”
So in fact, cases of scientific fraud are increasing not decreasing. Allegedly there were 8 times as many fraudulent presentations discovered and retracted in 2009 than in 2006. This means that as more of these frauds are being exposed (by other more honest scientists I might add), the greater the fervency to commit more seems to be occurring. In other words, some scientists are intentionally determined to do whatever is necessary to convince, shape, and engineer, public and professional opinion that they will even lie and misrepresent data.
In an article I read from the National Institute of Health, we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1):1). “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, informs us that “With depressing regularity, the media continue to uncover cases of scientific fraud...although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior as exceptional and deviant from accepted scientific standards—fraud is an inevitable component of today's research.”
So how many “finds” and “determinations” believed in today, are actually the result of some these spurious interpretations, fudged statistics, and/or doctored data? How many were drawn in by and made to see through the lens of Heackel’s lies? How many more have escaped notice and now plague the “convinced” modern mind? More than have been caught I assure you. Gannon states these people are not above disregarding, and not reporting, data that is contrary to their own alleged conclusions. How many or which ones can we or should we consider factual beyond a reasonable doubt?
In another article you will never find on “some Creationist website” titled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us, “One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself (see P. B. Medawar, 'Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). Martin tells us, “It presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis. The misrepresentation of the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method” (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986). So in effect, many scientists do not publish all the raw data…or report those procedures inappropriately done, this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data. This means that when this occurs the story you are being told (that the press goes crazy with), that textbooks may represent as established facts, are in fact hogwash…but yet we believe them all unquestionably as students.
Apparently this is becoming even more of a problem in our time. Fortunately those who do this do not represent the attitude and behavior of all scientists today, and many in fact are the very reason these frauds have been exposed but alas that does not excuse those who have pushed these ideas in the classrooms and though the Media. How many do we need to uncover before we can say it is with intent in many cases?
Take for example Richard Leaky’s “Heidelberg Man”, This was the one in the public school textbooks who’s image was made to look most like an ape. In reality it was nothing more than a racist fraud. The image in our texts was entirely intuited (imagined, made-up) and artistically contrived from a lower jawbone that was found in Hiedelburg, Germany, that had been deceitfully pieced together with two teeth and a leg bone found in Boxgrove, England (thus not even related), and then finally, to give it what these neo-Darwinain racists consider “more of a monkey look”, they added the skull bone of man found in Bodo, Ethiopia (see how subtly racist these intellectual totalitarians are? They intentionally use skull of an African man because they thought it looked ape-like.)! Leaky did this with full knowledge of his intentional deceit, but the pursuit of their agenda is not only relentless, but to them entirely justifiable.
Still today many textbooks speak highly of Heidelburg Man as an example of proof for Darwin’s theory. Have they no shame? No, it is not that! It is just that they know…that you do not know, and they have carefully guarded your finding out. The contrived images are an important part of their propaganda plan (one picture being worth 1,000 words, especially when imprinted over and over). IMO they utterly lack the intellectual integrity necessary to be considered real scientists, but yet Leaky and his team were revered as scientific heroes.
Many honest scientists at the time conceded the jawbone of Heidelburg Man to be quite human and well within the dimensional norm considered modern. All of the alleged and intuited topical characteristics (the hunched back, spinal curve, low forehead, thick lips, excessive hair, etc.), that had been impressed on generations of young inquiring minds, has been determined to be quite impossible to know! With Hiedelburg man, that which was actually human is labeled as ape-like because of an imported and unrelated Ethiopian skull which came from a man. These pieces from England didn’t even belong, yet for decades this was presented as a single find, and textbooks claimed this mix match of unrelated fossils a new sub-species called Homo-Heidelbergenesis. How deceitful….
Any thoughts?
Paul
In 2012, R Grant Steen of Medical Communications Consultants, out of Chapel Hill, NC, pointed out that “Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing.”
So in fact, cases of scientific fraud are increasing not decreasing. Allegedly there were 8 times as many fraudulent presentations discovered and retracted in 2009 than in 2006. This means that as more of these frauds are being exposed (by other more honest scientists I might add), the greater the fervency to commit more seems to be occurring. In other words, some scientists are intentionally determined to do whatever is necessary to convince, shape, and engineer, public and professional opinion that they will even lie and misrepresent data.
In an article I read from the National Institute of Health, we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1):1). “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, informs us that “With depressing regularity, the media continue to uncover cases of scientific fraud...although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior as exceptional and deviant from accepted scientific standards—fraud is an inevitable component of today's research.”
So how many “finds” and “determinations” believed in today, are actually the result of some these spurious interpretations, fudged statistics, and/or doctored data? How many were drawn in by and made to see through the lens of Heackel’s lies? How many more have escaped notice and now plague the “convinced” modern mind? More than have been caught I assure you. Gannon states these people are not above disregarding, and not reporting, data that is contrary to their own alleged conclusions. How many or which ones can we or should we consider factual beyond a reasonable doubt?
In another article you will never find on “some Creationist website” titled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us, “One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself (see P. B. Medawar, 'Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). Martin tells us, “It presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis. The misrepresentation of the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method” (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986). So in effect, many scientists do not publish all the raw data…or report those procedures inappropriately done, this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data. This means that when this occurs the story you are being told (that the press goes crazy with), that textbooks may represent as established facts, are in fact hogwash…but yet we believe them all unquestionably as students.
Apparently this is becoming even more of a problem in our time. Fortunately those who do this do not represent the attitude and behavior of all scientists today, and many in fact are the very reason these frauds have been exposed but alas that does not excuse those who have pushed these ideas in the classrooms and though the Media. How many do we need to uncover before we can say it is with intent in many cases?
Take for example Richard Leaky’s “Heidelberg Man”, This was the one in the public school textbooks who’s image was made to look most like an ape. In reality it was nothing more than a racist fraud. The image in our texts was entirely intuited (imagined, made-up) and artistically contrived from a lower jawbone that was found in Hiedelburg, Germany, that had been deceitfully pieced together with two teeth and a leg bone found in Boxgrove, England (thus not even related), and then finally, to give it what these neo-Darwinain racists consider “more of a monkey look”, they added the skull bone of man found in Bodo, Ethiopia (see how subtly racist these intellectual totalitarians are? They intentionally use skull of an African man because they thought it looked ape-like.)! Leaky did this with full knowledge of his intentional deceit, but the pursuit of their agenda is not only relentless, but to them entirely justifiable.
Still today many textbooks speak highly of Heidelburg Man as an example of proof for Darwin’s theory. Have they no shame? No, it is not that! It is just that they know…that you do not know, and they have carefully guarded your finding out. The contrived images are an important part of their propaganda plan (one picture being worth 1,000 words, especially when imprinted over and over). IMO they utterly lack the intellectual integrity necessary to be considered real scientists, but yet Leaky and his team were revered as scientific heroes.
Many honest scientists at the time conceded the jawbone of Heidelburg Man to be quite human and well within the dimensional norm considered modern. All of the alleged and intuited topical characteristics (the hunched back, spinal curve, low forehead, thick lips, excessive hair, etc.), that had been impressed on generations of young inquiring minds, has been determined to be quite impossible to know! With Hiedelburg man, that which was actually human is labeled as ape-like because of an imported and unrelated Ethiopian skull which came from a man. These pieces from England didn’t even belong, yet for decades this was presented as a single find, and textbooks claimed this mix match of unrelated fossils a new sub-species called Homo-Heidelbergenesis. How deceitful….
Any thoughts?
Paul
