Science is about as misunderstood as any idea can be. For example, most people today cannot even distinguish science from non-science, and this is no accident.
Science tends to distribute power more widely among us, and thus those who already have power are the natural enemies of science. Science also tends to cause change, and thus those who fear change are also the natural enemies of science. Therefore, those with power, such as Lenin, have found natural allies in those “useful idiots” who fear change.
Useful idiots don’t know with whom they are allied, and they often think they are working against those with power! Lenin was quite accurate to think of them as useful idiots.
Those with power want us to believe that the work of an individual is the most scientific if he has the most degrees, the most awards, the most publications, the most advanced tools, the most fame, the most followers, the most agreement by other so-called scientists, and most importantly—because the media say so. These are all variations of the same logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.
However, we don’t need their authority to tell us what to think. We can think for ourselves.
Science is simple to define.
Science is the creation and testing of falsifiable theories. Everyone must always be free to create, question, and test any theory. No theory is ever final.
However, science is very difficult to implement without error, such as the error that could result from the scientists’ personal biases or other fears.
It is easy to perform tasks that look like science, but to implement the simple sounding process of science without error is almost impossible without an instinct for integrity, responsibility, curiosity, courage, tolerance, independent thought, honesty, peace, nobility, and progress. Therefore, a few thousand years ago, science became possible with the evolution of the Soul of Humanity; whereas, appeals to authority are the product of genes that preceded human human evolution—the Soul of Animals—conformism, tribalism, and dominance hierarchy.
Falsifiability is the delineation between science and non-science, and thus if a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not a scientific theory. All tests are attempts to falsify the theory.
Falsifiability means it is possible to perform a test where a given result would prove the theory wrong. For example, a theory claiming “everything that happens is the will of a supreme being” is not a falsifiable theory, and thus it is not a scientific theory. Whereas, a theory claiming “the sky turned green and the grass turned blue while we were sleeping” can be falsified the next morning, and is thus a scientific theory.
Imagine trying to falsify the theory that everything is the will of a supreme being. Whatever happens, advocates of the theory could claim was the will of that supreme being. Likewise, the existence of the supreme being is not falsifiable. Nor is the supremacy of that supreme being.
In fact, anyone could posit the non-scientific theory that everything is his will, and no one could prove otherwise. Even killing that person would not prove otherwise. For example, some assholes killed Jesus, but wasn’t that his will? Doesn’t he still exist? Whether you believe that or not, more than a billion people claim it is true, but that claim is not scientific.
Science makes elites and conformists uncomfortable because of egalitarianism. Just one test by one layman could falsify a theory that has been tested by thousands of scientists for hundreds of years.
Science also makes elites and conformists uncomfortable because of transparency. Everything about every test must be completely open to review—forever. How else could we know it was truly scientific? Likewise, no question is off limits—by anyone—ever.
Science is hard for elites and conformists to use to justify extremism because of open mindedness. A scientific theory is always open to the possibility of new methods of falsification, and thus nothing is ever final. Also, we can never truly know if the scientific process for a theory is complete because we can never know whether we have considered all the variables. It would thus be difficult for elites and conformists to argue why everyone should support their extraordinary quests for totalitarianism, war, slavery, genocide, or Pyramids if they admitted that their theories might later be falsified.
Science is hard for elites and conformists to use because it requires logic. If a test violated logic, then that test would be invalid. Whereas, logical fallacies are the language of politicians and conformists.
Science is hard for elites and conformists to use because it has authority independently of elites or of the majority. It is very difficult to argue against a theory for which all known methods of falsification have been tested—even if all of the most power people and a large majority want to believe otherwise.
Of course, because of the natural authority generated by real science, elites and conformists always claim that real science supports their agenda, and that their agenda is thus in sync with reality.
For us to be confident that a scientific theory reliably explains reality, or that an agenda is based on a completely tested scientific theory, someone must communicate that to us. Therefore, processes are necessary to reliably communicate scientific results. Such processes include gathering reports from multiple, diverse, independent, objective sources. Gathering the identity and history of sources, and knowing their conflicts of interest.
Red flags to look for are substitutions for the scientific process. For example, “majority” and “consensus” are never the purpose of testing. Likewise, to claim that the science is “settled” can never be 100% true. Words like “majority”, “consensus”, and “settled” are almost always used as bully tactics to shut down debate.
A big red flag is avoidance of falsification. If a theory has been falsified, then it is wrong. A falsified theory is wrong even if the majority of scientists, the media, and politicians still believe it.
Falsification is a taboo word in a corrupted media because a layman can usually falsify most theories. For example, even a 2 year old child could falsify the theory that the grass turned blue and the sky turned green.
Let’s use Global Warming as an example. When the media report on Global Warming, they never talk about falsification, and they often use the words “majority”, “consensus”, and “settled”. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than when the media report on Global Warming.
In fact, to avoid the falsifiability of Global Warming, the media and other believers started calling it “Climate Change”. Now believers can blame both heat waves and blizzards, or both droughts and floods, on their opponents because everything that happens is climate change, and thus “climate change” is no more falsifiable than the will of a supreme being.
Science is still evolving. Many processes have been developed to make science more efficient and more reliable. For example, peer review usually reduces the probability of a mistake by a single scientist. Likewise, for a given test, reproducible results by other scientists greatly reduces the possibility of a mistake by a single scientist. Double blind studies help to eliminate the possible contamination of results by biases.
Science is neither the only process, nor an infallible process. It is merely the most reliable process we have discovered. No other process comes close.