It's not enough to bash in heads, you have to bash in minds

Where have I heard this before?

Take a guess what the conspiracy is:

The experimental evidence does not agree with ______, and an elite knows it does not agree, but because its political they cover it up. Every now and again an experimental result might break through claiming a result that disagrees with ________. But what “they” (who want to cover-up) then do is go back and cover it up, claiming the experiment was done wrong.

The cover-up is just massive, and it is not just about ______, it extends to the rest of the sciences. Results that are deemed politically incorrect are covered up.

The same corruption is applied to experiments – if experiments could actually prove something they didn’t want us to know then they would be banned. Results they don’t want get rejected.

What we have is the Corruption of Science – science has become a political football.

experiments need to adjusted to conform to that assumption

Only the processed data is allowed out, while the raw data before they do the manipulation is suppressed.

If you guessed the great global warming conspiracy you guessed wrong. This is the Einstein conspiracy. Apparently Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong, but a cabal of physicists are pulling the wool over all our eyes and making sure that any data that doesn’t agree with the political theory of relativity never sees the light of day. Where have I heard that before?

All conspiracies really do sound the same!

h/t William Connolley

3 Responses to Where have I heard this before?

  1. A related but separate branch of science politicisation that nevertheless has an overlapping set: darwinism and arguments about whether punctuated equilibrium theory is `socialist’.

    I bring up that example because conspiracy-wise, it’s interesting: (a) there really are tricksy and complex things to say about the interaction of politics and science (in Gould’s case, I think, that people bashed him due to his implied politics, rather than him actually starting from the politics and building his theories…) (b) there really is a physical reality (c) there really are people who go completely AWOL from reality on this stuff, so it becomes very hard to talk about. And the most prominent people making academic careers out of it (e.g. Pielke Jr.) don’t really do themselves any favours (though I keep on meaning to actually read a book of his, since one of his favourite books is apparently also one of mine, J.C. Scott’s `seeing like a state’.)

Leave a Reply