UFOs, Cars & Everything – How Science is Corruptively Used Daily - Part Three
Note to the reader, there are two other parts previous to this article.
Now I said evolution can’t be proven conclusively using science alone because it’s a hot button issue. It grabs people’s attention. But other subjects are identical. For instance global warming. I often wonder about the bias of the people claiming it’s manmade. There are some very big points that stand in opposition to it and that have yet to be answered- least as far as I can tell. I really want to ask my questions, make my arguments and review their experiments. I only ask for honesty. And until we all agree to be truthful and have a good airing out of all the facts, logic, arguments and opinions from experts, we shall never resolve this.
Yet so many accept global warming as truth without analyzing the claims. They are as scientific history claims the religious people of Galileo’s era were- blindly accepting what those in “authority” said as truth.
So when I bring up the question of evidence for global warming, I usually get told something along the lines of, “We proved it with computer models!”
“Oh really? Can I see the data and look at your algorithms?”
“No! Because you are a right wing extremist whacko that won’t believe our data and algorithms!”
Or, “It’s way above your head- Mr. Simpleton. You can’t understand if you tried. So you will just have to believe us Authorities because we know better than you.”
Wow, that Pope’s throne fits really well on you…
And this is exactly my point.
You claim global warming to be scientifically proven, but you won’t show me what experiment proves this, nor will you let me see the tools and data you are using to “prove” your experiments. Is this really a proof of truth?
I suspect you can’t really show your data, models and experiments to skeptics, because you are afraid your points will be proved incorrect. If you were truly confident in your findings, all these things would be publicly displayed for review and scrutiny. You can’t show all your data in the light of day, because your vaunted “scientific process” really uses things that can’t be scientifically proven to make your claims. You are scared to death to come out with your ideas and have them exposed to the scorching daylight of logical critique, reason and philosophy.
Because then you would need to admit that you used means other than science to prove your point.
And then your point would no longer be scientifically proven.
You would have to admit that your hypothesis can’t be proved by the seven step scientific process. You must appeal to mathematics and logic and reason in order to tell if you are correct. In short, you are crystal ball gazing into the future based on what you feel you know now.
And that is not science.
It can be logic, reason and math however.
And you are afraid somebody will find a real problem with your thinking, your logic or your math.
Could that fear be because you might lose funding for your project?
Could that fear be because you would no longer be considered “an authority” on global warming?
Could that fear be because your background gives you incredible bias?
Could it be that maybe you have a score to settle with somebody, just like the Pope did with Galileo and Galileo with the Pope?
Could it be that your ego overrules your thoughts and is causing you to violently rebel against those that have real evidence to present for your considerations?
Welcome to the same throne that the Pope sat upon in Galileo’s time…
The same can be said for evolution.
How can you possibly prove evolution is true experimentally? How could you possibly experiment with something that happen billions to millions of years ago? How can you experimentally prove something that would take millions of years in the future to verify?
You can’t.
You must enter the word of the Philosopher and the “religious nuts” in order to prove your points. And I think it is because there are excellent rebuttals to your “scientifically proven theory,” that you won’t go there. It’s so much easier to magically wave your hands and proclaim “Unscientific Pseudo-Science!” Just as the Pope did to Galileo.
I suggest the reason is quite often personal bias. (Or personal gain.)
Bias, because if there is no God and this whole mess just kind of happen, then nobody sits in judgement of you at the end.
You can do whatever you want, kill, maim, torture, rape, lie, cheat, steal, torture puppies and kittens and otherwise cause no end of agony to your fellow man and creature- and it makes no difference. That assumes of course that you claim the authority to do these things and that no higher authority exists than your fellow man. Evolution lets every Scientist sleep well at night, safe from accounting for their actions to an enquiring God at the end of their life.
If you do indeed claim there is no higher power than man, well please do pull up a chair beside Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Oh and Genghis Khan, Emperor Chin, Caligula and nearly any other rascal you may come up with will be at the table with you. So long as no other humans can or will stop you -or they are too weak to stop you- you have full authority to do as your every whim dictates.
By the way, Dr. Joseph Mangala is waiting to talk with you on line one…
Now to tie all this mess together with UFOs, Cars & Everything.
If you are a human, then you must be willing to admit there are subjects that cannot be scientifically proven. I gave you examples previously, but here are a few more.
What is the scientifically repeatable experiment for taste in clothing? How about music?
Can you scientifically prove the feeling of love? Can your experiment prove your love of pizza, your spouse and your dog? What about those terrible albums you have from when you were a teen? Can you prove why you loved them using science- and why you are ashamed of some of them now? What about irrational hatred? By what experimental process is that proved?
Can you prove that you are real, using only evidence obtained in experimentally verifiable ways? Ways that I can test upon you to prove you are real?
Or do all those things take an appeal to logic and reason and faith- all things claimed to be “unscientific.”
Can you prove that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all murderers down throughout time are guilty using just science?
I have been really tough on those claiming to be Scientist or believing in science as the single source of truth. This is because the reason most people seek truth only by scientifically proven means is that they fear other truths, truths that can’t be known or proved by science. They are using science as a crutch, as an ointment, as an opiate- to protect them from the knowledge that plagues us all.
We all have guilt.
Guilt is called sin by the Judeo-Christian construct of God. I am sure Islam has a similar word, if not the same word. But whatever you call it, it is that feeling that you have made mistakes. Mistakes that you wanted to make, because they felt good or they were fun or “liberating.” At fifty, I look back over my life and say, “Wow… that’s a lot of mistakes.” And I know for a fact that if you will but admit it, you can say the same thing- even at 18 or younger.
But our nature is one that rebels against ANY form of judgement, any form of control, save from those we admire and long to be like. We all want to be God. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam, they were gods. They were one of the few people on this Earth lifted as close to Godhood as man can ever get- and look what a mess they made.
And since none of the rest of man can say, “I am god” and get away with it in any meaningful way, we are left to embrace systems that can’t be used to prove there is a God over us- letting us rest easy at night. Science is chief among these systems. I ask that you truly examine your heart and see if your dedication to the scientific method as the only source of truth has more to do with avoiding the unpleasant truths you fear you may be forced to recognize, than it does in truly discovering truth. Are you not guilty of ignoring other system that prove out other parts of reality- because you are afraid of where that leads?
At the very least, I appeal to your god, that being Science, to keep an open mind whilst I soon enter the truly weird and strange part of this article. (Many no doubt say I have already!) Science can only consider ideas that can be experimentally proven. But Scientist claim to seek the truth. Well truth is more than what the god called Science can prove.
And this is our great and tragic problem today. We will not appeal to anything outside of what we call “Science” in our search for truth. Science can only prove a very small, well defined part of reality. For the rest, reason, logic and yes, even experience must be turned to.
I ask that you stop claiming the god of Science as the ultimate authority. For just like the Pope, the god of Science can only testify as an expert in what it knows- and it actually knows very little. So back to my authority argument; you are appealing to an authority figure, that being science, that actually knows nothing of whence you claim it speaks. You are then committing an error we Philosophers and “religious nuts” call a “logical fallacy.” That fallacy is making an appeal that your point has experts backing it, when those experts know little about the subject of your appeal. It is like asking the Pope for the medical cure for cancer. He is most certainly the Pope and a huge authority on many things- but he knows next to nothing about cancer.
Making an appeal to the authority of Science is similar. Science is only an authority in things that follow the seven step experimental process. On all else, it is a silent.
Science cannot tell you about anything you can’t experiment upon in a controlled, repetitive way. For some things, you would need God like powers to prove them experimentally.
Ah, but you can use reason, you can use logic, you can use math and you can use experience- along with the scientific process, to know many, many things. Each of these disciplines has their place in grasping the reality of reality.
I ask you to boldly examine reality now with all of these tools and to stop hiding behind science and claiming it is the only “true means” of investigation of truth and reality. For in truth, you can only truly say that science proves water will boil at a certain temperature, under a certain amount of heat, under a certain amount of atmosphere. I truly ask you, what is the worth of that alone? Is that the truth a human heart can believe in? I certainly hope not.
Lastly, science itself in underpinned by faith. When you conduct the test I mentioned in my previous article that ensures the substance you produced is really synthetic cortisone medicine -and not a poison- you never expect the laws of physics and chemistry to change. Therefore, if the test shows what you have is not cortisone- you know something else went wrong. You have faith that the point at which cortisone dissolves in solution is always the same, it does not change. These are fixed points with which you MUST believe in. Otherwise, how could you ever be sure it was cortisone that was produced? Faith is not an evil, misguided thing then. Misplaced faith is a terrible thing, but faith itself is absolutely needed and practiced by every living thing on the face of the earth, every second of their existence.
And you, the Scientist, practice faith every single day, every single second of your life.
You set your alarm last night in the faith that your alarm would awaken you the next morning. You have faith that the alarm will go off at the appointed time- otherwise, why would you set it in the first place? And if for some reason it does not go off- you are most irritated at your misplaced faith.
You practice faith too in that you know there will be a morning tomorrow and that you will need to rise on time to go to work.
And when you start your car, wait for you bus, call your cab or board your train, you have faith that all of these devices and people and systems will do what you faithfully believe they will. Otherwise, why would you try to use them in the first place?
And why do you go to work and labor for an entire two weeks at your job? Do you not have faith that your employer will pay you? Of course you do- or you would be looking for another job!
So why claim that those who use other forms of investigation are somehow wrong because what they investigate can’t be proven scientifically? Mathematics is one example of another tool the Philosopher uses to prove truth. You don’t look down upon a Mathematician do you? Of course not. Some of the greatest discovers in history -including the heliocentric nature of our solar system- were made by a Mathematician.
Do you doubt the ability of your favorite Violinist to make amazing music from a Stradivarius violin? The Violinist uses practiced strokes to make their beautiful music. They have proved to themselves through experience that if they hold their violin a certain way, place their bow in a certain manner, then the violin will respond with the perfect tone they are searching for. They have faith, proved through practice, to know that when they perform a certain action upon their violin, the violin will respond with a sound they are trying to produce. They trust this to be so and by that trust can reliably predict the future. Faith is a component of music and allows the Violinist to control the future.
And when you put your money into a 401K or other retirement fund, are you not practicing faith? Indeed you are. You have seen the numbers and the math and you faithfully make your contribution every paycheck. Why? Because eventually, you will be too old to work, but you will still need to take care of yourself. You see the younger generation behind you and feel you certainly can’t depend upon them! Further, you feel there is a strong chance that your children are just as likely to imprison you in a “rest home” as not. You can’t depend upon them to take care of you when you are too old to take care of yourself. (And you don’t want to anyway.) You don’t want your end game to be in anyone’s hands save your own. Plus, it would be nice to leave some money for your kids when you pass to help them out. So you have faith that there is a strong chance you will make it to retirement- and you want to be ready.
Indeed, every living thing on the face of the Earth can say they practice faith- including the Scientist that claims those who have faith are “unscientific.”
So as I close that argument and move on to the next, I have faith that at least some of you will understand that faith is not an inherently bad or wrong thing. Misplaced faith is indeed a terrible thing, but that faith in and of itself is not personal or subject to interpretation. The same process that someone has used to prove their faith in a particular thing can be verified with the tools of a Philosopher.
And I hope you will all admit that we as humans need to be pursuers of truth. We need to use all the tools of truth in order to know that which we can believe in and have faith in. I have faith that water boils at a given temperature and pressure because I use it each morning to make my coffee. I don’t think I have ever actually verified the exact temp and pressure that water boils at. I simply know through experience and have built a faith from that experience, that with a certain amount of time on the stove at a certain setting, I KNOW water will boil. I practice experiential faith- and so do the rest of you.
That requires us all to admit there are some uncomfortable things that many of us would prefer to ignore.
Things like, “What happens to ME when I die?”
Things like, “Is there a God or Gods?”
Things like, “Will I be judged for my actions on the Earth and towards my fellow man?”
These questions are all easily ignored if you claim Science as your god. But as I have hopefully proved, science is merely a tool for discovery of reality- one of many.
Let us then not reject things out of hand as not real or open to interpretations or simply a truth that is true only for you, not me. As we have seen, even the truth that there is no truth is a universal TRUTH. That truth then proves out that universal truth does indeed exist and that it is true for all people everywhere, regardless of their language, culture, point in history, eye color, religion or any other thing you can point to.
Water boils the same in Beijing as it does in Boston.
So with that, I now bring closure with the radical ideal that UFOs, aliens, etc. might not be from another world, another galaxy, another time, another universe.
Instead, I would like to propose for your review that they might be enemies of man, in fact quite ancient enemies of man. Enemies that stand against the universe and are at odds with the conclusions that there is more here to be seen and understood than can be examined with instruments and science. Things that place us squarely in the realm of the Twilight Zone, complete with Rod Sterling addressing us in that iconic voice of his.
“Submitted for your approval, the idea that there are beings who exist in vastly different states from us. They live in a world that partly touches ours, yet is composed of realms mankind has yet to develop the tools needed to explore. They are what all the world’s faiths call evil. We examine now the possibility of their existence and their manifestations; specifically, how they might use deception to mislead man from the most important investigations of his brief span upon this Earth. That being, is there a God? Welcome to the reality that is often shunned by many for fear of its conclusions, but that you should now investigate. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.”
With that said, I should like to introduce you to a person by the name of Guy Malone.
Mr. Malone has done some interesting research. To be fair, I need to tell you that Mr. Malone is a Christian in the traditional sense of the word. He believes that the God of the Jews became a real man, visited this Earth and was killed. He believes that this man, the man called Christ, was, is and will be the manifestation of this Universe’s creator. This man, called Christ, is the way this creator of this Cosmos has chosen to reveal himself to mankind.
And Mr. Malone makes some very interesting points about UFOs and aliens. Further, that if there is a God, this God has some obvious enemies. Enemies that would dearly like mankind to join them in their rebellion. Weather we should side with those that defy this God or with the God that defies them is the question at hand.
These enemies, as Mr. Malone will state, won’t come out and reveal themselves and their intentions for fear of outright rejection by man. Instead they will, according to Mr. Malone, use deception. They will lie about their true nature, their true goals and where following them will lead us to, both as individuals and as a race.
His points cannot be proven scientifically, but I ask the reader to at least hear his points and to resist what the Pope Urban the 8th was claimed to have done. That being utter dismissal before really hearing the evidence, because the Pope felt he was an authority on such matters. Further, that the idea of a heliocentric solar system was somehow a hearsay- even though the authority of the Bible says nothing to prevent a heliocentric solar system.
I ask you to use all the tools of truth in analysis of Mr. Malone’s arguments. All the tools. Tools like science, logic, reason, argument, imagination. All the tools employed by a Philosopher. For man is, indeed all men are, Philosophers. We all have belief systems. Systems used to determine reality. And that reality exists outside of us, outside our beliefs and outside our bias. I know that you indeed believe this, for I know that you are not arrogant enough to think the universe depends upon you for its existence. You KNOW that if you died today, the rest of us would still be here tomorrow. This is because we live in a reality that is not dependent upon your view of it. And that’s an ultimate and universal truth without argument.
Therefore, you do recognize that there is a truth and a reality that does not depend upon you- and that this reality could be deeper, stranger and more dangerous than our minds can imagine.
I ask that unless you wish to sit upon the throne of the Pope, wear his robes and be as guilty as he supposedly was of ignoring truth, that you would at least give Mr. Malone’s arguments a fair hearing and that you would examine his evidence in intellectual honesty.
Link to Mr. Malone and his site, as well as his other materials is below.