The Separation of Science and State

We have heard the saying the separation of church and state. But have we ever heard the saying the separation of science and state?

by Quinton Figueroa on February 7th, 2016

The New Scientifc Method

If you look at most science these days you will find that it is almost entirely funded and controlled by the government -- the same way religion was controlled by the government in the past. Science is the new religion because it is the current religion pushed by the state.

The goal of the government is to control people. It isn't to protect people, it isn't to make our lives better, it isn't to do any of the BS they feed the . The goal of the government is to grow in size and further control the people. And in order to do this they need some type of way to control the minds of people. And the best way to control people is through fear.

"...it's not scientific to base something on what "scientists" believe"

In the past governments would tell people they would go to Hell if they didn't follow orders. Religion and governments would work very closely and they ruled the ignorant people through fear of Hell and punishment of not following orders.

Today we have a similar thing going on except rather than Hell as the control mechanism we have scientific fears like global warming. We are told that if we don't let the state do something about these scientific problems then we could face mass extinction.

So science is not scientific because the government controls it. We don't actually practice science anymore. We're not scientific. When something is scientific it isn't because they actually followed the scientific method, it is because a consensus of "scientists" all agreed on something. Sounds like religion to me.

Statements like "97% of scientists agree on global warming" are not scientific. For one, 97% of scientists do not agree on global warming. But even more importantly, it's not scientific to base something on what "scientists" believe. That's called religion.

In science you give the data, show the models used, show the results, and take in objective data and results from all forms of experimentation and scientists. In science you -- get this -- follow the scientific method. But of course we don't do that any more. We follow the religious method.

"State scientists are not scientists -- they're salespeople for their master: the state"

The Earth is rising in temperature and all the glaciers are going to melt and we're all going to be covered in water! Oh, planets outside of Earth are also experiencing global warming and it's all based around the sun? We have negligible global warming? Then the climate is changing and that's bad! Oh, humans want the climate to change so it can be more inhabitable? But nuclear energy is dangerous! Watch out! Overpopulation is a problem! We need science to fix this. There's not enough food and water for people! Science tells us that you're all bad and you're all killing the planet! We need science to fix all the ails. But not the kind of science that researches. The kind of science that feeds a religious doctrine to the .

Let me put it very bluntly for you. State scientists are not scientists -- they're salespeople for their master: the state. State funded scientists don't have scientific research as their primary objective. State scientists don't do experiments, gather the data and then base their conclusions off the data. That would be far too scientific. Instead, state scientists (read: 99% of scientists) let the government tell them what their conclusions should be and then go and seek out data to support the governments conclusion.

The whole thing is an obvious unscientific mess but of course the absolutely love it and don't have any idea what is going on. So the next time you hear somebody tell you that something is scientific tell them that you stopped believing in religion a long time ago. Because as long as we have the government funding BS scientific research, and until we have a true separation of science and state, religion is all "science" really is.

 Filed under: Science, 97% of scientists are religious, Religion for atheists, Opinions > Facts, America's Brightest, Toddlers With Labcoats

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Facebook @slayerment YouTube

Los Angeles, CA

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...

More

12 Comments

Meon22416: I view the anti climate

I view the anti climate change stuff as a modern religion too.

Dan: "But even more importantly,

"But even more importantly, it's not scientific to base something on what "scientists" believe. That's called religion."

The problem is that the world is so complex that no one can be an expert in everything. There's a common attitude among people that says: "Consensus isn't science. Question everything. Examine the evidence for yourself and come to your own scientific conclusions." It sounds great in theory. We're taught from a young age to be skeptics and independent thinkers. The problem is that in order to interpret the data and come to your own conclusion about climate change you need to spend the next few decades studying climate science. Every day, all day. Even then you're still basing your knowledge on scientists that came before you.

And even if you do manage to become an expert in climate science, what about everything else? Medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, ecology, etc? If you lived a thousand life times you wouldn't come close to mastering all those fields.

The uncomfortable truth is sometimes you have to trust that the experts outside your own particular field of expertise know what they're talking about. You already do it every time you get on an airplane or take a pill your doctor prescribed you.

And finally, I have to point out the irony in creating a post that decries every major scientific body on earth as being unscientific without providing a shred of evidence to support your claims. Who are the real "sheep"? Are people "sheep" for believing The National Academy of the Sciences, NASA, the American Meteorological Society etc, etc, with their volumes of peer reviewed scientific literature to back up their claims? Maybe the real sheep are people who take the word of a guy on the internet with no scientific training who provides no evidence to support his accusations.

Quinton Figueroa: You don't need to be a

You don't need to be a scientist yourself, you just need to listen to scientists that actually are scientific. Scientists who work for the state are by far not scientific on the whole.

If I provide you evidence to support my claim will you be scientific in following the evidence of my claim? Or will you be religious and follow your own religion despite what the facts say?

Dan: Yes. If you provide evidence

Yes. If you provide evidence of a massive conspiracy in the scientific community I will consider it.

I understand you have a lot of mistrust for government funded science. But can we agree that ExxonMobil scientists are not funded by the government? Consider their stance on the issue:

"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."

Source: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate...

We're at a point where even oil companies with tens of billions of dollars at stake recognize the threat of climate change. Does that make you question your stance even a little? If it doesn't, how do you know that you are not following your own religion?

Quinton Figueroa: It's not a conspiracy, it's

It's not a conspiracy, it's basic economics.

Let's start with the most obvious problem of state science: coercion. State science is funded not through voluntary means like businesses in the free market, but through coercive, forced means via government taxation. People are forced via taxes to fund "scientific" research. These state "scientists" do not have the same incentives as people who do science outside of the government in the free market. If you're a bad scientist under the state you still collect your paycheck. In fact, because it is much harder to lose a state job than a private job the people who work under the state have less of an incentive to be scientific and to actually create something useful for humanity.

Would you not agree with this?

Dan: Also (and I don't mean any

Also (and I don't mean any offense here), I would question your ability to judge what is "scientific" and what is not. Take NASA for instance. NASA has landed men on the moon, landed a car-sized rover on mars, and sent probes 2.6 billion miles away out of our solar system. Do you really think that NASA scientists are not scientific? Don't you think they are better able than you to differentiate what is scientific and what is not? Fortunately we don't need to have this debate, because whatever it is that they are doing, it WORKS. The proof is self evident.

Quinton Figueroa: Scientists in the free market

Scientists in the free market are more productive than scientists in the government. This is why Space X is able to send rockets to space for waaaaay cheaper than NASA. Science works better outside of the state, which is my argument.

Quinton Figueroa: As for ExxonMobil:

As for ExxonMobil:

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. This is the most general, non-specific, non-scientific statement there is. I get that I'm sure they have lots more data and claims to back it up, but to base anything off of this particular statement, and then to even include a source as if that adds any weight, is completely and utterly unscientific.

"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action."

What risk? Define climate change. What makes the risk clear? Why does this warrant action? What action should be taken? By whom? What if action isn't taken? What is the cost/benefit of taking action?

"Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect."

How much of an effect? How is carbon bad? Are we better having less carbon and more people starving because they can't get food produced through carbon technology? How much of a warming effect? Is the warming effect isolated only to this planet? Is a warming effect a bad thing? Was this same warming effect predicted years ago? Is a warming effect and climate change the same thing? Why use the terms interchangeably?

"There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."

Consensus isn't science. Which consensus? What data was used for this consensus? What constitutes broad? What action must be taken? What if this action isn't taken? Have you been wrong in the past about predictions? What if you're wrong again? What data would prove the hypothesis false?

And on and on. No science whatsoever.

As for ExxonMobile being private... The banks run the large corporations like ExxonMobile just as the banks run the governments like the United States. Same thing really.

Dan: The quote from Exxon is just

The quote from Exxon is just statement of the company's position. It's not meant to explain to you how climate change works. I'm not using that statement as evidence that climate change is happening (There are thousands of peer reviewed papers that one could reference instead). I saw that you don't believe the findings of any scientist who receives federal funding, so I thought that you would be more inclined to believe scientists who work for a private corporation. If anyone has something to gain from climate change being a hoax it is the oil companies. Which might be why they spent millions of dollars lobbying congress to block efforts to fight climate change. But now, even they are recognizing it is a problem.

Most of your questions have very simple answers. Google "Greenhouse Effect" or read the IPCC report http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.

Quinton Figueroa: "Let's start with the most

"Let's start with the most obvious problem of state science: coercion. State science is funded not through voluntary means like businesses in the free market, but through coercive, forced means via government taxation. People are forced via taxes to fund "scientific" research. These state "scientists" do not have the same incentives as people who do science outside of the government in the free market. If you're a bad scientist under the state you still collect your paycheck. In fact, because it is much harder to lose a state job than a private job the people who work under the state have less of an incentive to be scientific and to actually create something useful for humanity."

Would you not agree with this?

Nam: Disinclination to your view

The problem isn't that state scientists are unscientific. You are talking about the disconnect between PR relations spokesman and scientists themselves. Scientists say one thing, the media blows up the study out of proportion to another thing. There is a statistical significance p>0.05 with x,y variable but under certain circumstances this relationship doesn't hold true doesn't mean x causes y. Furthermore, politics is never about evidence. It is about impact. People biologically are dependent on cues.. images of children, images of war, images of explosions, etc - not there is a 5 - 10% risk for a,b,c if d,e,f conditions occur - and for certain populations this may be better. People want answers. Not uncertainties or speculations or possible support/refutation. This is why the relative risks of bombing are judged more stronger than 1,000,000 + cases of cardiovascular/other diseases, etc.

Furthermore, scientists are forced to publish in a handful of limited avenues for research and are judged by # of publications, not the quality. A paywall is established, so science can't be peer-reviewed as easily, and you have to pay $$ to submit studies.

I have to disagree that the scientists in my university are ''unscientific''. If anything, they usually vehemently push to protect certain ecosystems or consider the impacts of genetic analysis kits on society or various sorts of other assortments of considerations that go through their mind. The winners are always the people with money and a political agenda.

Furthermore, scientists are biased to produce 'novel' results or interesting results. Not duplication studies for confirmation/otherwise because these don't generate 'profits'. These are the main contributing factors as to why state scientists aren't productive as privately funded scientists. However, privately funded scientists are incentivized to produce results.. so in the biomedical field, there can be some corruptibility for choosing lower or higher alpha values or 'suggestion' to get more funding. This is a problem of funding and non-immediate time-resolution results of scientific pursuit.

I don't agree with you that ecotox, ncbi, waterqualitydata, clinicaltrials.gov, pubmed and 95 other scientific databases that are publicly funded are 'unscientific' just because the government funded them. What I do believe however is that, political people always misrepresent/overstate the case. A vague and ambigious statement is preferable to a "24,593 sites contained 32% of X, when between 24-56% percentile of X, effects A are felt, but studies ... do not reconcile .. repeat" which no one with an IQ of 100 or below would really put into their decision making process because we don't value scientific literacy as a society, although R&D companies like NVIDA, samsung, japanese robotics do.

Paulo Kasparovitch: You're right indeed. French

You're right indeed. French Revolution, and American Independence, the cores of liberal ideals set forth by brilliant thinkers, forgot about the separation of Science and State. Like the revolutionary ideas of those thinkers weren't self-evident at their time, separation of Science and State isn't either at this time. People don't realize that the State give credit to some scientific theories and not others, making people believe they're correct, and also follow some purportedly scientific ideas and discard others for some reason only understandable from inside the State. Protecting alcoholic beverages, known to be neurotoxic, cardiotoxic, hepatotoxic, and carcinogenic, to name just a few, and prosecuting tobacco, a State business not challenged by information as they know (only electronic cigarrettes challenge it and we have State's opinion here already) is just one example in a sea of examples.

Add new comment