There is a breakdown of rationality in society due to an absence of accountability and an understanding of what accountability is and an assumed necessity of it. Absence of accountability is darkness. Deciders who do everything in the dark cannot see where they are going. It takes feedback information to see what relevant realities are.

The significance of accountability is clarified in its opposite, which is, "just trust us." The purpose of accountability is to go beyond trusting someone else to determine what reality is. Who is so worthy of universal trust that accountability is not needed? Even if there were such persons, everyone else is reduced to nonfunctionality with the "trust us" ethic. In other words, accountability is needed not only for reliability but for functionality.

Examples are needed. Science has the purpose of determining the difference between erroneous assumptions and reliable fact. Reliability requires verification. It all occurs under the umbrella of accountability.

A few years ago, promoters of global warming tried to argue the science of the subject. They failed so miserably that they seldom go beyond the belief system of claiming scientists know what they are doing. The bottom line is that 97% of the related scientists supposedly agree. Where is the verification or accountability?

Several years ago, some recognized scientific fraud showed up in the media. So Congressman Dingell said his committee would conduct a hearing on it. The scientists held a meeting and decided the government would stay out of it, while scientists police themselves. That was the end of Dingell's hearing. It's a truism that power structures which police themselves devolve into criminal activities. Science has been doing just that.

What then is the belief system worth which says 97% of scientists agree upon global warming? It was a so-called peer reviewed scientific publication which produced the 97% figure. The author went through hundreds of publications and decided which represented the claimed belief. Since scientists never take such subjective positions, and are not allowed to in research publications, the author had to make a subjective judgment in claiming which of them believed something.

But the worst fraud of the publication was the assumption that scientific opinion was being represented, while all scientists are required to adhere to the beliefs of the grant providers (usually government bureaucrats) and publishers including anonymous reviewers (read status quo adherents). Those who do not submit do not get grants and are not allowed to publish. This means the domain of the study consisted of scientists who were willing to accept the belief system. Why then would not all 100% of them be placed in the category of believers? Generally, minor exceptions are allowed for maintaining the image of being fair, and the reviewer carried the concept into his propaganda result. The charlatans of old never had it so good.

For such reasons, rational persons demand accountability in all objective reality. The alternative is the reduction of persons to mindless robots under the control of unquestionable gods who derive reality from a gnostic pit, invisible and unfathomable due to maligned motives in conflict with objective reality. This state was the rule rather than the exception throughout human history until modern times. It re-emerged in its extreme form through Nazism.

It was largely science which changed the standard to the reliable determination of objective reality. Such science is largely gone, as society sinks back into the ancient habit of charlatans dominating and controlling the masses.

Science was the most completely developed form of rationality as the alternative to subjective domination. What applies to science applies to all rationality. People everywhere require the same openness and accountability to determine the reliability of objective reality. There must be a description of evidence which can be evaluated before there can be reliability to any statement.

Rationality requires that every claim must include enough explanation for listeners to draw their own conclusions. Rationality is a process, not an opinion. It is the process which determines what objective reality is by relating one reality to another for comparison to determine consistent relationships and absence of contradictions. All realities must consistently relate to each other where there is objective reality. All contradictions must be resolved to maintain objective reality.

Explanations in rationality serve the same purpose as measured evidence in science. Explanations are the related realities which characterize and show evidence. An absence of explanations with claims is becoming so prevalent that communications are reducing to propaganda wars between opposing sides with no ability to resolve the conflicts.

Explanations as evidence allow people to decide for themselves the worth and reliability of claims. If people cannot decide for themselves, they will invariably be led astray by frauds.

"Trust us" isn't just a question of being right, it's a question of usability. How can anything be done with reality if someone else determines what it means? The purpose of saying trust us is to incapacitate to remove competition for reality control as well as block opposition.

Very closely related is the meaning of democracy. Corrupters attempt to reduce democracy to nothing but voting. What are people voting for without involvement in the process? Democracy has the purpose of giving people control over their lives. A lot more than trusting someone is required to accomplish it.

To Home Page