November 14, 2024

There are right ways and wrong ways to produce science and convey it to the public. It couldn't be worse in creating social problems.

The public including journalists don't have a clue what science is. The result is a disaster. It allows incompetents in science to promote fraud, because fraud is needed to monger power.

Nonscientists have no way to know the difference. For that reason, the method of proceeding is everything. There are right ways to get proper results, which means truth produced through rationality. Rationality is a process that looks vastly different from fraud.

One difference is that frauds depend upon corrupt authority that promotes by decree. Another difference is that no explanations are produced by frauds. Nothing is valid, inside or outside science, without explanations. Explanations allow people to decide for themselves.

The only constructive social standard is to find out what critics have to say, even when they are wrong. It's important to know what errors are. Instead, no criticism is allowed.

Scientists need to explain the issues for the public. All real scientists can explain any element of science in terms the public can understand; but not the frauds. The fact that the public gets no explanation of the science on any subject shows that the social order has been overwhelmed by frauds.

The public doesn't know whose version we are supposed to listen to. It's an erroneous question. The science will determine quite easily whose version is correct if allowed to do so. The truth bowls over incompetent fraud extremely easily when allowed to do so. But it isn't being allowed, because frauds prevailed in railroading society.

What the public doesn't understand is that there are endless versions of fraud science based on invalid scientific methods. Sometimes the assumption seems to be that all versions of science are up for grabs and only the prevailing political forces decide which to promote. That problem would end with proper science explained to the public.

The general process has been to have authority figures proclaim the truth. That methodology will always result in fraud, because no honest persons would go down the authoritarian path and authoritarians know nothing of the complexities of science.

The result is that trash procedures were used to show any result that is desired by the frauds, while the public sees nothing else, because nothing else is allowed.

Here's an argumentative issue that shows why real science is needed. When a dentist thought he noticed fewer cavities where there was a lot of fluoride in the water, he might have had the best of intentions; but he was in no position to say so without proper science.

People assume doctors and dentists are scientists; but they are nothing resembling scientists. The public assumes they are close enough to scientists, because they study something in that area for eight years. That assumption shows the nature of the problem.

Undergrads are handed their material; they do not determine its origins or validity. After getting a B.S. degree, medical doctors and scientists move in opposite directions and end up on vastly different planets. Medical doctors continue to be handed their material and taught not to deviate from it, or it will be malpractice. Scientists question everything, or they are not scientist.

Scientists in graduate school educate themselves from published scientific literature. They study procedures, not conclusions. Science is a lot of procedures and the evidence they produce, not a bunch of conclusions. The quality and informativeness of each procedure must be thoroughly understood in science. So scientists are rudimentary engineers and technologists designing and evaluating procedures that will provide evidence.

Then there is an extreme amount of complex detail that has occurred over 500 years of science, which the public is not aware. Even doctors and dentists are unaware of that information, because they are busy practicing an art; and it takes a lot of time to study the details of science.

There has never been real science applied to the fluoride question. As early studies showed the opposite of desired results, they were discontinued before drawing conclusions. Then propagandists proclaimed a science to exist for the subject, when it never did exist. But since that history is not provable, the point here is the need for proper science. Where is it? Why is it not evident to everyone? Even obscurity of the science would be a fraud, regardless of its quality.

What the unarguable science shows is the chemistry of fluoride. Fluoride is used to etch glass. That means it softens hard substances, not hardens them. Fakes said there is fluoride in some hard minerals. Almost anything can be a contaminate in complex minerals, which says nothing. Geological minerals were shaped more by physical forces deep underground than by chemistry.

Teeth have soft areas near the root where growth occurs and hard areas where enamel occurs. Those materials are made of calcium compounds with the hardest being calcium phosphate. All of the atoms in those structures of teeth make two bonds, which ties them together into a hard group of atoms. But fluoride can only form one bond. That means it breaks the links. So there is no proper chemical basis for assuming fluoride would do anything but soften teeth. And sure enough, it rots the enamel of teeth—the hardest part of teeth. But that result is said to be "cosmetic." How could it be hardening the soft areas where the decay occurs, when the hard enamel is rotting, cosmetic or not?

Then there is the quantitative fraud that says, sure a lot of fluoride will do bad things including damaging kids brains, but a small amount doesn't. A small amount will do the same thing to a smaller extent. How much damage is the right amount? And how is the right amount determined, when fluoride is in a array of products which have undetermined exposure to various persons? Rationalizing that absurdity is not how to protect health.

The public has been convinced that nothing has changed in climate until humans influenced the result. There is an ice age that occurs every 100 thousand years. That is such a short duration that an ice age is continually being formed or dying down. Temperatures in the oceans increase 5-6°C; and then sea levels drop 400 feet, as the ice sheet forms.

Solar intensities often change, which resulted in a "Medieval Warm Period" that occurred between 950 and 1250 AD. Then a "little Ice age" occurred between 1300 and 1850 AD. When the public doesn't know that, they need to be getting explanations from the scientists who do.

Scientists need to explain science for the public. Explaining science is not the same thing as authorities proclaiming. Explaining allows people to decide for themselves.

But supposedly, scientists are forever in the news telling us something. That's not how science truth is produced. That's one-way communication with no criticism allowed; and those persons can't spell science. They are the flunkies who took over everything to monger power. The difference is visible in their method of communicating. They explain nothing. Just trust us, is the methodology of frauds.