May 1, 2024

Science is vastly more complex than nonscientists realize, as they try to compete with scientists by guessing. But even more out of view is what science is in terms of how it is produced, what it means and how it is used.

The reason why it matters is because know-nothings have replaced real science in the public domain, as if nonsensical whims were as good as real science. "On par with coal" and "carbon free" tell the public all they need to know in contempt for the real science of the subject.

A starting point on science is to understand the difference between superficialities and basic knowledge. Journalists do not go below the level of superficialities. Without the basics, superficialities have no meaning. Everyone can get different interpretations of superficialities with no resolution of who is right or wrong.

Basic realities define a subject, because they determine everything related to the subject. They explain cause-and-effect relationships. Drawing correct conclusions is impossible without knowing cause-and-effect relationships.

That means nonscientists or the know-nothings who have hijacked science have no business saying one word on the subject, until they explain the basic realities. They don't have a clue. So why are they the definers of the modern, high technology society?

Scientists design the engineering. Engineers do no more than take instructions, because engineering is superficial, while science is basic. That means scientists understand why technology does what it does; they don't just replicate someone else's claims.

Another thing it means is that real science is too abstract and complex for the incompetent power mongers who try to take over all sources of power including science. Only a minority of the claimed scientists are real scientists; and the incompetent corrupters who claim to be scientists out-number them.

Should consensus then be a head-count? It will always produce fraud, if it is. That problem is true of consensus everywhere, not just science. To count heads is diabolically opposed to deriving basic realities which are immune to the subjectivity of personal opinions.

Basic realities only exist when aligned upon the objective realities of the universe that define life and solutions to problems. That means personal subjectivity is meticulously removed from real science. And the corollary is that there is no such thing as strictly-speaking proof, because corrupters do not accept the obvious as fact and couldn't understand what it is if they tried to.

Therefore, scientists study evidence, which is unending and infinite. In doing that, no one imposes realities onto them. To impose realities is to end the process of science. What then is fact checking science besides ignorant frauds combatting the scientific process?