No public relations effort in the 20th century has rivaled that of the CIA attacking critics of The Warren Report (1964) as “conspiracy theorists” in a memorandum of April 1967, implying that, unless those speaking out knew everything there was to know about what happened to JFK, they should not be taken seriously, which is, of course, completely absurd. The early critics of the government’s “official account” of the assassination, such as Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and David Lifton, among others, were observing that the narrative the public was given could not withstand critical scrutiny. That the critics are right and the reports are wrong has been characteristically distorted by assuming that what we are being told by the government must be true.
The CIA’s public relations campaign has now been extend to the mainstream press, which the agency long since targeted for infiltration through “Operation Mockingbird”, where, as early as 1975, its Director, William Colby, testified to Congress that “the agency owns everyone of significance in the media”. The alternative media did not exist at the time, but has emerged as a significant source of (what we ought to call ) “inconvenient truths” that the government wants to suppress, lest it should lose such credibility as it may retain in the eyes and ears of the public through virtually endless propaganda and disinformation via newspapers, magazines and especially television.
Conspiracy theorists have received a bad rap, which has extended to studies by psychologists and philosophers that suggest those who embrace “conspiracy theories” suffer from cognitive deficits, such as a need for closure or the incapacity to accept that sometimes minor causes (such as “a lone, demented gunman”) can bring about major effects (such as a change in the politics of the United States). Properly understood, however, “conspiracy theorists” turn out to be more intelligent and open-minded and less gullible than those who attack and ridicule them, which today includes most of the CIA-controlled media. This is not an opinion but a fact. It turns out to be a matter of methodology.
Americans Believe in Conspiracy Theories
In a recent study, “Majority of Americans Believe in 9/11 Conspiracies”, OCWeekly (28 October 2016), Chapman University reported that a majority of Americans “can find common ground in the belief that the government is concealing information about 9/11”. According to its research, close to 55% believe that there was more to the 9/11 attacks than the government has revealed to the public, where those who believe that was a coverup in the assassination of JFK at 50% runs closely behind. The following chart provides a graphical representations of their findings, where Chapman is conducing annual reviews:
Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. They only require two or more individuals collaborating together to bring about an illegal act. What may strike many as odd about the percentage regarding 9/11 is that even the official account, which posited the attacks as the work of 19 Islamic terrorists, qualifies as a “conspiracy theory”, which suggests that, if this were a measure of the percentage who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, it ought to be closer to 100%. It therefore appears to be measuring not whether 9/11 was a conspiracy as such but whether agencies of the government, such as the CIA, were involved, In other words, “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?”, for which there exists abundant evidence.
Distorted Conceptions of Conspiracy Theories
Some attempts to deal with conspiracy theories are hopelessly inadequate and display gross misrepresentations. The study, “Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories”, Cognition (December 2014), which has four authors, actually defines “conspiracy theories” as “a subset of false beliefs in which the ultimate cause of an event is believed to be due to a plot by multiple actors working together with a clear goal in mind, often unlawfully and in secret”. By that definition, a conspiracy theory about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, for example, cannot possibly be true, even though four of the co-conspirators were hung from the same gallows at the same time.
An slightly less absurd conception may be found in a “tip sheet” for college course, which declares that, “The main problem with any particular conspiracy theory is not that it’s wrong, but that it’s inarguable; not that it’s false, but that it is unfalsifiable. Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable.” But it turns out that conspiracies (to commit murder, to commit fraud and so forth) is the most widely prosecuted crime in the United States. If those theories (“theories of those cases”) were unfalsifiable, then no one accused of a conspiracy would ever be able to defend themselves against the charge, no matter how strong their alibis or how weak the evidence against them.
A more interesting study, “’What about Building 7?’ A social psychological study of online discussion of9/11 conspiracy theories”, Frontiers of Psychology (8 July 2013), by comparison, suggests that those who are most often characterized as “conspiracy theorists” are more skeptical regarding what they are told by the government (“official accounts”) than they are enamored of specific alternatives and are more open-minded in the interpretation of evidence. They are less inclined to defer to officials as authorities and are more inclined to look at the evidence, which even hints that there may be a deep methodological difference in attitude between conspiracy theorists and other American citizens, where conspiracy theorists are more skeptical and less gullible regarding government reports. And this appears to hold the key.
Confirmationalism vs. Falsificationism
The difference lies between a confirmationalist approach (looking for confirming instances of an hypothesis or of a theory) and a falsificationist approach (searching for dis-confirming instances, if they exist). As a trivial example, the hypothesis, “All pennies are copper”, has billions of confirming instances. But, as those who have searched for dis-confirming instances are aware, in spite of billions of confirming instances, it turns out to be false–because in 1943, when copper was in short supply and needed for military purposes, pennies were instead made out of steel. A single counter example can prove an hypothesis to be false. But, unless you search for them, you are unlikely to find them, where the failure to find them when you undertake an aggressive search properly supports them.
Karl Popper, the British philosopher of science, emphasized the importance of attempts to falsify hypotheses, where only evidence acquired during attempts to falsify ought to count as evidenced in favor of a theory. It’s a bit technical, but “the raven paradox” of Carl G. Hempel, exemplifies the problem. The hypothesis, “All ravens are black” (“All pennies are copper”, and so on), has been interpreted by logicians as having the same meaning as, “Everything is either not-a-raven or black” (“Everything is either not-a-penny or its copper”, and so forth). If you assume that an instance of an hypothesis confirms it and that hypotheses that say the same thing are confirmed by the same instances, then non-ravens (or non-pennies), such as white shoes, turn out to confirm them (both).
A falsificationist would respond that testing hypotheses and theories requires more than the passive acceptance of confirming instances, which must be displaced by the active search for dis-confirming evidence. To test for the color of ravens (the composition of pennies and such), you have to conduct observations, measurements and experiments on ravens (on pennies and such). Or, in the case of historical events (such as JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook and more), falsificationism would have us evaluate the authenticity of the evidence on which the government’s accounts are based. Sorting out the difference between authentic and inauthentic evidence plays a crucial role in separating true or well-founded narratives from false or fictional ones. But it can also require levels of expertise that are not common in the general population, which is why those with special backgrounds and abilities need to become involved. The assassination of John F. Kennedy provides a perfect illustration.
What happened to JFK?
Research JFK provides a stunning exemplification of the power of falsificationist methodology. As serious students of the assassination are aware, for 30 years an apparent difference between witness reports of a blow-out to the back of his head has stood in conflict with the autopsy X-rays, which do not show it. On that basis, the witness reports have been discounted by the government. In 1992, however, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., board certified in radiation oncology and an expert on the interpretation of X-rays, entered the National Archives with the permission of Burke Marshall, the Kennedy family attorney, to examine the autopsy materials, including the X-rays. Applying a technique known as “optical densitometry”, he was able to delineate an area “P” where the X-ray had been patched:
This finding, in turn, provided evidence that the home movies of the assassination, including the most famous, the Zapruder film, had been altered to conceal the same blow out at the back of the head. It occurred to me that the perps preoccupation with early frames 314-317, for example, might have led them to overlook that it might be visible in later frames, where I found it was observable in Frame 374. And when Mantik’s delineation of “Area P” was compared with Frame 374, the correspondence between them was striking, which thereby confirmed his research and demonstrated that the Zapruder film had been altered by covering up the blow out when it should have been visible in earlier frames:
Remarkably, the Bethesda Autopsy Report describes a much larger wound, where virtually the whole back of the cranium is missing. And, as though that were not astonishing enough, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which re-investigated the case in 1977-79 issued its Final Report (1979), it had contracted the massive missing back of the head to a small wound of entry at the top of the head, inexplicably failing to account for the enormous discrepancy–which illustrates that, even when the government undertakes a re-investigation of a case of this magnitude, that does not mean that its outcome will be a closer approximation to the truth than the original–where we encounter the anomalous situation that there are three entire different descriptions of the back-of-the-head wound:
Without adopting the methodology of testing an hypothesis by attempting to refute it, the authenticity of the X-rays would have remained unchallenged. David Mantik has now visited the National Archives ten times and had determined that none of the official autopsy X-rays of JFK is even an original. And more recent studies (published on this blog) have confirmed that Lee Oswald was framed using backyard photographs with a Dallas Police Officer (with ties to the CIA) as his body double, that Lee was actually standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository at the time the motorcade passed by (and therefore not only cannot have been “the lone gunman” but not even one of the shooters) and that the body seen in Bethesda autopsy photos is not even that of JFK.
We need more Conspiracy Theorists
Composing an end-of-the-year review of the most important stories of 2017, I was rather stunned that only three of the stories–the NFL protest, the sexual-harassment scandals, and Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem–were honest stories and that the other seven–including the New York car and truck attacks, an update on the Boston bombing, the latest on Sandy Hook, exposing the orchestrated events in Charlottesville and the elaborate Las Vegas production–concerned events that were staged or faked by the government with state and local authorities. Even the Russiagate scandal, about which we have heard so much for well over a year now, was invented out of whole cloth by Robbie Mook and John Podesta within 24-hours of Hillary’s concession speech for multiple motives, including to divert attention from her own entanglements in selling 20% of our uranium reserves to Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBncAErrRbc&t=104s
But don’t take my word for it. You can test these conclusions as well, where they are subject to revision with the acquisition of new evidence and alternative hypotheses. My colleagues and I are not infallible and are capable of making mistakes. But one of the virtues of collaborative research is that we serve as checks-and-balances on each other’s conclusions. Discerning the difference between the TRUE and the FALSE, however, only matters if you want to know what’s really going on. If you are content to sleepwalk though history, never knowing whether your beliefs reflect reality or not, then you may make your way from birth to death without ever knowing the difference.
That’s your choice. Most Americans so busy getting food on the table and keeping a roof over head that they have neither the time nor the inclination to evaluate what they are seeing and hearing and reading in the newspapers and on television. Many suffer from cognitive dissonance and don’t really want to know that their own government–which they want to believe protects and serves them–has taken out its own executive officer and has committed real and fabricated atrocities to promote its political agenda–regardless of the consequences for the public. Even lots of faculty at colleges and universities are overly timid and unwilling to address the most pressing issues of our time. We are in a desperate plight in the United States, where the dark night of tyranny continues to descend upon this once-great nation. We can use all the help we can get.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. He wrote his undergraduate thesis at Princeton for Carl G. Hempel and dedicated his first book, Scientific Knowledge (1981), to Sir Karl Popper.
Please follow and like us:
Sbobet Online games that play anywhere, any age.
Sbobet Online Casino Games Direct from the casino. Cambodia Online Slots, Online Slots, Online Slots, Online Casinos, Craps, Crabs, Dragon Tigers, Blackjack, Roulette, Online Casinos To bring the player to play in the house of the players themselves online through the computer, Ipone, iPad, mobile phones, notebooks.
The player to our online casino. The player can enjoy and earn money for himself every day. Our online casino offers gambling games with a quality team that is passionate about the service. The gambling game for every player. The player has a fun and secure to play casino games with our online casino.
However, when the player is interested in betting on our online gambling games, the player must come to the gambling game with our online casino. Guarantee that the player will not miss the fun of live betting. We open it for sure. คาสิโน
He was the M.IT cop the meadia said the brothers shot and tried to take his gun did he die
Lenny Pozner gave Kelley Watt a fake death certificate for Noah Pozner. Let that sink in. If he had had a real son who had died there, he would have had a real death certificate and no sent her a fake one. That proves it was a fraud by itself. You seem to be hobbled in the exercise of logic. I have cited his fake death certificate many times and published it in NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), which you can download for free as a pdf.
He may very well have died, but he did not die at the Boston bombing. That's the point. Nobody died at the bombing, which was another stunt–another fake event, which we have documented rather thoroughly in AND NOBODY DIED IN BOSTON, EITHER (2016), at moonrockbooks.com.
Thank you for the good news that was shared with me.
goldenslot
goldenslot
goldenslot
Nations need/deserve to be nuked because they are nation states, because they are systems of violence.
So my statement can be corrected to "The place needs to be one of the first nuked in my opinion"
I would prioritize DC, Israel, and Rome as primary over Canada though.
I am undecided which takes precedence. I'm thinking DC because it is the most destructive.
Too bad DC wasn't nuked on 9/11.
There are aspects from all the majors countries that showed up in these false-flag or hoaxes.
For example, there were two prominent Chinese figures in the 2013 Boston Bombing hoax. One played the role of a puff-bomb victim, the other was the only testifying witness (handled by Fox the criminology professor) in the kangaroo court to convict the younger brother.
But does that mean these countries deserve to be nuked? No. It's an absolute no. That's my opinion.
As for Corbett, this English major has just advertised himself as a Christ-like figure. But I guess he deserves the title, given his operation has turned into a cult-like religious following.
Jim I have a question at bostonbombing did officer collier realy die and who did it
You have to have the biggest confirmation bias I have ever seen from a academician who espouses science. Scientists look for evidence that contradicts their theories. They don't immediately dismiss evidence that doesn't line up with their theories and start calling their opponent names. As far as I can see, you never seriously entertain that you are wrong about any of your views even when any unbiased observer would agree you are wrong on many things.
This is supposed to be an emergency evacuation from the scene of a mass shooting. I can't believe you would come back with such blatantly false claims. Why would any parents be there at all? Who would have called them? Why would they be standing around? This is SO OBVIOUSLY STAGED that only someone complicit in the deception would be making such transparently false claims about it. So we have a pretty good idea who you are and why you are here. What a rotten life you live to spend it on futile efforts to mislead and deceive your follow citizens! Disgusting.
I was content to give up but this is so egregiously bad I had to respond. You are arguing that all of these documents released by Mr Pozner are fabricated? https://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/06/sandy-hook-noah-pozner-death.html
I don't know if you read the comments to your blog but I have already addressed the so-called parents "lounging at the massacre". First of all are you sure they are parents and not administrators, media members, onlookers, etc? Secondly, "what are they doing?" Probably waiting for their child to come out? You know they aren't allowed in a crime zone? In another post you made a big deal out of the fact that they have their arms folded or hands in their pockets. What a smoking gun that is! They have their arms folded and hands in their pockets on a December day in a Northern state! What an absurd argument.
"Wrong. Both of them have to ignore tremendous amount of physical evidence in order to continue their reported narrative. Given their intelligence and training (both in linguistic programming skills), this simply cannot be attributed to personal taste."
I seriously doubt they are complicit or supportive thereof. I have my reasons, and possible means of confirming either/or. But I won't judge them by the same standards as you.
"As for your Canadian argument, it almost sounds like a trap to make the criticism look like irrational prejudice."
It's not a trap. I don't really care what you think. What I know is that there is a Canadian element to all/some of these things folks are trying to figure out. And I have seen some very offensive and questionable behavior coming from Canadians that is apparently a cultural thing.
As a general rule, I don't trust Canadians. The place needs to be nuked in my opinion.
As a matter of fact, if Rosebud comes out and declares 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing to be real I will formally regard the channel as government operated disinfo operation.
Wrong. Both of them have to ignore tremendous amount of physical evidence in order to continue their reported narrative.
Given their intelligence and training (both in linguistic programming skills), this simply cannot be attributed to personal taste.
As for your Canadian argument, it almost sounds like a trap to make the criticism look like irrational prejudice.
Everyone is going to have their own opinion on what they think happened (which says something in and of itself), so I won't fault them for a disagreements or what have you.
I simply don't trust Canadians. And Corbett is Canadian raised if I am not mistaken. That means that he is a liability in some way shape or form. I am not sure what that is exactly, I just know not to trust Canadians.
An extra point I want to make about Edmonds is her rhetoric that U.S. government "Allowed" 9/11 to happen.
This reminds me so much of Corbett's Donald Rumsfeld "Incompetence" allusion that is standard LH technique.
You light a fire to stop a fire.
Nah…
Corbett has guest programs on advanced technological issues: HAARP, weather-modification etc. All he needed to do is inviting that information in with standard critical analysis. It has to be by choice.
Given Corbett's previous report on O.K.C. Bombing, I'm looking at how he handles the Cody Snodgres' file.
I agree with the smart part. In fact, Corbett is more than aware of the weaponized psychology in staged terror.
Yet again he tries to dismiss them as "mere programming", while he's focusing on the "big issue".
As for the genuine part, last time I checked, Edmonds alluded that Boston Bombing was real.
Not to mention the non-existent pedophile investigation except beating the good-old Hastert case.
"Why Big Oil Conquered the World" at CorbettReport
https://youtu.be/0wlNey9t7hQ
The methods and motives of eugenic monopolists. Corbett does not have science training, so he does not extrapolate on terror staging. He does have skill on history and economics, his "Best 9/11 Video" is a good five minute conversation starter, followed by….
"Case for War with Israel over 9/11" at VeteransToday
Corbet and Edmonds are both smart people and I believe their heart is in the right place. I believe they are genuine in their concerns and have just as much motive and interest in truth as anyone weighing in on these things.
Sibel Edmonds is fine. But Mr. Corbett is Canadian. That is the only issue I see.
Don't trust Canadians. Keep them at a distance and double check everything they say.
Because it's ideological conditioning mixed with pieces of unnecessarily convoluted, sometimes false logic.
This leaves the audience in a very suggestive state, who can only focus on the soundbites instead of further digging in on the facts. Both Corbett and Sibel Edmmonds are good at this.
As a person who has first hand experience with silver-tongue confidence men, Corbett reminds me of such character.
A founding edition of theoretical NLP most valued by psychology students is by Robert Dilts.
Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Neuro-Linguistic-Programming-Structure-Subjective-Experience/dp/0916990079/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1514175289&sr=8-8&keywords=neuro+linguistic+programming
I have always been strained listening to Corbett. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this is so.
Nice point! Corbett thus appears to be one more phony in an endless line-up from the infiltration of the media by the CIA. For those who want more on 9/11, check out "9/11: Who was responsible and why", Brian Ruhe Show, to which I also link in the blog above.
To demonstrate the superficiality of this critic, consider the "death certificate" that Lenny Pozner sent to Kelley Watt, which combined the bottom half of a real death certificate with the top half of a fake. It's in the book. No file number and the wrong estimated time of death. If Lenny had a son who had died, he would have had a real one. That he could not do that proves that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
For another–and there are dozens–consider the second photo we discovered by Shannon Hicks, which was taken earlier, where, when you look closely between Boy #1 and Boy #2, you can see several mothers who are casually looking on, to which I refer as "lounging at the massacre". The proof that nobody died at Sandy Hook is overwhelming, which is why the shills are having such a hard time dealing with it. Call this "case closed"!
I guess it is hard to step back from high-quality pure reasoning. Once a person is successful without the higher-level input they find it hard to understand an area that needs more than just what is seen. There is absolutely no clear evidence in science for a Biblical Flood. honest scientists admit this. I admit this. In every geological paper I have studied NOTHING suggests a Flood. Any Christian pointing to evident water-borne layering in rocks as 'evidence' is being mischievous at the least. The only way that what evidence is present geologically could be understood to be Flood-related is by knowing a radiometric date for the Flood. This is possible but another story for another day. So I say science can yield great results (depending on your point of view) on its own but even greater results with some 'crazy' input.
True as it could be.
Well, if you claim they are just fabricated I am done trying. Have a nice Christmas.
Yes, some documents were fabricated because they would be produced, as you have done here, to show the school was open, in the hope and expectation that most of the public would be played and never do any research by attempting to falsify the official account. You have OBVIOUSLY not read this blog, because you would have realized the futility of your claims that it was open when confronted with falsifying proof. You are still producing more copper pennies and ignoring that we already know they were made out of lead in 1942! Give it a rest.
Is that the same James Corbett who repeated "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" 23 times to induce an NLP effect?
I don't trust Corbett at all who never digs into details and methodologies of major shooting/bombing psyops.
Sigh. I guess I can provide links to back up all of what I said (again).
Links proving the school was open (three links out of more than a dozen):
http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2017/07/03/sandy-hook-elementary-was-open-part-fourteen-the-november-2012-scholastic-book-fair/
http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2017/07/11/sandy-hook-elementary-was-open-part-fifteen-sandy-hook-school-enrollment-for-2008-2017/
http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2016/12/21/sandy-hook-elementary-was-open-part-thirteen-google-earth/
The FEMA Manual is fake:
http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2016/04/07/fact-checking-nobody-died-at-sandy-hook-appendix-a/
http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2016/05/01/how-to-fake-a-fema-manual-in-five-easy-steps/
I've already debunked the rearranging of the children (in a thread that was deleted).
The problem is your claims are pseudo objections that are not true. The school WAS closed by 2008. The FEMA manual IS NOT FAKE. The photos show REARRANGING THE KIDS TO GET A BETTER SHOT. None of your complaints has any merit. Coming here to pedal false reports does not enhance your credibility, which was negligible in any case. Why not use your name? Because you know we would all recognize you as a fraud.
It's "flimsy, fake and phony" to show pictures that directly contradict what you claim about the kids being rearranged? It's the same photographs you use except made clearer and bigger so we can clearly see they are different children. Is it phony or fake to show your misunderstanding of the wayback machine and to show the FEMA manual is a forgery? Is it phony or fake to give dozens of pictures and stories about Sandy Hook being in operation before 2012? Is it phony or fake to show the children on the SS Death Index? All of your major claims are either wildly exaggerated or flat out false.
"Best 9/11 Video Ever" at CorbettReport.com
Five minute documentary for awakening sheeple
https://youtu.be/aGqHb39hfbY
When you or anyone else has a serious, well-founded criticism, then I will take it seriously. Flimsy, fake and phony critiques don't cut it. And when you pretend that Sandy Hook was real in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary, my patience tends to run out. So get serious or stop wasting my time.
Jim! Great presentation of the work and choices thousands of us do around the world to explain, document, and prove the lies told to the public by .01% "leaders" and self-claimed "experts."
We are enough in numbers to effectively offer choice.
We are too few in numbers to gain power for policy changes. That is, the lies/conspiracies we point to such as JFK, 9/11, illegal Wars of Aggression, continue under "official" bullshit fables.
Therefore, our contributions are in leadership and have powerful potential, but if (and only if) critical mass of the public chooses the intellectual integrity and moral courage to stand, point, and voice the "Emperor's New Clothes" obvious truths with us.
We will continue to serve to the best of our abilities, prefer to win this game, and can only take action as messengers until "We the People" break out of their stupefied obedience to illegal rogue state wanna-be masters.
The foundation of the US was such a "conspiracy theory" that our own government systematically destroyed the public's rights, then attempted to disarm us at Lexington and Concord. The choice today is basically the same as then: freedom and truth, OR servitude as work animals for .01% psychopaths.
Good religious mumble-jumble. The most Christianistic population I encountered in the South also harbors the most vile and disgusting human beings that abuse people under the name of God.
U.S. Constitution, logic and due process to them is merely convenient weapon to pull and put-away for achieving heinous objectives under the name of God. Irnonically, the instruments they use to cause physical and mental damage are all designed under scientific principles.
Win Abbe makes it hard to move in any direction. Science, to me, is a little more crazy but I accept Win's treatise as far as it goes. I believe that some matters are unresolvable. I give the instance of my research – as a private citizen – into the Biblical Flood. Scripture says God's ways are inscrutable. So we, as humans – his creation – are outside the forensic loop on this one. However, He gives us the missing information in Scripture i. e. Flood takes place such that hills are some many cubits below water level, ark floats certain time, winds blow on water to reduce water level, rain comes from sky for longer than water held in clouds can supply requisite vapour, etc. Once I had absorbed this basic, otherwise unknowable, info I proceeded to consider the Electric Universe concept of water being produced from solar wind contents inter-acting with the atmosphere. And many, many other conclusions too many to list here. So science cannot test this research. I have to take on faith that the Science of EU/solar wind we do have is a realistic solution. Science sure but more is required beyond falsification/confirmation.
The so called “Scientific Method” is described in many books and articles. But just because a discussion is published more recently than another, does not mean it is better or more consistent or logically correct. One of the best discussions of the Scientific Method I have found over many years is in the textbook “Physics A Textbook for Colleges”, fourth edition by Oscar M. Stewart, Professor of Physics University of Missouri, Ginn and Co., NY, 1924-1944.
It is described in an Appendix C: “Notes on the Scientific Method”, pages 756-760 or about 4 ½ pages of relatively small print. It is too long to reproduce here but it is worth reading by anyone and everyone today as a very carefully thought out elucidation of what the true Scientific Method is and how it differs from explanation of observations in terms of religious or superstitious or arbitrary claims of causation.
Here are just a few of the most significant statements quoted from these notes by Professor Stewart:
“Beyond all doubt the great changes in our mode of living which have taken place in the past 100 years have been the result of a more widespread use of “scientific methods of thinking”. These methods are so important and so useful that everyone should know more about them. In these days one who does not understand them cannot be said to have a good education. These notes furnish an outline of this scientific method as developed in the study of physics.” Quoted from page 756.
“7. Experimentation. The basis of all knowledge is experience. In science it is experimentation. There is a vast difference between a good experiment and tinkering. A good experiment is one that adds something to our knowledge of facts and fundamental principles. Usually many different factors in an experiment may affect the results. It is always important to see to it that the conditions of the experiment are so controlled that there are no concealed factors and that the influence of all except those under direct test is reduced to a minimum….” Quoted page 757.
“It is important to remember that experimentation is one of the best tests of the truth. One should never accept a statement of facts unless he feels confident that it is in agreement with experiment. Practically all the common superstitions can be tested experimentally. Correct and accurate observation is one of the first demands of science.
There are three tests of the value of any set of observations:
a.) Reproducibility. Different observers obtain results which agree.
b.) Agreement and congruity of observations with each other.
c.) Utility of observations in establishing principles or in supporting theories.” Quoted from page 757.
Note: All the well established rigorous rules for crime scene investigations are based on the above basic physics principles of the Scientific Method. All were patently violated in the Sandy Hook Hoax contrived event.
“12. Intellectual Honesty. In the interpretation of observations and in the acceptance of principles a maximum amount of fairness and open-mindedness is essential. Prejudice must not enter….” Quote page 760
“13. A summary of the fundamental habits necessary in using a scientific attitude toward a problem. (Adapted from V. H. Noll.) The following are essential habits: a.) the habit of accuracy; b.) the habit of intellectual honesty; c.) the habit of open-mindedness; d.) the habit of suspended judgment; e.) the habit of looking for cause and effect relations; f.) the habit of criticism including self criticism.
If a person carries all these habits over into the solutions of everyday problems he meets, he is using a scientific attitude.” Quoted from the last paragraph on page 760.
Prepared and quoted by Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D., Physics, December 24, 2017.
Jim, You write about how you welcome being proven wrong but when people give you evidence of instances where you are wrong on this very blog you often scoff at it and call those people shills and tell them they ought to burn in hell. You are the one who makes things unfalsifiable. For example, when someone gives a photograph that disproves a belief you have about an event, you claim it's photoshopped. When someone gives proof of blood at a place where you previously claimed there was no blood, you claim it's fake blood. Etc.
Good article. Thank you.
I'll be your student, Jim!
Just need to continue grad school and finish my PhD.