Once again, we are visiting the Orwellian corruption of the scientific method.

You know, the methodology where a researcher proposes a hypothesis, conducts experiments or evaluates existing data, publishes their results with a conclusion, and then allows others to replicate, validate, falsify, or improve the subject matter. Of course, the key to the process is to allow dissent, including presenting what might be considered erroneous or contradictory information that contradicts existing beliefs, narratives, or the fashionable science of the day.

Therefore, it pains me greatly to find that the National Science Foundation spent millions of taxpayer dollars on artificial intelligence tools to censor or suppress information that runs counter to the regime’s official narrative—or “misinformation” as they, the grand poohbahs, deem it.

It reminds me of those esteemed scientists who considered Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity hogwash because it significantly modified classical Newtonian mechanics—banding together to publish a book titled “Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein” (One Hundred Authors Against Einstein), which contained anti-relativity essays of varying length.

When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one, in fact. <Source>

Or, Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman who claimed:

“I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here.”

So, I must question the motives of the National Science Foundation and deduce that they have been captured by the regime wanting to promote a narrative that serves their own self-interests. In this, they have corrupted both themselves and the scientific method.

Consider the science, or should I say non-science and nonsense behind COVID-19 research.

There is little doubt, given the benefit of hindsight, that a relatively small group of politicized scientists helped create a catastrophic pandemic and then sought to cover up their individual culpability and that of their respective agencies. Likewise, much of the information this group of individuals released was erroneous and devoid of scientific validity. When big money Pharma intersected with corrupt politics, the stage was set for those desiring to suppress non-narrative information about the disease’s origins, the efficacy of certain treatments, and the harm that this entire affair wreaked on the world.

Additionally, some sought to suppress other political scandals, some rising to the level of treason or prosecutable crimes against humanity.

A significant portion of the politisphere was apparently engaged in a coverup of epic criminality and wrongdoing.

So why am I not surprised to see the regime continuing to suppress anti-narrative information and punish dissidents?

Explain to me how any program monitoring the scientific literature, the legacy media, the so-called social media, or institutional activities can derive the “truth” using pattern matching or aggregated mentions without further research and analysis.

The answer is that it can’t be done as the training of the artificial intelligence programs is already biased by the selection of its training materials and the constraints of its system designers. Given a group of left-biased researchers funded by left-biased entities and restricting training input to approved or consensus-driven left-biased materials—the result will be both inaccurate and inauthentic.

And to punish someone based on pseudo-scientific and baseless bullpucky is, in my opinion, both anti-science and criminal.

This brings me to the thoughts of another Nobel Laureate, Friedrich August von Hayek, whose Nobel Lecture was titled “The Pretense of Knowledge.”

“It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences – an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude – an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, “is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.”

He was calling out his colleagues for claiming a level of scientific certainty that was scientifically impossible in the social sciences.

Considering Feynman again…

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it” (Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p.187).

Or my favorite quote from philosopher John Searle …

“Science has become something of an honorific term, and all sorts of disciplines that are quite unlike physics and chemistry are eager to call themselves ‘sciences’. A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that anything that calls itself ‘science’ probably isn’t — for example, Christian science, or military science, and possibly even cognitive science or social science. The word ‘science’ tends to suggest a lot of researchers in white coats waving test tubes and peering at instruments. To many minds it suggests an arcane infallibility. The rival picture I want to suggest is this: what we are all aiming at in intellectual disciplines is knowledge and understanding. There is only knowledge and understanding, whether we have it in mathematics, literary criticism, history, physics, or philosophy. Some disciplines are more systematic than others, and we might want to reserve the word ‘science’ for them.” (Minds, Brains and Science, p. 11, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984).

Including "political science“and computer science.”

Bottom line…

The progressive communist democrats are fond of telling us we should defer to the enlightened elites and experts who run the government and have our best interests at heart.

So who and where are the elites, and how did they screw up a brilliant system created by our Founding Fathers?

We are so screwed.

--Steve