UFOs, Cars & Everything – How Science is Corruptively Used Daily

Please be aware that this is a three-part article detailing what I believe to be the corruption of science for partisan and political gains. But it’s about UFO’s, cars and everything else too. It’s long, I know, but one must build some history into the reader in order to understand why I state that science is corruptively used on a daily basis.

I am an “older man” approaching the senior citizen line in the next few years. That’s important because I feel, (and many will argue that’s a false feeling,) that things can be learned about our shared reality other than in the laboratory through repetitive experiments.

Some things can be proved through experience.

Some things can be proven by logic.

For instance, my brother is an Electrical Engineer. His knowledge of electronics put him as far above me as I am above an amoeba when it comes to electronics. Yet I was able to outwit him when his wife’s car suddenly had a failure to start. It turned out to be corroded battery terminals not allowing enough amperage through to turn the starter. The lights were quite dim as well. I predicted this before even seeing the car. He had told me this car was clunker.

My brother has always worked with impeccably maintained systems. He’s always made good money too. He had never experienced “poverty central” with a family like I have. I don’t begrudge him that in the least.

Now all the cars my brother has had previous to this clunker were new or nearly new and he was a meticulous mechanic. He never had to deal with grumpy batteries that were strung along as far as possible- because you can’t afford a new one. He never had to deal with clunker cars held together with Gerry rigs, super glue and coat hangers. And he had never seen what corrosion does to a battery terminal because he made sure they never corroded in the first place.

Except for this car.

This car was a clunker, intended as a temporary stopgap while they were waiting for a new car to arrive. As such, it was not exactly a late model. My brother was hesitant to waste his time on checking this car mechanically, because it only had to go 30 days before the new car would arrive.

And so when I mentioned that the terminals were badly corroded and that this could block “the juice” from flowing into the system, he came back that this could not be the issue, that it had to be an electrical problem in the car or the battery. Then he started to un-wrench the terminal- and the electrical system sprang to life. Exactly what I predicted would happen. Upon wrenching the corroded terminal, my brother broke the corrosion off, allowing the juice to flow again.

My brother was quite surprised that my knowledge had surpassed his, for in the realm of clunker cars, I was King. I have yet to buy a new car and I am not a young man. I have experienced exactly what corrosion does to a battery terminal in older cars. And that experience told me that older cars cause more corrosion at a faster rate than new ones. That’s an experiential fact I know to be true. I may not have proof of the process, but I know factually from experience that older cars tend to corrode battery terminals and they tend to do it quicker. (I have some ideas as to why, but none are “scientifically proven.”

My point is that I can make predictions about systems or ideas based on my experience, as opposed to a formal trial in a “scientific” setting. Further, that my learnings as dictated by my experience are just as valid as those that are scientifically learned. So there is at least one other way to learn truth, besides scientifically.

And while we are at it, let’s define the term “science.” What is science anyway? When we use the word scientific or that something is scientifically proven, what do we mean?

Well obviously, if something is scientific, the concepts of science were used to determine the particular data or result in question.

Buy what is the concept of science? If you are scratching your head and you don’t have an immediate answer for what science is, let me assure you that you are in good company.

Now days, the terms science, scientific and scientifically proven are thrown around by anyone and everyone trying to prove their particular viewpoint is true. For instance, evolution versus intelligent design is often an area where the terms “science,” “scientific” and “scientifically studied or studied,” get bandied back and forth in order to “prove” a point. I submit to you then that the words science, scientific and scientifically studied or proved have been corrupted to become a simple bedtime story. A bedtime story meant to pacify, the juvenile minds of the other side that would dare question anything that has the word “science” sprinkled over it. It is a word now used exactly as the comedian George Carlin said about “the F word.” “It’s the heavy, the one you save towards the end of the argument, when you know you are losing.”

So I submit to the reader that the word science and the original conceptual definition of science are now utterly divorced from one another and that this divorce was intentional.

But before we continue, let’s define the word and concept of science. Science is, when you get right down to it, is the process of observing a phenomenon, rendering a hypothesis about the phenomenon and then developing an experiment that will either prove or disprove one’s hypothesis about the phenomenon. You then modify the hypothesis until your observations, hypothesis and data all match. Lastly, you repeat the experiment over again, until it becomes absurdly obvious that you are correct.

Other people, known as Scientist, then repeat the experiment over and over again, until they find it absurdly obvious that your hypothesis is correct as well. Of course if your experiment fails to render an answer compatible with your hypothesis, you then must modify the hypothesis and run the experiment again, until the hypothesis and the experiment agree. You then have an answer that you can claim is truly scientific.

So then, we must be able to run an experiment repeatedly -and always get the same result- in order to claim that something is scientific.

But how often every day do you hear the words “scientifically proven” applied to everything from weight loss pills to evolution to global warming? Yet in order to claim the title of Scientifically Proven, they must present both the observed phenomenon, their hypothesis, their experimental parameters and structure used to control the experiment and their final data from their experiment. And it must be repeatable by others using the exact same set of controls and methods as above. And of course, the same thing needs must happen in all subsequent experiments that use the given parameters.

I therefore submit to the reader that the hugely vast subjects the reader thinks are “scientifically proven,” are utterly divorced from science and the scientific method. It is simply used as an authority argument in order to shut down their opponent’s points, rather than a way to determine what reality is.

Something cannot be claimed to be scientific unless you can know what the observed phenomenon did, what the hypothesis is, what the controls and parameters were and finally the data they got that proved their hypothesis. If even one part of that chain is missing- than you CANNOT claim your experiment proves anything “SCIENTIFICALLY!”

Instead, what they are often claiming in those diet pills and the argument over evolution, is that they are an authority on the subject- so don’t argue with my giant brain, little one.

Definition below of what an authority argument is and how it can be used correctly and incorrectly.

“Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.”

When a Medical Oncologist tells me I have cancer, I believe him- especially when he shows me test results.

But when I ask for test results about global warming, evolution and was the universe created by the flying spaghetti monster, I don’t get much back in the way of verifiable data. Nor do many say that they have performed experiments to prove too much about any of the three subjects. There are really good reasons for that, because global warming, evolution and the flying spaghetti monster are all things that cannot be directly verified in an experiment.

Some things can be verified by logic and reason. Some might even be verified through experience. But only a few things can be verified by a scientific experiment.

Let me explain why it’s impossible to claim that global warming, evolution and flying spaghetti monsters have been scientifically proven to be true. Don't misunderstand, they can be proven to be true or false, but not with the tool called science alone.

And I will explain that in part two.