Psycho desk jockies and pencil pushers are attempting to redefine science.
- August 3, 2021
There is no such thing as a scientific ought...Science is competent to establish what is. - David Hume
My background is in the "hard" sciences: electronics. "Soft-science" disciplines (psychology, human behavior, language, marketing, sales, management, etc.) have a hard time understanding what "science" really is, and that fact is clearly being exploited.
The fundamental definition of "science" is found in the Scientific Method:
1. Observe or hypothesize a phenomenon
2. Demonstrate that the phenomenon exists
3. Replicate without fail that the phenomenon always manifests itself as anticipated with given attributes and parameters
As a designer of complex systems to solve sometimes critical problems in manufacturing, pharma production, networking, banking etc, the systems I put together have to work. They have to always work. I would be fired if I were to say: "The science in this is dynamic" or "evolving" or "shifting" (all terms used within the past 18 months by the CDC.)
Imagine a mechanical engineer designing a fuel system for a Navy aircraft based on a "dynamic" or "evolving" or "shifting" idea which has never been proven conclusively to be true and absolute.
Imagine a software engineer designing control software for a nuclear power plant using fundamental concepts which have never been proven conclusively to be true and absolute.
If engineers and technicians were to build systems based on the "science" employed by the NIS, CDC, WHO and FDA there logically would be two outcomes of note:
1. Nothing would get done. The requirements would never be met.
2. Potentially catastrophic situations could develop, with no plan in place to mitigate them (because, after all, we are following the "science")
The fundamental stages of conceive/observe, develop, test, deploy and maintain cannot work when the entire process is wrapped into an ever-evolving paradigm of uncertainty.
The kind of "science" being sold to us by the COVID Cult is, in reality, the discovery process which sometimes happens PRIOR to science. In either case, then, their "science" has failed.
Medicine is a "hard science." Principled immunologists and virologists proudly point to their long-standing history of rigorous trial protocols adhering to Koch's Postulates. This is why we have so many virologists, immunologists and doctors of all persuasions screaming FRAUD loud and clear.
This is a fundamental problem with what we're being told. Again: it is technical folks which have, and will continue to, bring up this crucial point: Psycho desk jockies and pencil pushers are attempting to redefine science.
- Fielden R. Nolan-