Home
Loading
  Contact Us    
What to Believe?

The claims of the Establishment on science are no more to be believed than its claims on politics and economics.

by James Leroy Wilson
August 28, 2008

Bookmark and Share
What to Believe?
Before holding elected office, Barack Obama's was a professor of Constitutional Law. So you would think he would know what the Constitution actually says. And I'm sure he does, but there is a great disconnect between the layperson and the scholar.

The layperson reads about the history, purpose, and language of the Constitution and concludes that it strictly limits the ability of the federal government to intervene in foreign countries, in the economy, and in our private lives. But "legal scholars," seem to rely more on Supreme Court decisions and "established" practices by the President and Congress to effectively give the federal government carte blanche to do whatever they please. For instance, they will claim the First Amendment prohibits states from allowing prayer in schools, but allows Congress to regulate political speech. This is an inversion of the First Amendment, because while the First Amendment's language puts a limit on Congress's power, it does not limit state power.

So now Barack Obama is a Presidential candidate whose entire program appears to me to explicitly or implicitly violate the Constitution. But I'm sure he would disagree, and he's the one with the Harvard Law degree. He's the one who taught at the University of Chicago. So his opinion is "respectable." Indeed, I was once told by a lawyer that my views do not constitute "serious legal reasoning" and he used that as the sole reason for cutting off the discussion, without showing me where I was wrong.

The same problem is seen in economics. The "Austrian School" of Economics is accessible to the layperson, but Austrian School economists are few and far between at universities. The Austrian School uses logic, as opposed to complicated mathematical formulas, to explain economic activity. But it reaches conclusions that undermine faith in State bureaucracies. For example, that destruction of property, such as is seen in war, is not economically productive. Or that inflating a fiat money supply will not rev up the economy, but rather lead to its destruction.

Yet, I was told by a professional economist that, although this sounds all well and good, it has been disproved by modern economics - that is, by statistical formulas. According to this line of thinking, all you need to do is compare the GDP of 1945 to 1940 to conclude that war must be good for the economy, and never mind the 300,000 dead American servicemen. On the one hand, economics is so complicated that only trained professionals can understand it, but on the other hand the economy should be controlled by politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint.

Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.

The mainstream or "Establishment" positions on the Constitution and economics are logically inconsistent, or at least raise serious questions. And politics and economics are things we all must make a decision about, but the Establishment seems to confuse and mislead us. What, then, is the average person to make of Evolution? Of Global Warming?

Here's why I ask. The natural sciences are also called the "hard sciences," in part because they're precisely that: hard. Difficult to understand. Intimidating to many, boring to many more. And because of this, we're expected to just believe the Establishment line: the experts know more about this than I do; I will follow their recommendations.

The Establishment can bury Constitutional interpretation in legalese and precedent. It can confuse our knowledge of economics with statistics, formulas, and jargon. But the intelligent layperson, with a relatively small amount of study, can cut through the baloney and get to the truth.

With the hard sciences, this is impossible. You have to understand a lot, and know a lot. And even then, there will always be somebody smarter than you who may make more convincing arguments.

I have not studied either issue thoroughly. It seems to me that Evolution is very convincing . . . if we lived in a four-dimensional universe. But I understand that physicists believe the universe has as many as eight or eleven dimensions. I do not know the nature of those dimensions. Is consciousness, or Thought, one of them, or a product of them (in the sense that "space" is the product of three dimensions)? It seems that Evolution's biggest defenders are obsessed with branding all who disagree with them "Creationists," much the same way that Constitutionalists are branded "fringe" and critics of the Federal Reserve are called "conspiracy theorists" and "gold bugs." Name-calling does not constitute a refutation. Besides, this question of consciousness isn't necessarily Christian. Is Evolution compatible with New Thought, New Age, or Eastern religious beliefs? Does it leave open doors that may be answered by quantum physics?

The Darwinian position has been caricatured as a militant, atheistic one. But this seems to me a position that rules out any serious investigation of consciousness, branding it either as religion or as "pseudo-science." Which makes the Darwinist position extremely close-minded.

But is this a staged controversy? Is the obsession of "religion vs. science" not only a false dichotomy, but one that rules out alternative theories? It seems to me that the alternative theories are often more persuasive.

Likewise, I have doubts about global warming. Not because this year seems to have been cooler than recent ones: "this was a cold day, therefore global warming is false" is an argument that insults the intelligence of the person making it. Rather, I have doubts because the Establishment insists upon it. That "respected scientists" from "leading universities" believe so-and-so, does not make it true. After all, Barack Obama was a "respected" Constitutional Law professor, and I'm convinced that all his views regarding the Constitution are misguided, self-serving, or both.

Moreover, the history of the Scientific Establishment is that it was always wrong. The "respectable" scientific community is held hostage to threats of grant and tenure denials, and similar problems have hurt scientists through the ages. Was not Einstein a patent clerk when he came up with the theory of Relativity? What were the "respectable" scientists doing? Their theories may have been based on the "best science available," but it didn't make them true. What's different today is that the "orthodox" position on global warming is affixed to a political agenda that would infringe on national sovereignty and individual liberty. If "mainstream" economists have their work cut out for them to prove the Austrians wrong, mainstream scientists have an even bigger task persuading a public that should be skeptical about any complicated, scientific claim that would lead to less liberty.

I'm not saying that Evolution is wrong. I'm not saying that Global Warming doesn't exist. But to believe either, I am asked to either put a lot of study into the sciences, or to believe the Establishment.

I may get to those scientific studies one day. But what I will not do is believe the Establishment. If you believe I should give the Establishment a break, that on the whole, it's been good for our society, I have a brief story to tell, and I'm not making this up . . .

The Federal Reserve System, which is responsible for "printing up" money and causing inflation, was developed by Paul Warburg, an immigrant from the German Warburg banking dynasty. He sat on the Fed's Board of Directors during World War I, while at the same time his brother Max was head of the German secret services. Paul, another brother Felix, and Felix's father-in-law Jacob Schiff, head of the powerful Wall Street banking firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co., spent $20 million on Russia's Communist Revolution and gave Leon Trotsky safe passage to Russia, while Max gave Vladimir Lenin $6 million in gold and safe passage to Russia.

Paul Warburg established the Federal Reserve, and then, working with his brother working on the enemy side of a declared war, help finance Russia's communist revolution. The Communists then made terms with Germany, who then transferred their troops from the Eastern to the Western Front to shoot at American soldiers. Paul Warburg later helped found the Council on Foreign Relations, whose membership constitutes the ultimate Who's Who, or The Establishment.

The Warburg brothers provide an example of how the powerful, how the Establishment, deliberately foments crises and conflicts to increase their own profit and power. To such people, Democrat vs. Republican, USA vs. Russia, and atheism vs. fundamentalism are all part of one sick joke: they laugh (and profit) at our expense. Because of this, their claims to "truth" and "respectability" are automatically to be doubted. They get by through saying enough truisms to maintain credibility, but that just hides their fraud all the more.

Because they are clearly wrong on the Constitution and economics, their scientific claims must be doubted from the get-go. They seek not truth, but power. Therefore, no matter where one stands on a particular issue, we should all refuse to fight on the terms set by the Establishment. We should go on strike, and refuse to recognize their organs such as the Ivy League and The New York Times as respectable sources for shaping our opinions. If we won't play by the Establishment's rules, they will no longer control the game.

Comments (2)


Post a Comment

Steve Scott from San Fran Bay Area writes:
August 28, 2008
Exactly why I do religion "from the pew." Also, I've never heard your definition of "hard" science. My understanding is that hard vs. soft sciences weren't a matter of difficulty to understand, but rather their level of being confirmed by observable tests. Math, physics and astronomy are "hard" sciences (hard as in concrete) because you can measure the effects of gravity, test a formula, etc., - they are exact - while sciences such as phychology are "soft" because you can't "measure" its claims using instruments. This is why I think the establishment claims on "hard" sciences are so persuasive, because they are irrefutable and have already been "proven" as fact.

James Leroy Wilson from Independent Country writes:
September 1, 2008
Steve is correct on the definition of the "hard" sciences. But they are also "hard" in that it often takes a lot of learning and a lot of math to figure them out. The "hard" sciences may do a good job in explaining the world as it is, such as explaining how bat is more like a whale than a bird, despite our perceptions. But when "hard science" delves into the past (origins of life and/or the universe) and the future (such as global warming prognostications), we're at a whole new level. The question of the past becomes metaphysical, yet the scientists maintain they are being true to their method. And the future becomes guesswork, while the scientific Establishment maintains that it is, well, established science. It makes one suspicious that they are over-reaching, especially if alternative theories can explain the facts just as well.

Send Us Your Opinion
(Comments are moderated.)
Your Name:*


Your E-Mail Address:*
(Confidential. Will not be published.)


Location:


Comments:*
Note: In order to control automated spam submissions, URLs are no longer permitted in this form.



Verification:
Please type the letters you see above.

  Printer-Friendly

Bookmark and Share

» jim102670@yahoo.com


PO BOOKS BY JAMES LEROY WILSON
Ron Paul Is a Nut (and So Am I)
Published September 10, 2008

Forget about red states and blue states. Wilson's unique take on political topics is refreshingly not politics as usual.

» Buy Now
» More Information
RSS FEED
RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson
EMAIL ALERTS
Sign up to receive an e-mail notice when new articles by this author are published. Your address remains confidential, and you may cancel at any time. A confirmation email will be sent.

Your e-mail address:
po Books
Now Available!

Teachings of a Three Year Old... Turned Tyke,
by Hal Evan Caplan.

A father learns from the wisdom of his toddler.

More Information.

More by James Leroy Wilson
47 for 46 for 45
My favorite movies since when I was born
by James Leroy Wilson, 3/15/16
Hired Gun Quarterbacks
They rarely win the Super Bowl.
by James Leroy Wilson, 2/9/16
Fixing Football's Overtime
Get rid of the coin toss!
by James Leroy Wilson, 1/19/16
Solving the NBA's Conference Imbalance
Get rid of them!
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/26/15
The Problem of School
We develop differently, but arbitrary age rules punish us.
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/19/15
Deflating and defaming Tom Brady
Punishing without evidence
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/12/15
Should Floyd Mayweather be allowed to fight?
The Nevada Athletic Commission is wrong, but not for the reason you think.
by James Leroy Wilson, 4/28/15
» Complete List (565)


RSS FEED
RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson

Recently Published
View Article May I Be Frank, Mr. President?
Challenging a double standard in the Oval Office
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/15/17
Salvator Mundi
Not the painting but the Person
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/7/17
When the Newsman Becomes News
Lamenting yet another fallen hero
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/1/17
Let's Hear It for Moms and Pops
Celebrating Small Business Saturday in a very personal way
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/22/17
An Earthquake in La La Land
Examining what's been exposed in the rubble
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/17/17
Where is God?
Reflecting on the tragedy in a little Texas town
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/10/17
An All Saints Day Tribute
Remembering those who left us
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/3/17

Get the Partial Observer's
'recently published' headlines via RSS.


RSS Feed for Recently Published PO Articles    What is RSS?
Reproduction of original material from The Partial Observer without written permission is strictly prohibited.
The opinions expressed by site contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
Copyright ©2000-2017 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.
Home · Site Map · Top