Prejudice, science, etc.

[Cyan]

0.01% error rate inside the veil.

If it were an error rate that would be fine. But it is a misconduct rate, and only the known misconduct rate at that. For example, I would suspect that a complete audit of pharmaceutical research (if it could be done) would turn up a misconduct rate much higher than that. Or how about this: How about we just start with Monsanto?

Miconduct and fraud. Misconduct means unintentinal messing with the end results (most common is jumping to conclusion and having faulty test equipment (age or lack of fine detail maintanance) (sound familiar anyone,,, lack of maintanance or attention))

Fraud means intentional messing with the end result.

Thats essentialy the 2 categories that science admits errors in papers.

Misconduct is a gentlemans way of saying "he was in error and we promise to keep an eye on him" and fraud is a gentlemans way of saying "I hope no one believes him again"

Reported means that you order a copy of the study, you read it, you say if it has errors in your opinion, and if so, where, and send it back. To enter you must have a accepted basic level education in the field and access to the arena.

Even if we assume 10 times more errors than what has been found (unlikely since most theories arent strictly found to be wrong, simply, only found to be accurate for the time period and the methods used, little more) then we'll still only get to under 1%. Most stuff that science has built like mobile phones have a success rate of assuming its well built intenionally (corporations are fraudsters, but i mean if you built it around the principle of just testing a cellphone as many times as possible) you could get it to maybe 1:1000 connections, your cellphone is less scientific than the peer review process.

Science cant, by default, be accurate, anyone who says it can is a bad scientist, period. What science can be, is a method thats used to filter and organize data according to a common language. When you understand science as a language/method not as a "opinion/group" you'll get what i mean.

Channeling is a language, Ra is a topic (kind of)

Science is a language, Fraud is a topic (kind of)

to clarify, what people like monsanto do is not fraud data (thats the stupid way) what they do is they have something like 1000 different people do studies on their chosen topic, THEN they corralate all those studies and remove 90%+ and just leave the pro monsanto ones. They can do that with sufficient money without resorting to fraud. If you simply went through all the published studies on GM (the data, not just the conclusion, and recalculated the conclusions based on the data, since its easy to buy the guy who writes the conclusions (IPCC anyone) and not so easy to buy the whole research lab (though possible, but less secure information that way), you would most likely find a strong correlation between GM and Illhealth, but what science needs is people between the method (the massive amount of published material that no one can actually go through anymore) and the person interpreting the world.

As a scientist myself, what we need in the field is a understanding of the proper "social interactions for specialized field intelligence data distribution" thats a fancy way of saying, the data is now out there, what we need is special interest groups (ra is a good example) that somehow manage to go through all the data and comeup with a scientifically based theory as to why their idea and gnosis is best.

Dont rag the language for the speaker, dont rag science for the corruption of man.

M'kay!

Thats all, i'll hush now and let you wiser creatures continue debating