To which extent is science a belief system; a myth?
Traditional cultures had an oral tradition of 'creation'.
Churches worked with a written tradition of 'truth'.
Science works with a calculated model of 'reality'.
Scientists, create these beliefs. as facts, by consensus.
Consensing is the real basis of the creation of science.
Computer calculated results are its input.
Beliefs selecting experiments condition the process.
Terms like quasi-science and pseudo-science are being used.
This is done mainly by Unscientists; people who oppose science.
Scientists explore and study the unknown.
Unscientists try to prevent this; based on emotional motives.
We thus need to include terms such as fake-science and con-science.
Con-science has the connotation of deliberate manipulation; deception.
This has been the case for much of government/industrial/military research.
Under the guise of state/trade secret, activities are being cloaked, of misrepresented.
The work on Mind Control is but one of many examples.
It is this research which is very appropriate in this context.
Because this research precisely exemplifies the problem.
It is the study about deception and mental manipulation.
This work is related to what is done in the advertising, media, education, politics industries.
Increasingly, studies emerge indicating that all of these are manipulated.
Caroll Quigley (CFR), Charlotte Iserbyt (Dumbing Down of America), John Todd (Media Industry) and the many reports on the Military Industrial Complex's Revolving Door policies/politics and the lobbying cartels.
The psycho-manipulative industries such as the government think tanks, the Tavistock Institute and other' organisations extending the work of Bernays, Cameron and others are now becoming more published.
Scientific Publication has become an industry of its own.
Multinational Corporations now manage publications of scientists, in a hire/fire basis; scientists publishing results which go against financial interests, find themselves fired by the universities they work for.
"Medical Advisory Committees", "Parental Interest Groups", Medical Peer organisations", are being exclusively industry funded.
In conferences, it is now customary to not only look at the affiliations of the authors, but also at the funders; Monsanto corporation 'scientific' publications are cited as example of publications which are to be intrinsically initially distrusted.
The public is presented all such findings as 'scientific'.
The implication being that such findings are not to be questioned.
Some groups (Skepsis is an example) use 'scientific' as pretence.
The implication being that anyone not complying may be bullied.
The public is bamboozled, and deceived, by what happens.
Doctors, posing as scientists, making strong claims and statements.
Specifically, they claim that they can judge what is (not) scientific.
For this reason it is sensible to call them Unscientists, doing Unscience.
The public however is unaware for the need of this distinction.
They cannot discern between scientists and unscientists.
Both followed the same educations, and do the same work.
It is necessary to see who funds them, and know their hidden motives.
Corporate/government funding is often cloaked behind secrecy.
Especially the Military Industrial Complex claims 'state secret'.
The tradition behind this stems from secret societies, the world over.
This makes it a religious/church/state/banking(profit) interest agenda.
HAARP, Chemtrails, Inoculation and gene-tech are known examples.
Here, military/financial/monopoly/manipulation interest come together.
Control of funding is used to control the flow/presentation of information.
People often discuss the outcome, the result; not the cause: the motives.
Mind manipulation is the issue; done via control of funding and information.
Educational institutes and scientific committees regulate the process.
They are however only executive for the underlying regulatory decisions.
It is those decisions which need to be put back at the individual level.
The problems signalled at the Nuremberg trials indicate this.
Who is responsible: those ho do the deed, or those who gave the order?
Scientists 'do the deed' and rationalise it (for themselves) that 'they are paid for it'.
Those who provide the funding, rationalise it (for others) that 'they did not do it'.
As the Nuremberg judges concluded: both are guilty.
In that line of reasoning; every scientist is responsible, always.
Every scientists needs to be response-able for their actions.
Scientific training/education needs to make that explicit.
This means the equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath for scientists.
A personal declaration of safeguarding life, the earth, and nature against damage, foreseen of unforeseen, by their inventions and creation.
With, with it, an embargo against infringement against the dynamic (processes) of nature, by monopolies or engineering.
It comes down to the realisation that Earth existed before humans; and humans can claim neither ownership nor rulership over Earth or Nature.
Science is a model, and accordingly a belief system.
The model is not real; thus the knowledge is not true.
Yet the scientists do not always acknowledge that.
Their fundamentalists, the Unscientists, even deny that.