This essay concerns educational philosophy and addresses effects arising from the shortfalls and dangers that attend the Positivist theory of existence. The premise is: “The common consensus seems to be that scientific reductionism is too flawed to act as a valid philosophical viewpoint” (Shuttleworth 2008). Utilizing cancer and Nuclear Energy as examples, the author exposes mortal and moral errors due to Positivist oversight, bias and subsequent social constructions that enable a continuum of universal harm in the wake of the reductionist paradigm. The writer references concerns, approaches and designs of Goethe and Newton towards research with a view to renew an appreciation for the moral dimensions of scientific endeavor that have been generally abandoned.
The task of perfecting research requires knowledge synthesis. However, as we entertain something called progress, we seem to reap a harvest of perplexing harm and failure from lauded innovations that compete for attention and money rather than sustainable benefit. Do not misunderstand; progress and innovation based on reality-oriented applications that bring advantages are wonderful. Nevertheless, when we ignore experience and forget fundamental principles of existence as well as the moral and immoral aspects of human nature and its limitations, we cannot avoid ever-menacing brinks of disconcerting injury. Positivism rejects metaphysics and theism as well as the limits imposed by moral considerations and thus, invites nihilism’s harmful hegemony. An example is the corrupt but hallowed pharmaceutical monad for profit:
The extremely lucrative cancer research and therapeutics industry has focused almost exclusively on surgery, chemo and radiotherapy but without finding a profitable cure for the disease. Expensive therapies abound in this socially constructed system of highly qualified, well-remunerated professionals and investors who steadfastly ignore and/or actively disparage viable therapeutic alternatives that are natural, less costly, and cannot be patented. After more than sixty plus years and gazillions spent to fund “perfect research” on the matter by the best scientific minds—devoted exclusively to the allopathic materialist thesis—cancer survival without their attendance is longer and more tolerable financially, psychologically and physically in many marginalized, non-Positivist medical venues.
Furthermore, despite gargantuan efforts, the incidence, prevalence and types of cancer have mushroomed during Positivist tenure and are expected to increase exponentially. Notwithstanding the best intentions of those who help construct or are caught in this web of futility, it appears that Positivist methodologies, resources and patients are being devoured by an industry that thrives on the advancing adversary it is meant to subdue.
Cancer’s cell destroying chemo-mechanics with the attendant collapse of form and function leading to human demise are well understood and elucidated in distressing detail for all medical students. Yet thriving industry professionals avoid utilizing knowledge gained from the study of what maintains pristine human physiology. Neither do they examine extant human populations that retain a healthy homeostasis that withstands cancer’s impositions. Where then is the perfection of the scientific method and model found in such reductionist neglect?
What these grievous indictments and the oversight just mentioned manifest, is that while certain methods of observation are perfected, man’s reasoning often goes wanting. Historically, especially in medical circles, this is because we tend to resolutely avoid challenging a political will controlled by a peer pressured consensus that has little to do with science other than ownership and dependency bias, the latter of which has everything to do with budget allocations and the power and profits gained from social constructions (PR propaganda) designed and fostered by special interest groups: “Leaving out non-intentional power mobilizes a status quo research bias and blinds us to the tacit power of the strong” (Guzzini 1993: 476). Furthermore, and even more damning, when carefully examined by revisionists such as the late and venerable Dr. Andrew M. Lobaczewski, we inevitably find bias, dissociation, denial and outright fraud at the behest of major psychopathic or otherwise pathologic personalities at the apex of too many conglomerate business and political models, which today, are equivalents. In the case of modern medical science, it happens to be all the above, but I will leave fraud and psychopathy for later essays.
As an analogy, it stands to reason that if a serial killer is on the loose (USA and Canada had 11,187 such victims in 2014), or if an arsonist is repeatedly feasting on acts of devastation, someone amongst a myriad of authorities will do their utmost to bring the villains to heel, and thus, end the cause of repeated mayhem and substantial loss. Hence, since it is established that modern lifestyles, major industries, pollutants and even immunizations are causes of cancer (USA: ~585,720 cancer deaths in 2014, American Cancer Society), why is research solely focused on limited and extremely expensive treatment regimens for growing numbers of victims without (i) addressing proven causes; (ii) taking appropriate preventative measures; (iii) and utilizing known cures that sit outside the reductionist box? I could rest my case and cause on this query alone, but will go ‘one step beyond’ to dislodge this incredibly faulty paradigm with its clear and present bias.
That professionals and scientists are humans filled with bias is a given fact of life and science. The greatest bias at present is material reductionism’s rejection of moral truth (Positivism). Goethe decried this misapplication of Newton’s astounding achievements as the very path that led to the reductio ad absurdum described above with respect to cancer. Sir Isaac Newton had the following to say on the matter of the scientific method:
Newton deliberately used the phrase ‘corporeal things’, which clearly indicates material, rather than ‘all things’. He also used the term ‘philosophy’, which, in the 17th Century context, held an ‘all-embracing’ nuance ‘indicating the love of wisdom, originally comprising all learning, distinct only from technical precepts and practical arts’ (“Philosophy”; Webster’s International Dictionary). Sir Isaac went further to amend the definition just offered. He posited that science and philosophy were a continuum with philosophy as captain. Hence, science’s duty was to aid philosophy by considering implicit realities responsible for technical precepts. Therefore, the scientific method’s true purpose is to serve philosophy. Together, like captain and ship, they discover ultimate realities responsible for material precepts via metaphysical reasoning while navigating seas of experiment, experience and contemplation propelled by the winds of knowledge synthesis.
Newton also accepted as an absolute premise that man’s ability to comprehend and discover hidden reality would be severely limited if knowledge was reduced to the examination and mere description of gross material, which is the position of material reductionism. Hence, Newton humbly submitted to what he called a “greater ocean of truth”, indicating the logically implied existence of the hidden, non-physical realities with which sub-atomic physicist now wrestle. As a result, he called his astounding achievements nothing more than ‘slave to reason’ — mere tools used by eclectic philosophers to reach far more profound and beneficial ends.
Hence, to apply Newton’s tool (scientific method) to the reactionary religion of materialist reductionism (essentially a Marxist spin on Positivism), while accepting the denial of moral realities and consequent responsibilities, insults reason because both the latter also constitute valid and essential components of existence. In essence, and to quote the renowned Dr. Helen Caldicott in reference to Nuclear Energy applications, “it is patent unscientific wickedness”.
We cannot, therefore, be utilizing a perfected scientific method when at the same time we ignore, restrict or restrain reason and application by (i) censoring academic freedom via reductionist-only peer review; or by (ii) limiting the scope of scientific observation to abstract induction and politically correct bias for profit; or by (iii) shunning the wisdom and knowledge derived from all human experience.
Eclectic Knowledge Synthesis is the answer traditionally held within the classic Liberal Arts culture, now a purposely obscured art (see Note 11). Goethe, the consummate philosopher and scientist, never rejected the analytical procedures of hard science, yet he vehemently opposed using quantitative methodologies as the only source of inquiry into natural phenomena. He posited, “A Century that has relied solely on analysis and is almost afraid of synthesis is not on the right road” — with which I wholeheartedly agree, adding two more centuries plus a return to my opening statement.
Knowledge Synthesis begins with the ‘childlike’ manner in which Goethe examined light through a prism:
This typifies his approach to scientific inquiry in that he immediately examined the phenomenon under natural conditions, in complete contradistinction to an isolated, abstracted, unnatural experiment. All serious scientific inquiry begins in this manner and describes the point of departure between reductionism and synthesis—which are, after all, opposites. We can regard it as the archetype of a faultless scientific method that represents man’s natural curiosity. Indeed, it is an action that should never be relegated to insignificance. Reflection on this archetype allows us to imagine the reality of science in terms of humanity’s relation to the cosmos, in so far as we are childlike and seek to know the limits of our command. For Goethe, the purpose of scientific research was to describe natural events in the simplest terms possible, something that demands both ‘direct’ and ‘abstract’ (indirect) perceptions to optimize definitive cognizance.
Goethe also defined the limits of the modern scientific approach, in agreement with Sir Isaac. He claimed that mathematical methods of analyses via induction drawn from abstractions are noble instruments—nothing more than Newton’s tool—that merely enhance human perception. This is because cognition of the whole, what he termed ‘gestalt’ and what contemporaries call holistic, is paramount as it permits man’s intellect to better envelop and develop the capacity for a more inclusive synthesis imbued with moral principles that reflect relationships. When employing this construct, scientific observation fulfills its analytical purpose via reflective/contemplative genius (Nikola Tesla, for example), commonly referred to as inspiration born of intuition. Such knowledge synthesis innately allows moral and ethical considerations to sift truth from error, harm and fraud for the purpose of implementing constructs and applications for allocentric socially oriented benefit. Thus, it better allows us to avoid the harmful brinks (limits) of potential ruin that hedge humankind’s connections to the entirety of the universe.
Hence, mathematical induction and experiments removed from nature are indirect methods of observation and thus, in themselves, inadequately and incompletely describe natural events, especially when standing alone as rational explanations of truth. Absolute devotion to such limitations falls short of the moral mark and frequently gives rise to subjective theory, as was the case with Newton’s description of white light. Goethe warned against this error when he wrote the following:
It appears, therefore, that while isolated observations drawn from the current scientific method have their place, without eclectic knowledge synthesis, we inevitably succumb to malignant errors that abide in bias and immoral indulgence. This is a far cry from perfection.
Cancer advances because its known causes remain unaddressed by political will due to negligence, greed and diplomatic deference (dependence) to ‘special interest’ felons with no vested gain in financing real remedies or addressing real causes. As a result, the science, products and services they fund and generate advance counter-intuitively, much like a priesthood of magical thinkers collecting proceeds from the ignorant. The same can be said for the dependent monetized mindsets governing industry, agronomy, governance, finance, business, banking, economics, and even education (as established by the incomparable J. T. Gatto) —all of which disciplines have failed to establish and maintain sustainable homeostasis for the environment and contemporary human majority.
Nuclear Energy is a major cause of cancer and numerous other maladies of the post-modern era. Although nothing living is safe from its generation or waste products, it continues to be promoted, produced and utilized. Common sense demands a moratorium yet we collectively suspend prudence by refusing to exercise our moral capacity for reason as indicated by Goethe and Newton, among numerous others. This embarrassing impasse is primarily due to the imposition of socially constructed peer pressure that sustains those who have embraced nihilist Positivism, which is likely the chief reason Liberal Arts, Humanities and Philosophy have been de-emphasized in post-modern education venues. Hence, fear permits unethical brigades of scientific and engineering bias to march its dependents o’er brinks of encroaching ruination like so many lemmings, with Fukushima’s relentless and insuperable nemesis as a prime example of contemporary recklessness.
We adjust the moral disjunction by covering it with neo-logical norms backed by rational constructions based on reductionist perspectives that favor reigning business, scientific, educational and political concords. Examples are fractional reserve banking, Nuclear Energy, and even the iatrogenesis of immunization mania. This collective disengagement from moral and scientific appropriateness consumes us with rational innovations that construct a temporary matrix to house the maladjustments. The insinuations, in turn, form sub-networks in the name of progressive benefits. By the time society acknowledges serious dysfunction (autism for example), the morbidity is far too advanced for remedy in many cases, much like a cancer, at which point the patient (society) often lapses into abject denial of dependent responsibility in deference to the delusion of victimhood.
I refer to the ‘Metaphysical Law of Dissolution’ in other essays as the unavoidable determinant of the cancerous archetype, which is the unbridled premature dissolution of form and function that occurs when we abandon moral absolutes. I further posit that the remedies required for authentically sustainable social constructions, as per Newton and Goethe et alia, will only be realized as form and function fail on a global scale. Perhaps then, morally imbued reasoning and authentic knowledge synthesis will correct and better perfect the research methodology of those who survive.
For these several reasons the challenge remains for educators to infuse their curricula with morally imbued reasoning that commands a continuum of accountability that transcends mere preparation for employment. Education is lifelong and the winds of knowledge synthesis comprise an inviolable force that embraces material science with its mathematical inductions (statistics et al.) as partner, not tyrant. Hence, the paradigm must change.
Martyn Shuttleworth (Apr 15, 2008). Scientific Reductionism. Retrieved Apr 22, 2015 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/scientific-reductionism
See Public Lecture at https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g8bt8eUB1CU , Web. (21 Apr. 2015).
“Throughout the 20th century, the pharmaceutical industry has been constructed by investors, the goal being to replace effective but non-patentable natural remedies with mostly ineffective but patentable and highly profitable pharmaceutical drugs. The very nature of the pharmaceutical industry is to make money from ongoing diseases. Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry tries to expand their market – that is to maintain ongoing diseases and to find new diseases for their drugs. Prevention and cure of diseases damages the pharmaceutical business and the eradication of common diseases threatens its very existence. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry fights the eradication of any disease at all costs.”
– Dr Matthias Rath, colleague of Linus Pauling
Suzanne Humphries, M.D. (2011). “Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice.” Web (May 2011): http://www.sott.net/article/228583-Scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice
Sébastien Bonnet et al. (2007). “A Mitochondria-K+ Channel Axis Is Suppressed in Cancer and Its Normalization Promotes Apoptosis and Inhibits Cancer Growth.” Cancer Cell, Vol. 11, No 1, pp. 37–51
On Cancer Survival:
“My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals.” – Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Prof. Medical Physics and Physiology, Berkeley. Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, Vol. 6. (1956).
Dr. John Baylor, an official of the National Cancer Institute, Harvard bio-statistician, and consultant to the New England Journal of Medicine, said on the Today Show (Dec. 1984): “A lot of early lesions that are not cancer at all are being counted as cancer through early detection methods. These people will go on to lead a normal life anyway and the lesions will clear up by themselves. But they include these cases as cancer, thus, polluting the pool of real cancer patients and making it seem that survival rates have risen.”
“We’re finding that about 25 to 30 percent of some cancers stop growing at some point, that can make some treatments look good that aren’t doing anything. Until doctors figure out how to identify which patients have cancers that won’t progress, the only option is to treat everyone.”
– Dr. Otis Brawley, American Cancer Society’s Chief Medical Officer
“Success of most chemotherapies is appalling… There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland.”
– Dr. Uhlrich Abel
Boyle & Levin (2009). World Cancer Report, IARC, London: (WHO), The global cancer burden doubled in the last thirty years of the twentieth century and will double again between 2000 and 2020 and nearly triple by 2030.
For example: Hunza, Eskimos, Hopi and Navajo Indians, Abkhazians, etc. These societies all eat foods containing Vit B-17, which appears to protect them from cancer. Dr Robert McCarrison, writing in the AMA Journal (07 Jan 1922) reported, “The Hunza has no known incidence of cancer.” The traditional Hunza Diet contains over 200 times more nitriloside (Vit B17) than the average American or Australian Diet. Meanwhile, Western authorities have banned Vit B 17. “… This absence of cancer seemed to be due to the difference in nutrition of the natives compared to the Europeans….” – Dr. Albert Schweitzer
Stefano Guzzini (2000) “A Reconstruction of Constructivism International Relations, European Journal of International Relations.” 6:2; 147–182.
Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes. Grande Prairie: Red Pill Press, 2006) — one of the most significant scientific studies of human nature to date.
Petersdorf, R. G. (1986). “The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science.” Ann Intern Med, 104(2):252–4;
Charles Seife (2015). “Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed Literature.” JAMA Intern Med.,175(4):567-577;
Daniele Fanelli (2009). “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.” PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(5): e5738;
Christian Nordqvist (2012). “Fraud In Published Scientific Papers Rises Dramatically.” Medical News Today.
Mike Aamodt (2014) Serial Killer Statistics. Radford University, Va.
David & Zimmerman (2010). “Cancer: an Old Disease, a New Disease or Something in between?” Nature Reviews Cancer, pp. 728–733.
Kline, H. A. (1981). History of Mathematics, Oxford University Press.
“Everyone should know that the ‘war on cancer’ is largely a fraud, and the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society are derelict in their duty to the people who support them.” – Linus Pauling
“There is not one but many cures for cancer aailable. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society and the major oncology centers.” – Dr. R. Atkins, Cardiologist.
“The cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control… [allopathic] diagnosis and treatment … and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to cancer prevention… the American Cancer Society is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.”
– Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Congressional Record, 09 Sep. 1987
Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992); A Different Kind of Teacher: Solving the Crisis of American Schooling (2000); The Underground History of American Education (2001); Weapons of Mass Instruction (2008).
Dr. Helen Caldicott (2007). Nuclear Power, Radiation, and Disease (pdf online) (21 Apr. 2015);
Cathy Vakil and Linda Harvey (2009). Human Health Implications of the Nuclear Energy Industry, Canadian Assoc. of Physicians for the Environment. Montreal.
Murray Rothbard, in The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar (1974), maintains that fractional reserve banking is fraudulent. Viewing it as coercive and unlawful, he argues that banks ought to be allowed to serve only as warehouses for money… Let us appreciate that the particular institutional arrangements under which we now live have not arisen under a condition of liberty to make monetary choices. We do not have monetary freedom.
– Michael S. Rozeff, Professor Emeritus Finance and Managerial Economics Department. Education. PhD, University of Rochester MS, University of Illinois
Category: Education, Essays to the ContraryTags: Bias, Cancer, Cognitive Dissonance, Consensus, Immunizations, Knowledge Synthesis, Materialism, Mathematical Induction, Moral Truth, Nihilism, Nuclear Energy., Pharmaceutics, Philosophy, Political Correctness, Ponerology, Positivism, Reductionism, Research, Scientific Fraud, social constructivism, Special Interests