'Third, the problem for all of us arises when experts get public recognition for what they have done. Then they get treated as experts in general. Greedy and power-hungry ones then take social and political advantage—joining with politicians eager to grab power for themselves—to push for vast influence over the whole field of which their work is just a small part, which has led to dreadful consequences.'
The average person needs to understand the difference between an epidemiological (observational, correlative) study and a controlled experiment. I'm most familiar with the abysmal practice popularly known as "nutrition science". Because of the ethics and difficulty (read: expense) of doing actual experiments using human beings, epidemiological studies have come to be accepted as "science".
Correlative studies are notorious for supporting inaccurate conclusions, and laughably susceptible to providing biased conclusions, whether intentional or not. They are an entertaining subject for satire. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
In real science, an observational study is supposed to be used to formulate hypotheses which then become the subject of experiments.
I must admit that the NWO is doing a bang up the arm job of culling the inert and ignorant polulation that ignored Eisenhower's warnings.
Tunnel vision, complacency...and hamburgers... A winning formula not.
'Third, the problem for all of us arises when experts get public recognition for what they have done. Then they get treated as experts in general. Greedy and power-hungry ones then take social and political advantage—joining with politicians eager to grab power for themselves—to push for vast influence over the whole field of which their work is just a small part, which has led to dreadful consequences.'
Case in point: 'Crafting Your Scientist Brand' https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000024 This was actually published in an actual scientific journal, in 2018. Those familiar with the name Peter Hotez will see that the playbook sure worked for him.
The average person needs to understand the difference between an epidemiological (observational, correlative) study and a controlled experiment. I'm most familiar with the abysmal practice popularly known as "nutrition science". Because of the ethics and difficulty (read: expense) of doing actual experiments using human beings, epidemiological studies have come to be accepted as "science".
Correlative studies are notorious for supporting inaccurate conclusions, and laughably susceptible to providing biased conclusions, whether intentional or not. They are an entertaining subject for satire. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
In real science, an observational study is supposed to be used to formulate hypotheses which then become the subject of experiments.