'Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science': ‘Science’ is an ideology, not an arbiter of truth or morality.
Scientism is the Church of Science, based on false propaganda and blind, ignorant mass acceptance of its divine right to rule.
“We would expect that for every case of major fraud that comes to light, a hundred or so go undetected. For each major fraud, perhaps a thousand minor fakeries are perpetrated. The reader can supply his own multiplication factor; ours would indicate that every major case of fraud that becomes public is the representative of some 100.000 others, major and minor combine, that lie concealed in the marshy wastes of the scientific literature.” (Broad & Wade, ‘Betrayers of Truth’, 1982, p. 87)
Introduction
Newspaper reporters Broad and Wade decided to investigate scientific fraud in 1982. Their exercise was to outline in the past few decades some of the more famous and disturbing instances of scientific mendacity. They openly admitted that their investigation was the tip of a massive iceberg, the glittering scum on a pond with endless depths.
“….ours would indicate that every major case of fraud that becomes public is the representative of some 100.000 others” (p. 87)
Chew on that tidbit. For every fake mRNA ‘safe and effective’ study, 100.000 other instantiations of fraud, small and great, exist. Scientific misconduct has only gotten much, much worse since 1982. Does anyone believe that the massive increase in scientific ‘research’ budgets, ‘scientists’, ‘journals’, and ‘papers’ since 1982 has not led to an explosion of what this book unveils? Does anyone believe that scientific fraud has receded since the 1980s? If any such person exists it is best to view them as a leper and avoid contact.
Deceit and history
Scientific fraud is as old as humanity. In the modern world, the pace and acceleration of fraud is its most noticeable characteristic. Broad and Wade’s work can be seen in a historical context. Notable figures who have engaged in outright fraud including plagiarism, falsification of data, or providing no data to support their claims include inter alia:
Ptolemy: the greatest astronomer of antiquity (2nd century) lifted many of his theories and observational data from Hipparchus of Rhodes (2nd century B.C.).
Galileo: Performed few if any of the experiments associated with his name. A post on the Galileo myth explodes the propaganda around this self-promoting philosopher who provided no proof for Copernicanism.
Newton: Employed a constant, which does not exist, to make his equations balance and fabricated large tracts of his data to support his theories. Quite likely he borrowed concepts of calculus from Leibniz. His deceit is rarely discussed.
James Bradley: In 1725 Bradley fraudulently claimed that the stellar parallax of a nearby star was 30-40 arc seconds over the course of a year. With calibrated tools of today, the maxium stellar parallax of any star is an infinitesimal fraction of 1 arc second. This means that statistically there is no stellar parallax. Why do this? Bradley wanted to be the first to provide mechanical proofs for Copernicanism. Proofs which are still missing today (lots of posts on this substack on this topic).
Jenner: A 19th century unlicensed country quack, who concocted a potion including lacerated cow teat detritus, mercury, chloric and arsenic, which he injected into his gardener to ward off ‘smallpox’. When his gardener did not succumb to smallpox (adults don’t contract smallpox in general), he marketed his solution as the saviour against the scourge. He and his Royal Society friends went on to make £ 3 million.
John Dalton: 19th century discoverer of the laws of the chemical combinations which proved the existence of atoms; his elegant and perfect experiments and data cannot be replicated.
Darwin: Plagiarised much of his material on ‘evolution’ and did not supply one single experimental proof of meta-mutations of species, instead relying on philosophy, descriptions and prose.
Mendel: The Austrian monk and founder of genetics invented much of his statistics on peas, which cannot be replicated, and which are far too perfect to be true.
Einstein: Borrowed whole tracts of his theories from others including Lorentz, Minkowski, Fisher and others with referencing their work. Like Newton he employed a fake constant to get his ‘steady state’ universe equations to balance (now termed ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’). Did not perform any physical experiments to support relativity. Instituted arcane maths which do not work when applied to mechanical experiments.
Various-Piltdown man: An early 20th century fraud which for 40 years was taught as proof of ‘evolution’ and the missing link. The skeleton scam was fabricated and dumped into a pit in Sussex not far from Darwin’s residence. It was a farmer’s skeletal remains glued to the skull and jaw of a chimp. It would have taken a real ‘scientist’ about 20 minutes to identify the fraud.
Milliken: 20th century American Nobel winner in physics, for his work on electric charges of an electron, fabricated much of his data and misrepresented his work to beat ‘rivals’.
Freud: Manufactured fraudulent data and conclusions on a large scale to build his theories, practice, and revenues. Freudian psychology is an example of an entire industry saturated with fraud and pseudo-intellectualism.
Alfred Kinsey: A charlatan passed off by the media as a ‘scientist’, Kinsey in the 1970s invented ‘research’, studies and data proving that the ‘gay lifestyle’ was more mainstream than believed and that most men are bi-sexual by nature and that chromosomes are not gender gatekeepers.
Michael Mann: The hockey stick curve of ‘climate’ temperatures which attempts to erase the medieval warming and little ice ages, and which flattens the 1940-70s reduction in temperatures is one of the great frauds in modern science. Independent analysis of the segments of code which were released reveal that any set of variables and parameters will generate a hockey stick (eg U$-GBP exchange rates).
The above are just a few examples. As the quote at the top of the page states, much of what passes for ‘science’ is simply fiction, butchered by criminal deceit. Medical and bio-medical research including pharmaceutical research, is of course an extreme example of ‘scientific’ criminality. But the usurpation of honesty in the pursuit of money and power exists in every domain.
(Tobacco ‘research’ emanating from academics and private institutions guaranteed that cigarettes were safe and effective.)
Why and how?
Broad and Wade analyse why scientific fraud occurs by detailing some 2 dozen extraordinary cases, some of them quite famous (eg the widespread research fraud at Yale). Contrary to the public image of the scientist as a moral saint, wrapped in a white jacket with a pencil behind the ear, earnest, honest, transparent, self-correcting, applying their genius to enlighten the world, or to save it, Broad and Wide paint a far more realistic picture.
‘Science’ at its core is not the golden image sold to the public but riven and saturated with deceit, worst practices, disorganisation, competition, vulgar procedures and simmering violence. All distorted by money and the pressures to publish. The processes of criminality are legion and varied. There are many ways to commit ‘fraud’ and a crime. The means, the motive, the ability to do so abound within ‘science’.
Refreshingly Broad and Wade dispense with the usual nostrum that ‘most scientists are honest’. There is no proof of this. Scientists are just as craven, corrupt, self-serving, hypocritical, criminal, and egotistical as anyone else in society. They identify some reasons why rampant fraud rampages through the ‘Halls of Science’:
1. Fame and recognition
2. Publication and money
3. Replication/Peer review – does not work
4. Scientific methods – which don’t exist
5. Philosophy
6. Public ignorance
1-Fame and recognition
“From its earliest days, science has been an arena in which men have striven for two goals: to understand the world and to achieve recognition…” (p. 212)
Therein lies the conflict at the heart of ‘science’. Newton committed fraud to induce his refractory colleagues and competitors that his theory ‘was the right one’. We now know that Newton’s ideas are riven with issues and are incorrect. So can we justify his fraud by saying ‘well, he was more or less on the right path’, when centuries later we can justifiably say much of his corpus of work is wrong?
Personal glory, prizes, publications and being feted as a genius are powerful inducements to creative criminality. In their work, Broad and Wade given examples of ‘scientists’ who dishonestly produced dozens if not hundreds of ‘studies’ and ‘articles’ in order to burnish their image and their careers. It is not just the ‘loner’ who can fake his ‘science’. ‘Research mills’ have always been an issue, and now with AI are legion, churning out false, deceptive studies, embeding arcane models, maths and language that appear valid. They are hard to catch.
2-Publication and money
As Broad and Wade relate there is no ‘community’ of ‘science’ which exists to thwart deception. This is one of the myths of ‘science’. In fact it is the opposite. The ‘community of science’ exists in large measure because of funding and pecuniary interests. ‘Science’ is a career.
For academics you must publish or perish. For any careerist in science and research it is the same. The more papers, articles and citations of your work, the more important you are and the more money and power you will accrue. Cancer research alone has constituted a U$400 billion market since the 1980s. AIDS, $350 billion or more, and Corona-mRNA technology another $200 billion. Simply put, money has completely eviscerated the notion of honest, independent and replicable science. Do I really believe that the ‘scientist’ will ignore the allure of lucre? Am I that naïve?
3-Replication & Peer review
Correctly Broad and Wade state that replication is NOT the engine of scientific progress. This is an important point. A closer inspection reveals that replicating results is nigh impossible given the secrecy of the ‘recipe’. Few ‘scientists’ go back and confirm the original ‘recipe’ which they assume is correct. All of cosmology and physics, biomedical research and many other areas have fallen into this error. In their review, Broad and Wade illustrate that replication is rarely attempted and when it is performed can reveal the fraud quite quickly.
Peer review suffers from similar issues. Not fully understanding the topic is a common theme, along with not having access to the underlying statistical models and data. Few peer review professionals spend the time and energy needed to assess the validity of the paper in question or its conclusions. Broad and Wade give examples of laughable frauds which were obvious and easy to spot but missed by ‘peer review’. Often the attitude is to defer to authority (Prof X from Yale who is famous co-authored this so it must be right); or assume the fraternal attitude that if you pass your colleague’s paper, they will approve yours. Why rock the boat?
As Broad and Wade describe in some detail, many ‘scientists’ are just as impressed by flattery, propaganda, word-salads and rhetoric as any other human. Few take the time to perform a detailed replication of the scientific claim in question. Such efforts take not only time, but money, expertise, complex equipment and the original recipes. Few will bother with it.
In reality therefore, replication and peer review are failures. There is little ‘objectivity’ in scientific domains and layers of unproven assumptions carries papers and principles forward. There is no ‘self-policing’ process within science. That is a myth created for public consumption.
4-Scientific methods
‘Truth is the daughter, not of authority, but of time’ (Francis Bacon)
Science-propaganda propounds that ‘methods’ exist which ‘validate’ the ‘science’ in question and ‘confirms’ the results. This is of course a nonsense. There are many ‘methods’ to discovery. Modern scientific methods were first developed in the 12th century in Western Europe by the schoolmen, mostly monks who investigated the natural world. One of the core courses in the medieval curriculum at universities, themselves a vital innovation in the history of science and knowledge, was the study of naturalism or nature. Experimentation and replication were pushed by the schoolmen to enhance scientific knowledge.
Within the modern rational-scientific framework one can use induction (specific to general) or deduction (general to specific), along with a variation of hypothesis testing, observational evidence analysis, conclusions based on observations and the use of dependent and independent variables in this process. There is never ‘one way’. There are many variations on the scientific method. The emphasis is on mechanical experimentation and proofs.
This is the vital point that modern ‘science’ from the mid-19th century has ignored and in fact debauched and degraded - mechancial proofs. Entire domains of discoveries have ignored mechanical proofs, or if the evidence does not fit the world-view, the conclusions from such experiments. Much of ‘science’ is simply philosophy, abstract maths no one understands (tensor calculus for eg), models (which are often very corrupt), prose and word-salads. Replicable proofs are now secondary.
5-Philosophy
“Feyerabend (20th century Austrian philosopher) not only admits nonrational elements into the scientific process but sees them as dominant. Science he says is an ideology, completely shaped at any moment in time by its historical and cultural context.” (Broad and Wade p. 133)
Scientific fraud proves that non-rational elements exist. Feyerabend is surely correct. Almost all science is situated in the culture, the milieu and the worldview and philosophy of its era. To say that ‘science’ is only a ‘rational’ endeavour is disingenuous and nonsensical. ‘Science’ can make no claims about its ‘moral’ absoluteness (given the massive fraud); nor can it claim to be a guardian of rationality, when much of what is produced is irrational and junk.
Philosophy and worldviews will shape your ‘conclusions’ and how you interpret all the data. I can look at a cliff face and theorise quite correctly that a massive catastrophe of water with unimaginable power created this phenomenon. Someone else with a uniformitarian outlook will philosophise that this creation took billions of years and is a slow and unmeasurable process, lying outside of empirical proof. This is a therefore a philosophical statement, not a factual claim.
Broad and Wade given many examples of ‘scientists’ torturing the data and observations to fit into their worldviews, often to achieve career objectives or accede to grant money. Are we naïve enough to believe that worldviews and philosophies don’t shape ‘science’? The very first question that should be asked of a scientific claim is ‘what is your philosophical world view and how does that influence your conclusions?’
6-Public Ignorance
“For the public, a better understanding of the nature of science would lead to their regarding scientists with less awe and a dash more scepticism.” (Broad and Wade, p. 223)
Public ignorance around ‘science’ is a cornerstone to scientific funding, endeavour and its elevation as religion. Scientism is the merger of the myths of science namely, its purported rationality, self-correction, self-policing, replication and honesty, with the religious tenets of absolute if not divine authority. Scientism is the ‘Church of Science’ as described by Auguste Comte, or the ‘Church of Reason’ as defined by the ‘Enlightenment’ and the atheist French Revolution.
Modern science thus assumes that an ignorant public will simply grant Scientism the right to rule. The carefully managed media propaganda which portrays science as the only path to truth and progress, has impressed a largely apathetic and ignorant mass who do not understand science or its methods and who are too distracted to much care. ‘Better leave it to the experts’ is the worldview of most people and such an attitude leads directly to Scientistic fascism as evinced by the Corona scamdemic. The ‘experts’ and their allies, emboldened by mass meekness and weakness will happily accrue power, money and control using ‘science’ as their religious mantra.
Bottom Line
Broad and Wade’s book by itself is a revelation of details about specific scientific fraud, much of it incredible and almost unbelievable. They present overwhelming evidence that powerful groups, people and ‘gatekeepers’ not only commit fraud but cover it up. Money, careerism and awards are central to ‘science’. Such books could and should be published every few years and would make a worthy PhD dissertation.
Oswald Spengler in ‘The Decline of Western Civilisation’ wrote that scientific fraud is a sign of a decadent and imploding civilisation. Western Civ is certainly imploding. Science is just an example of why this is true. The state of ‘modern science’ is far more parlous today than it was in 1982.
Today we have rivers of outrageous fraud in the ‘science’ within climate, ‘green technology’, ‘environmental studies’, genderism, medicine, bio-medical research, mRNA, vaccinations, cosmology, physics, sociology, IT, education, ‘health’, psychology, military to name some notables. ‘Research’ and ‘science’ are soiled with corruption and fraud.
The real objectives of ‘science’ are more secular and prosaic: get published, appease the financiers, powerbrokers and their worldviews; accrue the usual sins of profits, power, prestige and notoriety. The flows of money for research now exceed U$ 100 billion per annum, probably 10-20 times more than what existed in the 1980s. Add in the massive markets for cults like ‘climate’, ‘green tech’, transgenderism, diversity etc and it is not a contentious observation to claim that money has deeply corrupted real science.
We should recognise, pace Feyerabend, that ‘Science’ is indeed an ideology and one dedicated to achieving material and secular aims. It is not a moral or rational absolute and should never be given the divine right to rule.
Related posts
Scientific Fraud and Retractions
Flying Viruses don’t exist (except to make profits and accrete power)
Source
William Broad and Nicholas Wade, ‘Betrayers of the Truth, Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science’, 1982, Simon and Shuster.