Running Time: 01:53:52
Download: OGG, MP3
The problem ... is that defining a "finding" as junk science relies on our having a "clear and unproblematic understanding of what science is, and just as importantly what it is not". We might think we do. It approximates to that observation-hypothesis-prediction-experiment-new-observation-amendment-(peer review)-theory cycle with which we are all fairly familiar. But, many things we call science, such as experiments that cannot be repeated independently, the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] experiments, large-scale clinical trials, climate modelling etc., do not fit and cannot even be forced to fit this cycle. Moreover, of the many thousands of scientific papers out there that comprise the scientific literature, very few, but for some worthy exceptions, are ever repeated by other scientists.In reality, observation studies married with statistics, or flawed clinical studies using animals with a predisposition to cancer, are being used to prove whatever the research sponsor wants to prove. It's junk science. All that is required is to tweak the questionnaire, fiddle with the statistical models, bias the clinical tests and you can have the answer you want. But only so long as that answer is politically correct. Try to use this method to prove something held to be "bad" or "wrong" in the minds of the Public Health Sector, and all hell will break loose.
"They [Belgian intelligence] didn't have enough intel to figure out who they [the 'terrorists'] were, where they were, what they were doing — and this is in the aftermath of taking down the mastermind of the Paris attacks. ... The key is intelligence. Our state, local and federal authorities have to be communicating. We have to be working with those abroad."Thanks, Bernie, for that remarkable insight. (Hey, at least it's better than Killary's plan to defeat ISIS by defeating ISIS.)