Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,568 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 49576

Posts: 505

My Comments: 1713

User Comments: 3370

Photos: 4

Friends: 6

Following: 0

Followers: 4

Points: 9364

Last Online: 3 hours ago



cuppajo461 katskorner greyone40 1derlander Troll2016

Regarding the trustworthiness of scientific studies

Added: Tuesday, January 24th 2023 at 10:00pm by tjdonegan

              Each, and every, empirical science employs a scientific method1 which brackets2 those ideas/concepts and that information, principles and truths which are judged as unquantifiable; because if they not able to be quantified, they do not fall within the purview of science. The practitioner of science i.e., the scientist, in following his method cannot explain his discipline, and its findings, unless he utilized ideas/concepts, principles and truths which are not quantifiable.

1 Each empirical science utilizes a corps set of principles, but tailors those principles to its particular discipline e.g., the method regarding biology – where organisms are studied, is not apropos for physics, whose concern is considering the totality of constant physical interactions.

2 To bracket is to set aside – leaving such things out of any consideration; bracketing abstract concepts e.g., what is right, what is wrong, what is moral and immoral what is truth, what is justice, are all required by the empirical sciences method and their criteria to be bracketed; bracketing because those concepts are not measurable i.e., not scientific concepts. The criteria, and methods, of science allow analytical propositions e.g., “All men are mortal” – because the subject (“men”) implicitly contains the predicate (“mortality”), but not so regarding synthetic propositions e.g., “Apples are red” because the subject “apples” may be, but need not include the predicate “red”. Synthetic propositions must be empirically established to possess any validity. Bracketing omits those aspects ofreality which are a priori judged as irrelevant because they cannot be quantified.


Presupposed3 – by nearly everyone, but particularly those unfamiliar with scientific study, and its methods – is that the scientist, and his peer reviews – are as objective as may be. Thus, when one sees the publishing of a study, one takes the information imparted as “true/valid”. Never would those practitioners of "science" begin their study/investigation with a pre-ordained outcome to “validate”; to do such would not be right, not be just, it would be to publish untruths as truths. Such actions would be immoral! As it turns out – and one can view how the Medical sciences have conducted their affairs vis-à-vis Covid-19 {Can the scientist and his/her discipline be coerced? "Say it isn't so, Joe!"} – when the University a priori brackets objective reality and morality, they implicitly become an institution of ideology serving those that fund them i.e.,the University and the sciences become tools of the despots. 

3 A more fundamental presupposition – held by nearly all people, including those reading this, irrespective of whether they understand that to be the case, or otherwise – is objective reality, and its attendant objective morality. Note if any should believe that they do not embrace those principles, know that any argument such an individual makes contradicts, their claim i.e., contradicts their disavowal. The University – however – and its downstream scientific culture [necessarily ideological and subservient to underwriting powers – usually Government] does not presuppose objective reality, or objective morality; rather, the University a priori {i.e., as a starting point} rejects those principles; those institutions which – formerly – were animated and delimited bysuch principles have organically shed those principles and are now almost completely run by self-interested pragmatism i.e., they are coercible by the powerful (Government) and monied (Business serving power i.e., Government).  

Now we have written such things many times, but Martin’s prompting to view the sundry links he posted – where one may have one’s mind altered by “truths” compiled by sundry behavioral scientific disciplines – prompted us to write another such missive. Regarding Martin’s information we respond that those of us that understand the methods and practices of “science” and the delimiting conditions within which its studies are performed, are inclined to view such information with a heaping-helping amount of skepticism i.e., the STATE has an agenda, and its agenda is best advanced by suppressing truths which contradict that/those agenda/s, and promoting/propagating those narratives which seduce the uninitiated insouciant masses…

Thomas J. Donegan


User Comments

This is the kind of "science" Martin would like us to follow. 

"everybody in the room has some amount of sexual interest in children."



Hi, Scott!

Consciously, or otherwise...?!?!?!

Cordially, tjd

Consciously, it would appear. These people are twisted.


Post A Comment