💖 Welcome To The GoE!
👍 GoE Facebook
Scientists Behaving Badly - Over-Emotional Scientists Crying "Snake Oil!" Over EMO
"Scientists" behaving so deeply and disturbingly "unscientifically," throwing tantrums and swear words around like 6 year old children, crying "Snake Oil!" "denouncing," "debunking" everyone and everything outside their own narrow and dogmatic ideas without any research, any evidence or even any knowledge of what they are denouncing, are turning the population against themselves - and sadly, against the idea of science itself.
"Scientists" Behaving Badly
Over-Emotional Scientists Crying "Snake Oil!" Over EMO
By Silvia Hartmann
What is it with the "sceptical scientists" that they can't get their emotions under control?
The latest outburst of unscientific over-emotionality from so-called "scientists" over EMO is yet another case in point. Wild, unfounded accusations are being bandied about under the banner of science, without research, without background information; in fact nothing but rather poor propaganda is being spouted on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
What is that?
How can these people be so - illogical? Over-emotional? So deeply unscientific? Come across as unbalanced in their exhortations and cries of "snake oil!" and "bullshit!" as the most deluded of uneducated religious fanatics?
There is an easy, simple explanation for the behaviour of the so-called "scientists" and it is ...
... that there actually isn't a "scientific" explanation for human emotions. Ergo they have no tool with which to release their stress, or manage their anger, their bitterness, disappointments, frustrated ambitions, or any other of their negative emotions.
All of that clouds the mind.
A person in a high state of emotionality cannot think clearly, cannot think logically.
And that's been the problem of "science" all along.
I keep putting the word "science" in inverted commas because actually, the idea of science is a good idea.
Science is supposed to be a way to study things that happen in the real world and to understand more, gain more knowledge.
The idea of science is based on the "scientific method" which has the following steps:
There is also the idea that if something is correct, the experimentation can be performed by many different people and the conclusion will always be the same, or that the experiment will produce similar results.
Now theoretically, ANY PERSON can use the scientific method in order to describe the world and add to the human knowledge base if they follow the steps above.
I am clearly such an "any person". I have followed the steps of the scientific method EXACTLY, right down to having the conclusion replicated by many others who work in the same field as I do, many times, and in many different circumstances. My hypothesis upon which EMO is based, namely that human emotions are the feedback mechanism for the energy body, has produced experiments which time and again, bring good results. My scientific method has been rigorous, my research extensive, my documentation unfailing.
However, and in spite of all of that, there are people who call themselves "scientists" in inverted commas who take it upon themselves to denounce the validity of EMO theory and findings without the slightest investigation, or based on reading a couple of articles on the web, jumping to conclusions, and starting to rant incoherently.
This has been seen too many times before.
Here is a current example:
Do we really believe in science:
The emergence of Truthiness
In an article in the Guardian the other day Georg Monbiot wonders why climate change denial is spreading in spite of what the scientific community states:
A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there’s solid evidence that the world has been warming over the past few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months(1). Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe that global warming is the result of natural causes (44%) now outnumber those who believe it is caused by human action (41%)(2).
A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that manmade global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled in 2008(3). The Science Museum’s Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they’ve seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1006 people had endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it(4). On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global warming category(5). Never mind that they’ve been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles.
What is going on?
[From Monbiot.com » Death Denial]
The simple reason for why the people are losing faith in "science" is that scientists are failing to conduct themselves as rational human beings, and most of all, are FAILING TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS SCIENTISTS.
"Scientists" are being clearly irrational - as in the case of "denouncing and debunking" EMO in overly emotive terms without knowing the very first thing about it!
"Scientists" are also known for being paid and bought by any vested interest group or big company with enough funds to not just say EXACTLY what the vested interest group wants them to say, but to design experiments that prove ANYTHING the vested interest group wants them to prove - or disprove.
Such is the case as a pharmacologist being invited to comment on EMO and "denouncing EMO as psychobabble" without so much as taking the time to reading a single book that describes what EMO actually is and how it works. It is extraordinary that any person who thinks of themselves even remotely as a "scientists" could take such a course of public action which clearly demonstrates that this is not a scientifically based objection, but simply a knee jerk reaction, the press room spin response of a vested interest group or party, in which no truth can possibly be expected, or found.
Finally, and this is the real moment when average people walk away in disgust, "science" has failed the individual.
This is no more deeply apparent than in the field of psychology, where the only result "science" has managed to produce is an ever increasing array of mixtures of chemicals that heal nothing at all, and are clearly not the answer to the problem of human emotions which is at the root of so much bad health, disturbed thinking, and the resulting destructive behaviour.
"Science" does not have the beginning of an answer to the question of, "What is an emotion?" never mind the question of, "How can we change our emotions?"
I personally made it my life's work to discover the answers to these questions.
I could not do so within the "science club," so I took my research and worked with other intelligent human beings who were interested in these questions instead.
Good job that I did, because now, we have a theory and a method, as well as many experiments that are teaching us more and more about how emotions work, how they influence thought and the physical body, and most importantly, what we can do to release emotional stress so that we might think more clearly and act more logically.
That is being a REAL SCIENTIST, a person who wants to further their own knowledge, and add to the knowledge base of humanity.
And EVERY PERSON has the right to claim the scientific method for themselves, to work with it, to make it their own, and to come to their own conclusions.
I am going to state this clearly.
In order to use the scientific method, you do not have to attend a University.
Any thinking human being can and should use the scientific method to find out for themselves if something is true, or not.
And I challenge the "scientists" out there to behave like REAL scientists for once, find that love for truth they once must have possessed inside again, and rather than jumping to overly emotional and communal dogma conclusions, to familiarize themselves with the theory and practice of EMO and finding out for THEMSELVES whether my hypothesis is useful, or not.