When conducting research, one must be careful to attempt to avoid the pitfalls of false positives in the discovery of new information, any attempt to gather information in a systemic environment one must give a careful examination and re-examination of received data. These sources could come from many different angles from many different sources so attempting to look at information through a personal critical lens is absolutely imperative. One example is the practice of peer review, where one might parse documentation of findings and must be passed around to other researchers in attempt to dissect the results of empirical knowledge as something that verified claims can made upon every bit of collected data in a collection of research. However, the issue with peer review carries many institutionalized elements that could precede from getting to “things in themselves”. It would be beneficial to look at criticism by follow the money of the person who has been tasked with finding falsifications in data, not only that, but researchers often benefit from being “paid off” to come up with results that institutions would find beneficial to keeping the regime of “settled science” intact so it becomes codified in the system of keeping people from revolting against their beneficiaries. These people also work in tandem with other researchers to weight their biases against the biases of the information provided, and more often than not, they tend to agree to a basic objective (at least in their eyes) premise which in turn upholds a “status quo” of opinion that is also codified in the institutions that are sworn to “protect and serve” the population at large, even if these findings may harm the people in the long run. There are a collection of “logical fallacies” that in order for discourse and rhetoric to be exchanged between parties of researchers must be carefully examined to make sure nothing is amiss in the world of received knowledge, its a bit curious to know these collections are not without their faults.
Take the burden of proof for example, since the postulate states that negatives can't be proven (however the fact they can be disproven) it shifts responsibility to the theist so the atheist can keep his or her opinions on God and the consequences of its application without having to answer to anyone if teleologically it ends up in the death of one or many, one can see this through the genocides of all profane dictatorships, where towing the party line is so critically important they lose the main objective of the revolutionary goal and suffer from tunnel vision, in which everyone who does NOT tow the line to an ever increasing list of demands towards the “thing it-self” eventually results in assassinations, genocide and the general ill-disposition teleologically towards anyone who may not share they same goal, and if the revolution is permanent, ends up unpersoning the entire population of given states, whether they conform to the party line (unable to think for one’s self) or are ostracized for “wrongthink” and sent to their deaths….its plain to see that these kinds of similar praxis are being attempted in the name of science, the godfather of reason and a handmaiden to atheism, to restrict the agency of anyone who does not agree with the state’s proclamation of what determines “right” or “wrong”, let alone if any such categories exist, to unify mankind under one distinct objective order. That is not to say objective truth does not exist, on the contrary, but it is found beyond the material world, as Aquinas pointed out we cannot know God is there but by only by what he has created, and if the created world aligns with natural law, then it is objective that God exists. There should be absolutely no reason to constantly discuss his omnipotence with those who deny his greatness, especially the skeptics, who originally started to claim they are no claims to truth, only speculation.
Since they now have the upper-hand in society the idea that one would be skeptical about anything is now overturned to blind obedience to the dogma of science, which now functions in the same manner the church did during the middle ages, the end goal of such actions is to basically keep the peons in line with a moral/ethic that has no distinction between what IS and what OUGHT to be, instead of positing a definite strong moral code. This will be the end of a society since once cannot build a society on loosely defined morals through a strict dogma of the only rule being that one must deviate to be moral, a government who says the only rule is there are no rules, and God doesn’t exist so things such as child molestation are completely okay, that adultery is completely okay, that murder is completely ok which leads down a slope to eventually encompass cannibalism, necrophilia and finally genocide as a virtue. This would be minimal if this was conducted by private individuals but since we speak of the ruling class as a whole this is very troublesome to dwell on.
Take the burden of proof for example, since the postulate states that negatives can't be proven (however the fact they can be disproven) it shifts responsibility to the theist so the atheist can keep his or her opinions on God and the consequences of its application without having to answer to anyone if teleologically it ends up in the death of one or many, one can see this through the genocides of all profane dictatorships, where towing the party line is so critically important they lose the main objective of the revolutionary goal and suffer from tunnel vision, in which everyone who does NOT tow the line to an ever increasing list of demands towards the “thing it-self” eventually results in assassinations, genocide and the general ill-disposition teleologically towards anyone who may not share they same goal, and if the revolution is permanent, ends up unpersoning the entire population of given states, whether they conform to the party line (unable to think for one’s self) or are ostracized for “wrongthink” and sent to their deaths….its plain to see that these kinds of similar praxis are being attempted in the name of science, the godfather of reason and a handmaiden to atheism, to restrict the agency of anyone who does not agree with the state’s proclamation of what determines “right” or “wrong”, let alone if any such categories exist, to unify mankind under one distinct objective order. That is not to say objective truth does not exist, on the contrary, but it is found beyond the material world, as Aquinas pointed out we cannot know God is there but by only by what he has created, and if the created world aligns with natural law, then it is objective that God exists. There should be absolutely no reason to constantly discuss his omnipotence with those who deny his greatness, especially the skeptics, who originally started to claim they are no claims to truth, only speculation.
Since they now have the upper-hand in society the idea that one would be skeptical about anything is now overturned to blind obedience to the dogma of science, which now functions in the same manner the church did during the middle ages, the end goal of such actions is to basically keep the peons in line with a moral/ethic that has no distinction between what IS and what OUGHT to be, instead of positing a definite strong moral code. This will be the end of a society since once cannot build a society on loosely defined morals through a strict dogma of the only rule being that one must deviate to be moral, a government who says the only rule is there are no rules, and God doesn’t exist so things such as child molestation are completely okay, that adultery is completely okay, that murder is completely ok which leads down a slope to eventually encompass cannibalism, necrophilia and finally genocide as a virtue. This would be minimal if this was conducted by private individuals but since we speak of the ruling class as a whole this is very troublesome to dwell on.
