Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, by way of the scientific method; Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Conclusion. We're taught in school that this is an infallible, auto-correcting system, that combined with the reliability of peer review, it will always lend itself to truth.
This is not an accident.
So, I walked through the entire process with an associate that prefers to remain anonymous, let's call him Dr. Reale. The Doctor explained to me that there, is, in fact, a prerequisite to the method than any of the official steps; funding. According to the National Science Foundation, over 70% of scientific research in the US is funded by corporations and special interests groups.
"So, what's the problem with that?" you may ask yourself. "We live in a capitalist world, you have to accumulate value or you end up camping in a Fiat in a locale you're unfamiliar with just for the chance to hang with a beautiful woman."
Yes, Reader, you're exactly right, everyone needs to accumulate value. That's how we succeed. So how is it, then, that we are expected to take any of it as a neutral, objective source for truth? The conflict is clear as day, all you have to do is gin up a study to placate your financial backers, and that keeps you afloat well enough to pursue your pet projects (which is, in itself, a conflict of interest, stay tuned for Stories are Fake!) We see the results of this when we use scientific research to make arguments, it's a rare circumstance that there isn't a counter-study for anything you could hope to cite.
Dr. Reale went on to explain that this was only the beginning of the problem. Academia is a religious community in all but name, hardly more legitimate than Scientology. "If you submit a paper with biased conclusion in either direction, take climate science, for example, you will be able to find publishing, because that's the default pipeline (...) But present evidence goes against the Holy Scientific Catechism, IQ and its racial correlation being the oft-cited case (...) you are liable to be excommunicated from the entire industry. You will never have a job or be cited in future research again." He went on further to say "...Peer review in itself is (...) questionable. There've been many famous cases where pseudo science has made its way into journals without being thought. I think it's time we took a serious look into the faith we put into this community."
We see this phenomenon so frequently and so publicly these days that no one will question the veracity of this account, I assume. It doesn't take much to understand without much that not everything is as it seems.
"But corruption can be found in industry, and we don't call everything else fake?"
You're drinking too much fluoride, friend. Let's forget the bulk of corruption, then, and dissect the very basic steps of this process, keeping in mind that peer review is easily circumvented at best.
1: Question. Already, we have a problem. Questions are fucking retarded. You know who asks questions? Toddlers. "Mom why can't I buy that toy?" "Why can't I throw baseballs at Mr. Goldbear's window?" "Why can't Daddy live with us anymore?" Waaah waaah waaah. If the first step of reaching your objective truth requires behaving like an actual infant, you should kill yourself.
2: Research: A.K.A. cherry picking to convince yourself something necessitates further inquiry. Got it.
3: Hypothesis: The only think you actually need to convince anyone of anything, your conclusion will usually reflect your hypothesis regardless of the data, find me 10 papers that don't if you believe otherwise.
4: Experiment: It works for math and chemicals, but is strongly biased in favour of the prescripted hypothesis in social sciences.
5: Analysis: Explaining to everyone how big your penis is for having the right hypothesis. Wow, you sure showed us. Prick.
6: Conclusion: (Proverbially?) cuming on your face while you're sleeping by saying the hypothesis again. I didn't realize we mythologized rapists here but I guess anything goes in the current year. A famous example is the Milgram Experiments. Often touted as proof of the psychology behind the Nuremberg Defense, neglected from the widest interpretation is the fact that the participants are already aware that it was an abstraction, a fact that renders the purpose of the experiment void.
If you've ever conducted any social experiments in High School or College, you already know that practically every social experiment is exactly this, the only difference is that in school you're forging results to get a good grade. In real science, you have to do it to put food on the table. Every step of the process is subject to a vast array of human error, and there is absolutely no incentive in place to get anything right.
I can hear you now saying "Wow, Steven, you've so eloquently and correctly explained why believing a field that's designed specifically to influence behaviour en masse is nonsense. May I recieve your seed?"
No, you may not, because this is only the tip of the iceberg, faggot! To rub it in now would be the text equivalent of premature ejaculate. This is but the first installation of my arduous dissection of everything. By the end of this series of articles, you will have comprehensive knowledge of everything everyone has been bullshitting you about for your entire life.
You're welcome for the brief education, and thanks for reading.