Want to push a scientific looking agenda, but hate doing real science? Promotification is the way to pull it off, and look like a scientist in the mean time.
How to squelch a topic or subject you do not like, extend a lab contract, or produce favorable results, while all the time looking all “sciencey.”
Promotification – One or a series of predictive experiments touted as scientific, yet employed in such a fashion as to mislead. Deception or incompetence wherein only predictive testing methodology was undertaken in a hypothesis reduction hierarchy when more effective falsification pathways or current evidence were readily available, but were ignored.
The pseudoscience practice of only developing, or the forcing the sponsor of an idea/set of observations, as a first priority to only fully develop, evidence in support of or a series of predictive-only tests which merely serve to confirm conventional or conforming explanations of that data in question.
Promotification suffers from the Penultimate Set Fallacy, the weakness that it affords no disciplined falsification comparatives under Developmental Science Methodology, fails the Popper Demarcation litmus, assumes that there is no aggregate or other data on the subject, enforces a priori testing hierarchies in absence of knowing what question to ask, and refuses to acknowledge differing research protocols under Discovery Science Methodology..
Promotification Pseudoscience, The Seven Forms of Lab and Scientific Promotional Fraud
I. Performing the exact same experiment, 150 times over, and getting the same result each time, and billing that as “Numerous Scientific Studies.”
Example: Glyphosate/GM food 90 Day Rat Death studies, the same test run 65 times and being declared as “numerous scientific studies.”
II. Performing the most expensive medical tests, studies or experiments as a first priority, so as to maximize billable client or patient revenue, when cheaper falsification tests were readily available and were ignored. Choosing to test highly unlikely scenarios as a first priority in testing so as to maximize the billable testing or work prior to finding the most likely solution as a last step.
Example: Conducting a colonoscopy search for cancer as the first step of investigation for every patient who walks in the door of a doctor’s office complaining of intestinal pain – in absence of seeking out other symptoms, patient history and patient feedback about more common maladies.
III. Performing predictive tests to find evidence in support of a favored theory, when falsification tests of opposing or favored theories, and/or a large body of falsifying evidence, were readily available, but were ignored.
Example: Conducting predictive studies in purported haunted locations, to show that EVP phenomena could possibly in some cases be pareidolia, when case examples of clear EVP’s demonstrably shown as actual voices already existed, and were being recorded in the next room at the very same time.***
IV. Performing patchwork predictive analyses with assumptions in the gaps that were formulated in advance with those tests outcomes already in mind.
Example: Global Warming arguments both pro and con.***
V. Selecting contrived testing pathways or hypothesis sets or reduction hierarchies, which serve only to confirm a favored outcome.
Example: Testing for increases in inflation or unemployment by only examining fully understood sectors/factors which will produce known outcomes.
VI. Performing predictive experiments to support a case of plausible deniability or conformance as POSSIBLE, and terminating the scientific method there.
Example: Testing to observe if a bear can walk on two legs, in order to arguably preclude through plausible deniability any further scientific investigation regarding tens of thousands of bigfoot sightings.***
VII. Performing predictive experiments in such a fashion so as to maximize the total duration involved in a study or the work content and expense billed to a contract.
Example: Heartburn industry promoting predictive studies around a full array of 1000 environmental factors and their possible contribution to stomach ulcers, in an effort to prolong research and protect prescription heartburn remedies from being held to account regarding studies, already readily testable, which would falsify this prolonged pathway in one simple step, through H. Pylori research.
*** I hold no conclusions on these subjects, and only use them here as examples wherein I have observed the tradecraft of corruption and social control – a subject in which I do bear professional skills at advising upon and countering.
No comments yet.