Notice the Subtle False Dilemma
Knowledge: Empirical or Inherited

During the current Coronal Virus craze, newscasters seek to propagate their political agendas using science via scientific modeling while using ad hominem attacks against those with whom they disagree. Not only do these sources exhibit ignorance of basic scientific modeling shortcomings but of the scientific method in general. Simply Psychology in the article, Psychology as Science, define empiricism as all knowledge as either gained through our senses or inherited. But scientific empiricism adds the requirement of testability of such knowledge; if it cannot be tested then it is not empirical though it may in fact be knowledge (Science Daily. Empiricism.). The debate of ideas is probably one of the most fertile fallacies propagated in our supposedly scientific society.

Intelligentsia a Willing Collaborator
Of Socialism Under the Guise of Science

Murray Rothbard in his book, The Progressive Era, pointed out the willing collaboration of the intelligentsia, or experts, as it gave them societal legitimacy they were previously denied except within their own limited circles. Supposedly, science is unbiased, able to determine the truth via experimentation. However, this fallacy was exposed in multiple venues. Isaac Asimov, science fiction author and university professor, often debunked this myth in many of his short stories. The statement that science is unbiased is a fertile fallacy as science is simply a methodology of repeatability and measurability. The people who advance theories and conduct experiments cannot be unbiased; everyone has biases based on their worldviews. It is the repeatability of measurements by those with opposing biases that validate a hypothesis; or not. The development of societies of disciplines began to limited opposing ideas to those who held similar views; or they would be professionally excluded. Herein is how science, so-called, became allied with socialism; a political methodol0gy that survives because it limits opposing views; violently at times.

Since the Frankfurt School came to America and the works of Antonio Gramsci, Critical Theory has dominated nearly ever facet of society via the educational, entertainment and informational segments of society to implement its global socialistic agenda. Critical Theory simply means being critical of everything that disagrees with your agenda and utilizing every means available to discredit opposing views; this includes logical fallacies such as ad hominem, against the man, attacks. The public is familiar with such tactics today as they have been used with impunity against President Trump, even through the naked use of government force; i.e., impeachment.

As egregious as displays of power are, even more egregious is the use of these attacks to discredit opposing views on the very basis of scientific knowledge. Medicine and big pharma have been prone to these charges especially in the field of cardiology (Cummings, Ivor. The Fat Emperor.). A non-medical bio-engineer has the audacity to prove via scientific research and reveal the fallacy of currently medically accepted heart attack causes and treatments. His cure, change your diet! A low-cost, easily implemented plan available to everyone at every socioeconomic level. Some medical practitioners have come on board such as Dr. Jason Fung, nephrologist, who advocates intermittent fasting as a cure for Type 2 Diabetes which the current medical philosophy labels as nearly incurable. This quenching of opposing viewpoints is not limited to health sciences, my specialty, but also to the queen of scientific knowledge: astrophysics.

Representation of Microwave
Radiation Proving Big Bang Theory

Pierre-Marie Robitaille, aka Sky Scholar, is a brilliant radiologist who won a Nobel Prize for his advancements in magnetic resonance imaging. His background and demonstrable expertise in radiation physics and its associated complex math formulas caused him to question the generally accepted theory of star formation in astrophysics. When you watch his YouTube videos, he presented his material in bite-size pieces using history, knowledge from other disciplines and mathematics. He criticizes currently accepted theories based on their own assumptions and claims; he has yet to use ad hominem attacks. Needless to say, he is very unpopular with the astrophysical community which rejects his conclusions because he is an outsider. This is the same excuse used by the medical community against Mr. Cummings; he is not a doctor therefore he must be silent because he is ignorant.

Some claim Mr. Robitaille has been inflicted with the Nobel Disease; tendency for Nobel recipients to apply their knowledge outside of their own fields of training. Pure and simple this is as ad hominem attack against the person and not a refutation of differing views based on repeatability and measurability; i.e., science. He has been attacked as advancing pseudoscience, or scientism, because he goes against the current prevailing beliefs of a certain discipline. One of his teachings debunks the entire notion that background radiation correlates with the Big Bang Theory. Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB) was accidentally discovered by Penzias and Wilson whose radio telescope was very near to the Atlantic Ocean. Without going into complex detail, astrophysicists have postulated theories which can never be tested since the so-called Big Bang occurred once; i.e., it is not repeatable. Professor Herouni built a radio telescope in the mountains of Armenia, far from any ocean and did not detect the so-called CMB; meaning, no Big Bang according to current theories. His report was marginalized and buried and nearly lost because it disagreed with accepted theories. Professor Halton Arp also had a different theory concerning red shifting that opposed the Big Bang theory; he was also marginalized though he worked in the field and relied on direct observations. So why is any of this important?

Astrophysics is intimately tied to an evolutionary view of creation. Their Big Bang theory CMB proved the viability of this theory; they asserted. Their detailed explanation of minute atomic events and associated time lines are pure fantasy at best since it is not repeatable nor was anyone there to perform measurements. This theory relies as much on faith as does biblical Creationism. Any refutation of this theory, even by non-believers, opens the door for alternative explanations; even God.

Natural philosophy worked on the presupposition of observations and developing theories that may explain those observations. "The scientific process is now based on the hypothetico-deductive model was proposed by Karl Popper (1935) (Simply Psychology. Psychology as Science.)." Under this philosophical switch, knowledge is scientific only if it can be falsifiable. The difference? Popper's methodology, which is used by everyone today, requires the development of theories first, then observations or experiments to disprove the theory; except, those who disagree with the generally accepted theory are discredited and their observations rejected! If this sounds like socialism it is because Dr. Popper was an international socialist and teach of Mr. Soros who developed Reflexivity and Fertile Fallacies {lies} to change societies to his ideal: international socialism. Hence: knowledge is simply another reflexive tool supported by continued fertile fallacies until people no longer care about the truth.