Worlds Apart – Should We “Trust The Science”?

Can you solve problems...?

Andrew Johnson

ad.johnson@ntlworld.com

18 May 2022

Parts of this article are written from a personal perspective – formed due to various experiences and "encounters" I have had in the last few years.

For many people who have "woken up" to a "bigger reality" in recent years, and particularly during the COVID "scamdemic," it seems that "science" has become a dirty word. This is perhaps due to the implementation of the catchphrase "Trust the Science" in US/UK propaganda "newspeak".

Also, of course, we have seen many, many instances where science itself has been misused to further a darker globalist agenda. In order to promote certain scientific ideas, studies and conclusions,  vested interests will positively or negatively influence reviewers and editors of scientific journals to either publish or suppress certain papers or studies. This has been going on for decades – centuries even – but it seems to have become much more of a problem since the 1980s. In addition, it has become clear that media networks promote certain stories while suppressing others.

It is easy to think that all science revolves around publishing in journals. It is then a small step to conclude that, because of the level of corruption in these journals, and the likelihood that they are strongly influenced or controlled by vested interests, all science should be distrusted. Similarly, all scientists (especially those employed by the state, or large corporations) are not to be trusted either!

The Scientific Method(s)

Before we go too far, everyone should pause to consider what science really is. We could probably debate the exact definition for quite some time – but the fundamental processes that underpin all science are:

1. Making observations

2. Collecting/recording those observations (data)

(People who have not been involved in scientific disciplines probably haven't stopped to consider this simple characterisation.) Following those two basic processes, we can then bring in two more:

1. Measurement

2. Interpretation

That is, you need to collect observations/data before you can make measurements or any interpretation relating to them.

Problems can arise at each of these 4 stages – for example, observations can be biased – for various reasons, or they can be incomplete – due to inadequate methods of observation. Collection methods may be inadequate – for example they might be too slow or too fast or not sensitive enough. Interpretation is where the real problems start – as this is (mostly) done by human beings. The humans/people interpreting the measurements/data may, without always realising it, be expecting a particular result or conclusion of their interpretations. Hence, we get to the "repeatability" aspect of science/scientific experiments, where different people/humans interpreting the data also complete steps 1-4 above and then "compare notes" to try and establish what the underlying truth is.

So, when someone says "Trust the Science" we should immediately worry, because it is suggesting that the "repeatability" aspect of experiment isn't important. It is essentially saying that we should trust that the experiment or performance of steps 1-4 has been done correctly and we shouldn't question if there have been any problems with the completion of any or all of these steps. If Science journals and communities operated as they should, then the "peer review process" should be good enough such that problems in any of the 4 steps are highlighted, challenged and corrected, when/where appropriate.

The underlying drive behind science, however is (or should be) curiosity – about how something works, or why things are like they are. Also, this curiosity may come from wishing to "make things better" – to make something work more efficiently, effectively or more quickly. (Or it may come from a desire to make a lot of money!)

Making Observations

In my experience, observation skills are poorly taught and not valued very highly by most people. I know from personal experience how bad my own observation skills can be at times and therefore have tried to keep in mind that I do need to check and review my own observations before making measurements and drawing conclusions. I know some people who are much better observers than I am and in my journey to uncover more about the truth of what is going on in the world, I have benefited from their superior skills of observation. (The first example that comes to mind is the set of observations made about 9/11 by Dr Judy Wood.) Dr Wood's work really emphasised to me the importance of gathering as much data and observations as you can before measuring and making some interpretation (or conclusion) from them. This process applies to most areas of life – not just matters to do with physical processes or "scientific activities" like growing bacterial cultures in a Petri dish. It applies to considering the behaviour of people, changes in the financial markets, changes in traffic flow and movements in a city or on a busy motorway/highway etc. Having made observations, be careful how you treat them. As Dr Judy Wood has said:

It is important to know what it is that you know that you know, and then to know that everything else you don't know.  If one is not carefully disciplined, the border between knowledge and assumptions may blur. Also, if the border between evidence and assumptions is not carefully maintained, one becomes vulnerable to manipulation.  "Know what it is that you know that you know, and then to know that everything else you don't know." Be comfortable not knowing all the answers, otherwise assumptions may be confused with knowledge. 

Science and Engineering

Unless someone is involved in one or other of these disciplines – or on the periphery of them, they may not distinguish between them. Speaking for myself, I got a reasonably good grounding in the former before working professionally – for about 20 years – in the latter. Engineering is about problem solving – using a kind of scientific method – to "turn science into real, working things." Of course, like science itself, these "working things" can be used for good or evil purposes.

On the flip side, science can be used to understand how things actually work – to "reverse engineer" things – and discover relationships between things that aren't immediately obvious. A good example of this sort of thing is shown in this marvellous video by Cristóbal Vila.

The video beautifully illustrates the mathematical relationships embedded in a few examples of Flora and Fauna – such mathematical relationships are found throughout the disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics. However, without gaining a grounding in observation, basic mathematics and their (sometimes simple) application, the relationships would normally remain hidden to - and therefore unappreciated by - most people.

At this point, I feel I should point out, from history, the role of two brilliant minds and the discoveries they made – which few appreciate the significance of. Calculus is a branch of mathematics which was developed by German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and the English Natural Philosopher Isaac Newton. Now, some readers at this point will want to go down the rabbit hole where the possible "Masonic" or "Illuminati" connections or affiliations of these figures may lie. However, the mathematics they developed "works" - irrespective of any such affiliations or connections. (If this mathematics did not "work," you almost certainly would not be reading this text – or be able to travel in a car, train or plane as you do now.)

Calculus is a way of predicting and modelling how change happens – in both living and non-living systems. If you don't study mathematics and/or struggle with doing so (or you aren't willing to study it), you're just going to have to accept that you don't understand something and therefore don't appreciate when you can observe it working in certain systems). If you want to say, "it's all fake" or, "I don't believe it's real" (perhaps because you don't understand it) – then you are being dishonest or disingenuous (especially if you've never asked someone to explain it to you when you want to try and understand it). Assuming that because you don't understand something then no one else can understand it - and that they must be dishonest if they claim they do – is making a baseless assumption in an arrogant way and will be a barrier to your own learning and growing. In other words, perhaps you might consider that you might need some humility to move forward…

Conversations about Knowledge, Opinions and "Instant Experts"

I write these words because of conversations I've had in the last few years. I also know that others have had similar conversations. Most of these conversations revolve around the issue of the morphology of our home planet. Those that have doubts about this are the ones that typically don't understand calculus and they don't know what the difference between a statute mile and a nautical mile is. Neither do they seem to value the study of algebra and trigonometry (usually studied in mathematics before calculus – as an understanding of the former topics is necessary to understand calculus). Finally, they would rather watch Youtube or online videos (made by people who typically don't understand what calculus is) than make their own observations with their own eyes and their own instruments. Also, they regard it as too much of a challenge (for various reasons) to actually sit down and learn mathematics and understand calculus (say) for themselves.

Whilst the age of YouTube and instant online publishing brings a wide freedom of expression to many (keeping in mind the censorship of certain topics), it also brings another issue/problem – anyone with an opinion and an internet connection can appear to some people as an "instant expert" or an "instant authority"  on any given topic – even though they may not have studied it very much – except through a search engine. They may not have studied a topic with a view to producing a solution for a problem and they may not have professional experience in that subject area. Oftentimes, it's difficult to find or a read biographies of these "instant expert" figures – so how can we judge whether what they conclude is based on knowledge or belief/opinion? What previous experience do they have in analysis or applying logic and a "problem-solving" approach to understanding the topic they appear to be an authority on? (A partial answer to this is to consider how diligent they are at referencing their sources.)

I regularly get asked – challenged even – with the "flat earth" question – and my response is usually one of exasperation that those asking the question don't already know it's another psychological operation that has been instigated against them. In relation to this, I wrote about an earlier experience that I had, here.

Recently, a chap I have known since about 2004 and have regularly corresponded with since then (he's even been to my house) presented a similar challenge to me – along with one about the so-called "Jet Fuel Hoax." I explained to him that the latter was yet another psychological operation, which, although I hadn't studied deeply, I'd seen enough to know what it was. He rightly suggested that I might be making assumptions about it and so I responded "OK – send me the videos you are referring to and I will study them." Instead, he responded thus (and sent no links to the videos which he was suggesting supported the notion of a "jet fuel hoax"). I freely gave this person 2.5 hours of my time, speaking to them on the phone. In a follow up email (dated 27 Mar 2022) they said:

Everything I mentioned, with the exception of star forts, was met with either, "have you conducted these experiments yourself?"...or, "have you discussed this with anyone who has a degree in the subject?"...or, "do you have a degree in this subject?"

The exact same response the mainstream always gives to discredit anyone who dare question the official narrative.

If you question the moon landings, if you question 9/11, if you question covid...why are you immediately trying to debunk/discredit information on the jet fuel hoax, fabricated coastlines, man-made blockwork, etc?

Clearly, this person didn't appreciate what I've already studied in the past. So I initially replied:

If you don't value my knowledge and experience (both "mainstream" and "other") - that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. But if you don't value it then why consult me in the first place or ask me for my conclusions?

If you want to just assume I am wrong because I know certain things and have studied them - more than you have - then again, that's fine….

If it's really important to you that the earth is flat, or that jet fuel is basically a hoax - again, that's all fine... Please don't cast aspersions that I am being hypocritical or whatever - when you don't actually know how much I've studied (e.g. because you haven't read my books).

This person then talked about how intelligent they were (presumably because they thought I was trying to question their level of intelligence). However, this itself brings up an interesting question – what is the relationship between intelligence and knowledge? How much of one can you have without the other? That's another conversation!

In a further email to this person, I tried to elaborate – from an engineer's perspective -  on my exasperation, thus:

In summary - you don't seem to understand the value of doing basic experiments yourself and studying topics such as crystallography etc yourself - or studying algebra and trig yourself, to the point where you can solve new problems given to you (that's what I had to do in the past) My ability to understand problems and solve them independently was how I earned a living for years.

At one point, I was even given a problem to solve based on some equations that were given to me as part of a robot controller. I didn't fully understand the equations but was able to prove, by experiment, they couldn't be correct. So I went back to [the] engineer who'd given them to me, he looked at the data I had. He realised I was correct and a day or 2 later came back with a revised (correct) equation. This was to do with some "proportional + integral control" in a robot controller I was writing the software for. I revised the software based on the new equations and it worked properly.

I understood enough of what was going on to know that I was right, but I didn't know exactly why. This was in 1986/1987 so there was no internet to help me solve the problem. It was a good lesson that I learned (one of many). I never studied what is called "Control Theory" as part of my Physics or Maths modules - the "wrong" and "corrected" equations were derived from Control Theory. However, I had done enough study to understand the basics of how it worked and how it was being applied in the engineering problem I was being tasked to solve.[EDIT: Control Theory involves the use of Calculus!]  Have you done anything like that? Have any of the people who made the videos you're referring to done anything like that?

Whilst I know Universities are largely driven by corporate funding, and science is often compromised, it's different with engineering. In a sense, you can't corrupt engineering - if you do, whatever you are trying to engineer won't work. You won't have a working computer - or a working smart phone. Engineering is science turned into "working things." Sadly, some engineered devices are used to cause harm - but that's not my point here really.

I was never really taught the value of good design and engineering - and the effective application of science. It is something I learned from work I was involved in. I guess people who don't get involved in some similar work don't see things in this way. This conclusion is partly borne out by the fact that Wilbert Smith, Dr Judy Wood, Richard D Hall and myself are all engineers at heart.

Most youtubers have no clue how all the technology they use works. (I probably understand most of how it works overall). And would they ever have the inclination to find out? Perhaps they would only investigate the underlying nature of the operation of these technologies and how they work if they failed in some way and they wanted to try and fix them.

Do I sound arrogant in writing what I wrote above? Am I trying to be "superior"? I had no desire to come across as either – and I hope my meaning is not misconstrued. However, I would be being dishonest if I had not said that I had more knowledge and experience of certain science and engineering issues than the person that wrote to me (which, as I said above, I thought was the reason he was contacting me in the first place!)

At the same time, I don't want to seem like I am judging anyone because they don't have the same experience I have. I am just trying to make information – and some kind of guidance - available to them, if they wish to learn more about the topics I have studied and written about. I don't get paid to do this – it has become a vocation for me and so is done for both my own satisfaction and for altruistic reasons.

Caught Between "Three Worlds"?

Some people have described me as an "intellectual." I am not always comfortable with this characterisation. However, maybe I am an "intellectual" – though I don't hold any advanced degrees and neither have I written what I would call any particularly intellectual works.

I do have varied experience - spread across "three worlds." One world is the world that the majority of people seem to inhabit. Few if any of them have studied science and engineering or worked professionally in that field. They are, essentially, "lay people" – just trying to get on with life. Let me call this "World A."

Another "world" is the world of science and engineering where you can study and learn and you can then work to build a solution to a problem – or at least solve part of said problem. I'll call this "World B."

Yet another world is a world of strangeness and much uncertainty – where one's perception and sanity are often seemingly tested or challenged. I'll call this "World C." The observations and experience you may have if you "travel to World C" may be bizarre and bewildering. A scientific approach to things doesn't seem to work as well in World C as it does in World B - and the use of "faculties" such "gut feeling" and "intuition" can often be usefully employed.

I kind of grew up in "World B" and was only vaguely aware of the existence of "World C." I thought World C was kind of interesting, unlike many other "World B" people I interacted with. Some of those people thought "World C" was of no interest and it was a waste of time studying it. After all, nothing could be proved in "World C" and the people that "lived there" were mostly either idiots - or people that had no understanding or appreciation of "World B." They'd "moved" directly from "World A" to "World C" without any consideration that "World B" was the only sensible place to inhabit.

I have found that "something happens" to World A and World B people which makes them realise that World C is real. It could be some type of trauma, or some kind of profound experience or realisation that they undergo. My "World C awareness" was essentially triggered in 2003, when I realised there really was a UFO/ET cover up. Since then, I have spent a lot of time in "World C" and realise that the "World B" folks are mistaken in their understanding and assumptions about "World C."  That said, it does seem to be the case that, many of the inhabitants that have moved from World A to World C (i.e. the "lay people" who have little or no experience of "living in World B") are also mistaken about what they  think is in World B and what those "World B" people are really like.

Communication and "travel" between the "three worlds" is difficult – yet each "World" has something that the other Worlds need. I suppose much of my work and efforts in creating "checktheevidence" - and related materials, videos etc - has really been an attempt to improve the flow of dialogue and information between Worlds A, B and C – because I have spent time in each of the worlds and feel I have some appreciation for how the people in each of these worlds think – and what motivates them.

In summary then, let me say:

• World A – the "normal" world of "lay people" does not hold all the answers but it does seem to hold a high proportion of people who have little or no curiosity about how the things they use actually work. Neither do they tend to think about the "bigger picture."

• World B – the "science and engineering world" does not hold all the answers either, but it does seem to hold a high proportion of people who think that "all the answers" can only be found by exploring or understanding World B better.

• World C – the "alternative knowledge" world – has some world-changing and profound answers which, if fully realised and understood may completely transform all three worlds and their composition.

Perhaps the only way that one can travel freely between Worlds A, B and C at the moment is first to accept that these worlds exist in parallel and then, with some humility, begin to try and expand one's perception and consciousness. In this way, one can begin to understand and appreciate all 3 worlds and attempt to gain further knowledge about each of them - and also of the "bigger picture" of which all three worlds are themselves a part.

 ===

[EDIT: I've had some good feedback to this article. However, I've also had a couple of messages indicating that people have not studied and digested this article and still assume I am either wrong or I might be wrong about the morphology of planet earth. For them, and all like them, this video seems appropriate:

]