The know-nothings in journalism and organizations who determine what reality is for society claim there cannot be errors in science, because science is self-correcting. So I need to take up the moral philosophy of corruption to explain why there are errors in science.

I deal with basic realities only. Science is basic reality, and the underlying philosophy of right and wrong science is basic reality.

Errors in basic reality become highly visible, which means basic reality tends not to be wrong. Since the most basic realities determine vast amounts of realities that depend upon them, there is no meaningful alternative to basic realities. Yet basic realities are strenuously avoided. So there is a great need to take up basic realities.

I don't touch superficial realities apart from the underlying basics. I'm not qualified to do so. That area belongs to journalism and politics. To deal with superficial realities requires familiarity and access which cover very large domains through subject matter and time. I'm disconnected from all that and don't study such things.

The superficial realities of journalism and politics are like looking at a million dots and seeing someone's face in it. Persons with different views will see different persons' faces and argue over the results.

Such options don't exist in basic realities including science and basic philosophy. Therefore, basic reality becomes dogmatic by nature. You don't get to oppose real science, not because anyone says so but because nature speaks very dogmatically in the area of basic realities which shape the universe, life and solutions to problems.

So frauds disconnect from basic realities rather than create alternative realities in those areas. Greenhouse gases do not have an alternative science. Scientific claims promoting greenhouse gases are an insult to human minds. Nothing traps heat in the atmosphere. It cools 20 degrees or more during clear nights. There is no significant radiation for carbon dioxide to absorb, since it does not absorb the sun's radiation and can only absorb longer wavelength radiation from cold substances which give off almost no radiation.

That means fraud in science is imposed, not evaluated. Know-nothings in journalism are used for that purpose, so frauds in science can keep their own hands clean. They used Einstein, a flunky in physics, for that purpose, until relativity was imposed upon physics and it became safe for university scientists to promote.

Fake science and technology are imposed as non-realities, which is a fraud upon the public. Proper representation requires explanations, so people can decide for themselves whether the realities are valid.

Rationality is required to sustain life and solve problems. Rationality means aligning upon the objective realities created by the laws of the universe in defining life and solutions to problems.

The imposed frauds of fake science and technology are an insult to human minds, human purposes and the rationality that humans require to solve problems.

The primary fraud of fake science and technology is the absence of explanations that are needed to evaluate the realities. Just trust us is the methodology of frauds.

Explaining related realities allows people to evaluate for themselves and do corrections. When explanations don't exist, imposition replaces rationality.

Explanations create validity. Being wrong is no problem when explanations exist, because corrections can then be made. It's only the absence of explanations that prevent constructive processes from occurring.

And of course, the absence of explanations means something is being imposed. The impositions are the problem. The social order is being torn apart by values and motives being imposed without the developed realities that would allow corrections to be made. There are no corrections for imposed values and motives.

Humans have to solve problems, which forces them to produce rationality and moral philosophy. Corrupters create problems instead of solve them and expect us to accept the resulting corruption as normalcy. Their victims automatically find out what the cause of their problems is. The cause of their problems is imposed upon them.

Persons who are well off see problems in a distant manner, which never quite tells them what the nature of corruption is. The distant view results in too much toleration and under-estimation of the significance of corruption.

I started writing moral philosophy during the 1970s. I soon found that no one wants to hear a word of it. Corrupters know what shoe to wear when corruption is discussed. So they pretend that there is some corruption in describing corruption. The terminology that they used in response to my moralizing was "condescending" and "pedantic." They avoid being condescending by accusing someone of being condescending. Accusing means an absence of explanation in attacks in addition to being subjective instead of objective.

What they meant by condescending is that I was supposed to be more important than there were before telling them something. What they meant by pedantic is that they didn't have a clue what basic reality was and I wasn't supposed to be telling them.

What the reaction shows is that corrupters are so absorbed in their outflow of influence that they never notice that what they say applies to themselves. In fact, their reaction goes beyond not noticing. They assume that the same does not apply when looking downward at their victims as looking upward at the sources of power. Upward, the same thing is virtue, because power is virtue. In other words, attacking someone is virtue coming from a source of power; but criticizing someone is corruption when coming from below. Corruption is a structured state based on positions of power.

By the time the internet was created (by Al Gore. Governments created the internet, not the engineers, contrary to persons who think Al Gore didn't know what he was talking about when he said he created the internet. The internet is a set of rules, not a technology, as shown by the fact that the rules are constantly changing with various degrees of dispute.), I had a large amount of moral philosophy to put on the internet along with the science. So I created a section of my web site on Christian morality.

The Christian morality went nowhere. No one is going to allow someone else to influence their assumptions about Christian morality. So I removed the section on Christian morality and limited the purpose to evidence based science.

But then I found that the errors in science needed explanation of why they occur. One of the counter-arguments to science criticism is that there cannot be errors in science, because science is self-correcting. So some moral philosophy was needed to explain why a self-correcting power structure can produce so many errors. Only corrupters police themselves. It takes external accountability to remove errors.

But instead of mixing Christian morality with the evidence based science, I found that there is suitable terminology for producing basic criticism without attaching religious concepts to the subject. For example, sin can be called corruption instead of sin. Evil can be called incompetent corrupters instead of evil.

It's important to add the word incompetent with the word corruption, because the most corrupt persons view corruption as virtue, but they cannot be incompetent, because they base corruption on being winners, and winners must be competent, they cannot be incompetent.

Addendum

The reason why this happens and its significance tells a lot about the social situation. Basic realities are generally avoided due to their abstract nature. Yet the cause-and-effect realities which explain why problems exist and what the answers are are basic realities. So problems tend not to be solved.

Why don't social critics simply develop the basic realities of a subject to solve the problems? Because it's socially impossible. No one looks at basic realities, because most persons don't understand the abstractions of the explanations.

So I just blindly go where no one else dares to tread and end up describing basic realities. Superficially it accomplishes nothing. But the void in that area demands something to be at least put on the record. There is universal truth produced regardless of how humans relate to the result.

In science, I only study areas that no one else is studying for two reasons: One, it is where the need is located; and two, I don't intend to compete with the million dollar budgets and teams of researchers that are studying other subjects. So I dive into the unstudied subjects.

One reason why those voids exist in science is because they are too mysterious for usual science. Generally, scientists try to plan their science in advance, particularly since bureaucrats require a plan before issuing a grant. But that isn't how I approach science. I start acquiring information through the means available regardless of what the information says.

That approach is what real science is supposed to be. The claim that science is stating a hypothesis and testing the hypothesis is idiotic. There are no tools for testing a hypothesis in science. A large amount of related information must accumulate to determine answers in science. And there is no means of guessing what nature does; it is always astounding.

So I end up studying the unanswered questions; and the results fall out like snow. In other words, the big guns are robbing themselves of results through their arrangement which does not allow them to approach science properly.

I ended up studying extreme evolution and the physiology of evolution by looking into unanswered questions which others were avoiding. The most intractable questions in science yield the most information. And there are always methods of acquiring information on any subject.

So why don't scientists just start acquiring the needed information? Because of the sociology which traps them into self-ruin, most basically due to incompetent power mongers taking over everything and creating the demands upon everyone.
 
The Problem Of Superficiality

The general social discourse including journalism and politics is in the area of superficial realities; and one of the main concerns is solving problems. But problems cannot be solved with superficial realities. Only basic realities can determine the causes of and solutions to problems.

Cause-and-effect relationships are in basic realities. That's because the most basic realities influence the superficial realities that depend upon them. Those realities that do the influencing determine the causes of and solutions to problems.

What good does it do to turn the world over to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, when carbon dioxide doesn't have the slightest ability to influence the atmosphere? The know-nothings who imposed that subject onto society have never studied an iota of science. That's why basic realities must be evaluated to solve problems.