I am a researcher who follows the evidence chain no matter where it may lead me. In my analysis of the scientific controversies I tend to agree with Thomas S Kuhn when he discusses the scientific paradigms in his groundbreaking work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. Even the critique of science should be evaluated at the very foundations of the premises given. Science is not truth!
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962; second edition 1970; third edition 1996; fourth edition 2012) is a book about the history of science by philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in—and beyond—those scholarly communities. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in “normal science“. Normal scientific progress was viewed as “development-by-accumulation” of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of “anomalies” during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere “puzzle-solving” of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the “map” directing new research.
For example, Kuhn’s analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future. Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its “paradigms” and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn’s insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators Kuhn’s book introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn’s introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements.
Not only do I question these foundations, in light of recently leaked discoveries, the disclosed information from experts in their fields have found many anomalies in the currently held paradigms within the fields of Archeology, Physics, History, Macro-Evolution, Space exploration, Genetics, and Politics with astonishing implications. The suppression of technologies that could greatly benefit all of humanity is the most egregious condemnation for men to discern.
My research is not perfected. It is only tested time and time again as new information enters into the equation. I read everything. I will then select the most credible sources of information and put them to the test. Breaking down the arguments by logical analysis, interviewing many sources including alternative sources, and draw upon perspectives from different disciplines if possible before any deductions can be made. I happen to be somewhat of a pragmatist/skeptic in my attempts to make any kind of resolute conclusions about the interests I have over controversial subject matter.
I believe that we are not being told the truth about many discoveries that have been held top secret. (Think Edward Snowden, Jullian Assange, and William Binney, among many other whistleblowers) I believe there is a power structure that allows anti-humanist agendas that endanger mass populations within this continent and abroad. The shadowy agencies of men that are not held accountable due to their secrecy and their indoctrination of any proposed threats to their agenda.
I am a free-independent thinker, and try not to confabulate information. Knowing my limitations and understanding that this will always be a factor keeps me humble and grounded knowing that perspectives change, human intelligence is not static, prone to flaws in our reasoning abilities, and our pursuit is of a perfecting nature. Much of this philosophy is discussed and entertained in an upcoming book of mine The Indictment of Human Reason