Saturday, August 19, 2006

Peer Reviewed Research - the Holy Grail of Truth?

I must condemn the rationality of searching for "peer reviewed" research in order to make a theory "real". While all the educated elites consider "peer reviewed" research the holy grail of irrefutable truth... I must beg to differ with anyone who cites "truths" by this criteria.

Academia is one of the pillars of deception which we as men are battling. We acknowledge here everyday about the extreme politicization of our universities and how all dissenting views are squashed through heavy handed, totalitarian tactics. (Here is a good example: Lynched by the Sisterhood by Jeffrey Archer). I cannot understand how we can be expected to chase after our own tails by encouraging the belief that the only refutation or confirmation of a theory or idea is peer reviewed research. The three pillars we battle are government, media and academia. Let's make no mistake about it, government and media are "justified" via academia's peer reviewed research. To imply that everything is questionable until it can be backed up by peer reviewed research is completely insane to our cause because academia no longer encourages the free thinking that lends credibility to peer reviewed research! We may as well be living in Nazi Germany and asking a Jew to prove he is discriminated against by using Nazi Reviewed Research. Commonsense, mankind's natural curiosity, desire for the truth, reason and rationality should always trump peer reviewed research.

There is really only one example that needs to be given for why "peer reviewed research" has absolutely zero credibility in the issues of which we speak and write of.

The fundamental basis of feminism is that "gender is a social construct;" that we are based upon "tabula rasa," the Latin for "blank slate." It is upon this foundation that all else of feminism's ideology and victimology is based upon. Since we are essentially the same, the only reason that women did not figure prominently in history, or science, or music, or philosophy, or pretty much anything else is because of the innate evil and misogynistic nature of men (which already refutes tabula rasa in itself). Therefore, women are institutionally discriminated against by the very fabric of civilization and society itself, thus affirmative action and breaking down gender barriers is completely justified.

However, walking across the hall in our ivory towered institutions, we can attend courses in Queer Theory, where the fundamental basis for it all is that homosexuality is a normal, biological condition - that gays are "born that way," which is 100% the opposite of feminism's fundamental premise of "gender is a social construct." Queer Theory argues that their LGBT "gender" is natural and biologically based, therefore, they are discriminated against by virtue of their birth, and suffer socially and in numerous other ways because of something over which they had no ability to control.

Take your pick. If you support gay rights you are a cretin of a misogynist - a sexist, really, for believing that the sexes are different by virtue of their birth. However, if you support women's rights and equality based upon the blank slate, you are a homophobe (a hate-crime in Canada), because then you believe that gays could be "cured" of their homosexuality through laws, social conditioning, and whatnot else that feminism has been pushing on us. Namely, that we can break down gender barriers and make everyone the same, which includes gays. 

These two positions are 100% completely and irrefutably in direct opposition of each other. This is just simple common-sense. You cannot be walking east and west simultaneously. Yet, both Women's Studies and Queer Theory have panels of academics judging whether the studies each puts out are "the Truth." In other words, they are both peer-reviewed and found to be satisfactorily representing the truth. Well, the truth cannot possibly be the same for both of them, so at minimum one of them must be completely wrong.     

Therefore, our universities are knowingly and willingly promoting falsehoods, and simply should not be trusted as reputable sources of "Truth."

And I don't need a peer-reviewed study to prove it, do I?


Q: "... but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal study on this?"

A: "Maybe you should do a longitudinal study on the overall effectiveness of always depending on longitudinal studies."


"Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin, increase total lung capacity and stimulate weight loss, factors that all contribute to enhanced performance in endurance sports. Despite this scientific evidence, the prevalence of smoking in elite athletes is actually many times lower than in the general population. The reasons for this are unclear; however, there has been little to no effort made on the part of national governing bodies to encourage smoking among athletes." – PLOS


Did you know that Albert Einstein did much of the groundwork for the Theory of Relativity not while at a university, but rather while working at a patent office? He also got mediocre grades when he was in school.

Did you know that neither of the Wright Brothers graduated from high-school? Yet, they proved all of the academics of the day's "lift equation" to be, obviously, wrong. They also both never married. Smart men indeed!

Did you know that Thomas Edison was considered to have an "addled" brain because his mind wandered while in school? He likely would have been given Ritalin today. He was pulled out of formal schooling after three months and taught by his mother at home.

Did you know that Louis Pasteur was ridiculed by the medical community for his "Germ Theory" and suggesting that surgeons should wash their hands before cutting people open?

Did you know that the cure to scurvy was discovered in the early 1600's by Samuel de Champlain, when his ship was ice-locked for the winter and Indians brought the crew pine-needle tea which was rich in Vitamin C? When he told of "the cure" back in Europe, he was scoffed at by the intelligentsia for a cure from "savages." In 1753, James Lind first proved citrus could cure the disease through experiments he described in his book, A Treatise in the Scurvy, although, even then it took several decades for people to believe him and implement the use of citrus on ships. In fact, there were still a variety of other techniques the "intelligentsia" believed to be correct instead of Vitamin C, causing people to suffer and die from scurvy right through World War One and beyond, until it was definitively proven to be a vitamin C deficiency in 1932. 

Did you know that in the past, before we had universities, the intelligentsia were mostly to be found in religious institutions such as the church or its monasteries? When we talk of the religious persecution of those such as Galileo, it is just as fair to claim the intelligentsia persecuted him (and other discoverers) as it is to claim religion did. In fact, you can see this phenomenon everywhere. Rarely does the intelligentsia discover anything or even really "do" anything except for defend their position, while adding little of significance to it, which real mavericks already paved the way for.

Academics have a vested interest in telling everyone that which they have learned is 100% correct, and discrediting all those opposed to them. After all, they tend to look really stupid when grade eight drop-outs demolish their beliefs after they've spent a decade of time, tens of thousands of dollars in tuition, and a lifetime of building a social reputation based on academic "achievements" which really, someone else achieved, and they only parrot and teach.


“‘This is not to be wondered at,’ said Goethe; ‘such people continue in error because they are indebted to it for their existence. They would have to learn everything over again, and that would be very inconvenient.

“‘But,’ said I, ‘how can their experiments prove the truth when the basis for their evaluation is false?’

“‘They do not prove the truth,’ said Goethe, ‘nor is such the intention; the only point with these professors is to prove their own opinion. On this account, they conceal all experiments that would reveal the truth and show their doctrine untenable. Then the scholars — what do they care for truth? They, like the rest, are perfectly satisfied if they can prate away empirically; that is the whole matter.’”-- quoted from Johann Peter Eckermann’s conversation with Goethe, Feb. 1, 1827.
It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to pursue her. Indeed it would be strange if they were: a persevering devotion to truth, a nice sense of intellectual honour, cannot be long maintained without the aid of a sentiment which Gaius and Titius could debunk as easily as any other. It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so. ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Previous Index Next

…. \_/...........