There is amusing foolishness in the scientific method which exasperates me. It is an irony that the scientific method is considered valid because it is precise and offers proof—physical proof—but it’s conclusions are expected to be temporary. By now so many of the conclusions it draws are, of course, invalid because they will be contradicted by new findings, we can be sure. So why do we insist on scientific proof, when we know that’s a fool’s guest? I don’t need tests to show me that oil and it’s bi-products, manufactured chemicals, plastics, and industrial waste of every kind are poisons to the planet. I can breathe and taste the acrid and bitter effects and see the filth and debris. Sometimes simple observation tells us the truth. But that’s not very scientific, people actually still say to you—in defense, or in rebuttal. They also enjoy warning that it is not very economical or cost-effective.
The catch is this: scientific proof—the results of surveys and of tests—are used by the self-deceivers—the corrupt and greedy—to protect profits. The scientific method, when it reveals a crime against the cosmos, is a useful exercise to the caring scientist and the sensitive citizen. When the crime leads to the perpetrator, the method that exposed it is often declared to be insufficient. If the conclusions it draws are useful to the perpetrators, the results will be celebrated and offered as a valid motive to continue exploitation. If the results expose destructive processes, the perpetrators say the method is insufficient. The scientific method, like statistics, is expected to comply with the needs of the exploiters. As long as this is so, it cannot be trusted, so it must be invalid. That word also means a sick person. Words are sometimes versatile actors.