Forbidden Knowledge (Already Widely Disseminated)

[roo_ster]

Of course there is knowledge of the sort that gov't declares as it own and/or determines that exposure of this knowledge to a wide audience would be damaging to the gov't or the country.  This may be justified under its own rationale, but is not the object of my inquiry on this thread, as it is supposedly close-held and already known only to a small number.  (Yes, debatable, but let us grant those assumptions to for the sake of focusing on widely-known/disseminated "forbidden knowledge."


As enforced by gov't:
Why Teaching How to Beat Polygraphs Can Land You in Jail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svd8w29ZAsQ
http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/02/11/are-the-feds-lying-about-polygraphs

Last September, Chad Dixon was sentenced to 8 months in a federal prison for teaching clients counter-measures for polygraph tests. Federal prosecutors charged Dixon with obstructing justice—they view his business as undermining an important tool used to check the credibility of government employees and prosecute criminals.

The information Dixon was selling wasn’t new. Books on beating polygraphs have been around since the machines were invented. So why is the federal government cracking down now?

In an effort to stop the next Edward Snowden, officials are emphasizing polygraphs’ ability to prevent leaks by keeping employees honest. The NSA has recently gone from polygraphing its employees once every five years to four times a year.

As enforced by cultural gatekeepers or adherents to faiths secular or otherwise
Evolution & The Culture War
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/evolution-the-culture-war/

...it is perfectly possible to reconcile the spiritual and moral equality of humanity with what science tells us is true about human biological variability. The problem, I think, is that we humans are bad at this. Given the history of the 20th century, I flat-out don’t trust our species to handle the knowledge of human biodiversity without turning it into an ideology of dehumanization, racism, and at worst, genocide. Put another way, I am hostile to this kind of thing not because I believe it’s probably false, but because I believe a lot of it is probably true — and we have shown that we, by our natures, can’t handle this kind of truth. We will use it to construct ideologies that justify inhumanity with the authority of Science...

...If you believe the government has no right to vacuum up your private information, then you believe that some things shouldn’t be known because of what use we are likely to make of the power that knowledge gives us.

In addition to the topic of suppression of widely-disseminated knowledge, I find interesting:
1. The odd bedfellows who find themselves on the side of declaring widely known knowledge forbidden.
2. Enforcement mechanisms.

[TommyGunn]

Years ago our local talk radio station that gives us Rush Limbaugh also gave us G. Gordon Liddy, the Ex-Watergate /  FBI criminal/ lawyer (but I repeat myself) turned radio talk show host.
He once related how to defeat a lie detector exam.  I won't repeat it here as I don't wish to be arrested by  the FBI or NSA or The Man From UNCLE or whatever .... besides, someone's at the door so I have to go now ....

[RoadKingLarry]

Voodoo science. Polygrahs aren't legal for prosecution but they'll sure as hell use them for persecution.
Yeah, I understand the whole physiological response thing works for most people but Grandma's "look" was probably more reliable.

[roo_ster]

Voodoo science. Polygrahs aren't legal for prosecution but they'll sure as hell use them for persecution.
Yeah, I understand the whole physiological response thing works for most people but Grandma's "look" was probably more reliable.

That is surely one aspect of it.  Very few law enforcement forensic "science" can withstand scrutiny from the scientific method.  I suspect that is part of the issue, from the gov't side. 

[French G.]

But Federal investigators will surely threaten you with one while you are under investigation. They aren't happy when you tell them to get it while questioning their heritage.

[Tallpine]

That is surely one aspect of it.  Very few law enforcement forensic "science" can withstand scrutiny from the scientific method.  I suspect that is part of the issue, from the gov't side. 

DNA is more useful for proving innocence than guilt.

Something like 90% confidence that DNA is from the accused is really rather weak evidence.

[roo_ster]

DNA is more useful for proving innocence than guilt.

Something like 90% confidence that DNA is from the accused is really rather weak evidence.

And DNA is about the best the gov't has.  All the rest (fingerprints, arson, etc.) is worse.

But, that is the point with Forbidden Knowledge: widespread open acknowledgement of the reality is detrimental to either the power or the belief set of those who would do the forbidding.

[Firethorn]

DNA is more useful for proving innocence than guilt.

Something like 90% confidence that DNA is from the accused is really rather weak evidence.

Yeah, one thing to remember is that most violence is against those the perpetrator knows and interacts with regularly.  DNA/fingerprints/hair samples only prove that you were there, which if it's somewhere you're expected/allowed to be isn't actually much evidence.  Also, somebody simply wearing gloves and having well trimmed hair can limit said deposits to the point that police are unlikely to find any samples.

[Tallpine]

Yeah, one thing to remember is that most violence is against those the perpetrator knows and interacts with regularly.  DNA/fingerprints/hair samples only prove that you were there, which if it's somewhere you're expected/allowed to be isn't actually much evidence.  Also, somebody simply wearing gloves and having well trimmed hair can limit said deposits to the point that police are unlikely to find any samples.

That guy with the shaved head must be guilty.   

[RevDisk]

I was honestly shocked at how little most forensics is peer reviewed. Identifying DNA samples is easy and well proven, if it is handled and used correctly. Fingerprints are shockingly bad. Polygraphs are voodoo at best. People get jumpy when you show them how to open a lock with a Note-It note or small shim. I try to tell folks that pin tumbler locks have had known deficiencies for 6,000 years (not a typo, yes SIX MILLENNIA). If your design has been known to have problems for SIX THOUSAND years, don't get twitchy when someone mentions that.

It's a typical "blame the messenger" approach. If only that pesky security researcher hadn't exposed those gaping holes, everything would be alright. Rather than doing the job right the first time, we just get angry at the folks that tell us what we don't want to hear.

[KD5NRH]

That guy with the shaved head must be guilty.

All you have to do is watch COPS to figure out that it's always the guy without a shirt.

Guilty guys never wear shirts unless they're transvestites.

[RevDisk]

Wait, is that second article basically that folks do/can/only believe in Darwinism, because it allows them to undermine Christianity? I was under the impression that evolution was essentially proven in general terms by fossil records.

The first one was junk science being enforced by government prosecutors. The second one is that folks politicized actual science. Am I missing something?

[KD5NRH]

I was under the impression that evolution was essentially proven in general terms by fossil records.

Clearly, us smartasses are created more accurately in His image than the rest of you. 

[Tallpine]

evolution was essentially proven in general terms by fossil records.

Or it proves that the earth was terraformed 

[Sergeant Bob]

All you have to do is watch COPS to figure out that it's always the guy without a shirt.

Guilty guys never wear shirts unless they're transvestites.

Ya cant count on the dude wearing the "wife beater".


Sent from my Electric Brick using Tap-a-Crap

[MechAg94]

Wait, is that second article basically that folks do/can/only believe in Darwinism, because it allows them to undermine Christianity? I was under the impression that evolution was essentially proven in general terms by fossil records.

The first one was junk science being enforced by government prosecutors. The second one is that folks politicized actual science. Am I missing something?

My understanding is that fossil records do show evolution or changes in some species.  I think I remember reading that about horse fossils.  What the fossil record has trouble with is "missing links' or showing that one species evolved into another.  So the idea of Survival of the Fittest within a species is more or less proven by the fossil record, but evolution as the Origin of the Species is not. 
To me, that is a small, but important distinction, though I have gotten into arguments with Evolution true believers who refuse to recognize there is any difference between the two.

[RevDisk]

My understanding is that fossil records do show evolution or changes in some species.  I think I remember reading that about horse fossils.  What the fossil record has trouble with is "missing links' or showing that one species evolved into another.  So the idea of Survival of the Fittest within a species is more or less proven by the fossil record, but evolution as the Origin of the Species is not. 
To me, that is a small, but important distinction, though I have gotten into arguments with Evolution true believers who refuse to recognize there is any difference between the two.

Ayep. There's gaps in the fossil records. Because not everything likes to become a fossil, not all conditions are good for stuff becoming a fossil and not all fossils preserve well over the millions of years.

I actually knew some of the scientists at U of Penn that came up with a pretty good approach to fill in the gaps. They're going with a phylogenetic techniques, of basically making smarter models based off DNA instead of just digging in the dirt. Basically, the old models assumed static and positive diversification, which is easy to prove false. Kinda stupid to begin with. They built a model that includes the possibility of extinction events, contracting speciation (ie new breeds can die off quicker than they are replaced), etc etc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151320.htm


And to be fair and balanced: http://www.genesispark.com/

 

[KD5NRH]

Ya cant count out the dude wearing the "wife beater".

I don't count that as a shirt any more than I count a jock strap as pants.

[roo_ster]

Wait, is that second article basically that folks do/can/only believe in Darwinism, because it allows them to undermine Christianity? I was under the impression that evolution was essentially proven in general terms by fossil records.

The first one was junk science being enforced by government prosecutors. The second one is that folks politicized actual science. Am I missing something?

Yes, sorta, yes, yes, not much--just nuance.

Second article has a several ideas interacting simultaneously, some scientific, some cultural.

Status
Yes, quite a lot of the published and popular belief in evolution is more of a means to assert higher status over the Jesuslanders.  A way to signify "I belong to THIS team" even if they are hopelessly ignorant about the theory of evolution by way of natural selection (TENS for short).  Christians have these types, too, (who do not understand doctrine they proclaim as truth).  This leads to a very odd "bumpkin calculus" where a Christian STEM professional who does not buy into TENS (but understands it and can explain the basics to others) is an ignorant rube compared to the journalist communications major who proclaims his fidelity to TENS, despite barely passing the required freshman-level biology course and having no idea where to even begin explaining TENS without a teleprompter. 

Humans are social, striving critters.  That doesn't stop being true for folks who haven't a rational scientific thought in their heads.  Woo-hoo, SCIENCE bay-bee!!


Premature Creationists
Functionally, there are an awful lot more creationists than you would think.  It is just the "premature creationists" who get grief for being honest about it by claiming that God did it all around 4004BC or a few billion years ago.  The other creationists are those who claim that TENS is the proper belief, but that as soon as the first of the homo sapiens sprung from the womb of the missing link, TENS was stopped butt cold and there were zero effects from environmental forces that might cause any evolution by way of natural selection over time.  In effect, that last pre-homo sapiens critter is their Creator of the human race that has been rendered impervious to TENS.


Forbidden Knowledge
Now, any understanding of TENS shows that to be the wrong answer.  If TENS was operating 1B years ago, it operated 1MM years ago, 1K years ago, and is still operating today.  It would operate as humans moved out of Africa into new environments, perhaps interbred with other genetically compatible critters, were separated into groups by geography, developed primitive technologies, domesticated animals, etc. 

Many of those that use TENS as a flag and a club do not want to think about it.  Others of those who do understand TENS, still want to use it as a club & flag and deny, deny, deny the implications of TENS nonetheless for political considerations.  And there are those who understand TENS and are willing to look at it straight on.  They seem to be the minority of TENS-believers.

The author, Rod Dreher, places culture and morality above science and understanding.  He is not so certain he wants an understanding of TENS to become commonplace because he think people are basically corrupt & fallen and will use such knowledge as a weapon.  That science divorced from faith & morality is a recipe for horror.  He is kinda-sorta of the right, sort of an extreme social conservative with zero taste for foreign adventurism.  When he suggests that knowledge of TENS be suppressed, he is at least consistent with his stated values. Many on the TENS side of the debate wave the flag of SCIENCE and use TENS to beat Jesuslanders over the head, but they suppress knowledge and implications of TENS as harshly as any anti-pornography crusader.

Dreher is writes at length about this in a rather transparent manner and explains himself.  If dude has a fault, it is he is too introspective, but that is his deal (introspection).  You don't have to worry about a mob of Dreher-ites marching up to the gates with pitch-forks and torches.  They will have stopped alongside the road 1/4 mile after starting to navel gaze and contemplate the moral & spiritual implications of pine tar-impregnated torches vs Coleman propane lanterns.

=====================

So, Forbidden Knowledge. 
1. "Junk science being enforced by government prosecutors."  check
2. Good science being obfuscated by contemporary cultural persecutors.  check
3. Good science might, possibly, we-gotta-think-this-through be hidden by powerless Christian introspectors.  check

[RevDisk]

I swear I am not trying to pick a religious fight. But is there a scientific alternative to TENS? Ideology theories like Gaia theory or Creationism are based on faith, not science. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, but it's not science (repeatable and quantifiable). I'm not saying ideology theories are wrong, just not repeatable/quantifiable.

[Sergeant Bob]

I swear I am not trying to pick a religious fight. But is there a scientific alternative to TENS? Ideology theories like Gaia theory or Creationism are based on faith, not science. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, but it's not science (repeatable and quantifiable). I'm not saying ideology theories are wrong, just not repeatable/quantifiable.

Even if you consider "evolution" to be true, whose to say "God" (if that's what you believe) didn't create life that way? Seems that would be as good an explanation as any as to how life was created.

[Ron]

What can actually be demonstrated (ie science) does not prove TENS but does fit in that particular framework. It still requires unsupported presuppositions and faith that any weakness or contradictions to TENS observed in nature will be answered fully at some point by a naturalistic interpretation.  

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know; it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." ~ Mark Twain

Materialistic philosophy is not science even though the loudest voices in the scientific community seem to hold that particular world view.

The distinction between actual science and the religion of scientism is being blurred by mass media with the willing participation of many "scientists".

It amazes me how much folks think we actually know (facts) that we really don't.

 

[roo_ster]

I swear I am not trying to pick a religious fight. But is there a scientific alternative to TENS? Ideology theories like Gaia theory or Creationism are based on faith, not science. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, but it's not science (repeatable and quantifiable). I'm not saying ideology theories are wrong, just not repeatable/quantifiable.

Not really.  Tens is the only approved scientific game in town.  And it only qualifies due to some great big waivers on the empirical data front that most other hard sciences would not get away with.

Intelligent design makes the claim but falls short.  Intelligent design does do yeomans work in pointing out holes and or logical fallacies of tens.  That is a necessity for progress and the tens crowd is not asking the tough questions of their own folk.  Very much like the globular warmists.  There is SOMETHING there but i doubt folks working in the current paradigm will suss it out.

Thing is tens is not repeatable quantifiable or empirical either.  There is some data some reasoning and a whole lot of storytelling and hand waving.  Sprinkle on the magical pixie dust of time and viola you got what you see around you today.  But there is one problem with using time as magic...there aint enough of it to do what they claim it can do using their own numbers and assumptions.

But the tens crowd will hold on to their beliefs because to do otherwise might cede ground to the fundies.  And holding on to it is a symbol that they themselves are not slack jawed yokels. 

My thoughts are that there is not enough data to back up the extravagant claims they make.  The particular mechanism can not be proved with the current data set.  I already have one religion so they are going to have to make the case empirically for me to sign on.

[Perd Hapley]

Even if you consider "evolution" to be true, whose to say "God" (if that's what you believe) didn't create life that way? Seems that would be as good an explanation as any as to how life was created.

"God" implies mind, purpose, teleology. Are not all those antithetical to a theory that relies on chance, guided only by the survival of the fittest? If God guided or helped evolution, how could it be natural selection?

Or if your idea is that God provided some initial conditions, and then let things take their natural course, but then you've kicked him out of the process.

Also, if it so happens that you're trying to square evolution with the Genesis account, your big, glaring problem is that Adam precedes death. 

[TommyGunn]

"God" implies mind, purpose, teleology. Are not all those antithetical to a theory that relies on chance, guided only by the survival of the fittest? If God guided or helped evolution, how could it be natural selection?

Or if your idea is that God provided some initial conditions, and then let things take their natural course, but then you've kicked him out of the process.

Also, if it so happens that you're trying to square evolution with the Genesis account, your big, glaring problem is that Adam precedes death.  

Huh?  Adam (and Eve) violated the one law God established. "The wages of sin are death."   As a result human beings lost their supposed "immortality" so I'd say they're both contemporaries....