(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Should a Non-Scientist Head the Department of Health and Human Services? [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-01-15

It is understood that President-elect Trump’s appointee for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., lacks the administrative experience and scientific credentials required to competently run the US government’s largest federally budgeted agency. It is important to note that the DHHS agency is responsible for programs that serve the health and well-being of all Americans. This is why 77 Nobel Laureates in Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, and Economics have signed a letter asking the US Senate not to approve JFK Jr.’s nomination. However, science, as currently practiced, is at a precipice of becoming pseudo-science due to the discovery of a fundamental flaw in the empirical methods used to obtain cause-and-effect correlations.

When a scientific discovery supersedes previous knowledge, it is the responsibility of the practitioners of the art to test the discovery for validity and, if valid, accept it for the advancement of science. From a layman’s perspective, one might assume that since science is based on empirical evidence that must be repeated by others for validity, such a method would ensure the integrity of scientific research and development. Although science consists of many fields of study, evidence serves as the bedrock to obtain and support empirical knowledge beyond conjecture or belief. Nevertheless, herein lies the flaw of scientific methods that rely on ambiguity.

Methods

Perhaps you have heard the term false-positive or false-negative results in regard to empirical evidence such as lab results, etc. The reason for this terminology is that the methods used in science are incomplete by design. Case in point, “A Consensus Study Report” from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine abides by five core scientific principles:

Nature is not capricious. Knowledge grows through exploration of the limits of existing rules and mutually reinforcing evidence. Science is a communal enterprise. Science aims for refined degrees of confidence, rather than complete certainty. Scientific knowledge is durable and mutable.

As illustrated by Principle 4, the validity of empirical evidence consists of degrees of confidence (uncertainty) rather than complete certainty. The communal enterprise of Principle 3 embodies the bias of Principle 4, indicating that complete certainty is not a goal of science. This implies that uncertainty, including false-positive and false-negative results, is the accepted standard in scientific practice, while certainty is viewed as unacceptable. However, a twelve-year (2000-2012) nonlocal no-go annual experiment has undermined Principle 4 by obtaining unambiguous empirical evidence that includes both certainty and uncertainty as mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive empirical effects, thereby eliminating ambiguity. Consequently, Principle 4 is invalid, and its bias, as practiced by Principle 3, needs to be reassessed. Therefore, a fundamental shift is crucial for the integrity of Principles 2 and 5, enabling science to remain a valid study of how nature operates – Principle 1.

Missing Variables

Here is where the pseudo-science part comes into play. The failure to recognize that Principle 4 has been compromised by a method used to obtain unambiguous empirical evidence, namely, the Method of Everything. Said method included two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive nonlocal selection mechanisms necessary to obtain local empirical evidence of both certainty and uncertainty without ambiguity. In 2012, a published peer-reviewed paper revealed an omission error on which the multi billion-dollar Higgs boson discovery is based. Physicists confirmed that their discovery did not account for one of the two selection mechanisms that generated their filtered data. More importantly, the indirect selection mechanism used for the taxpayer-funded Higgs boson discovery has been proven to produce false-positive results.

This means that until the discovery of this all-inclusive method has been accepted and applied to all empirical studies, we are talking about science being in open violation of its own Principles (1, 2, 5). The discovery that all local experiments are nonlocally predetermined came to a head when the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for experiments that closed the loopholes of physicist John S Bell’s theorem. Unfortunately, in keeping with Principle 4 as applied in the Higgs boson discovery, one remaining loophole was wittingly ignored – the loophole of a super-deterministic universe capable of generating unambiguous empirical evidence.

“Here is the loophole: Maybe, there is in the backward cones of ourselves or of our lives, some common events which decide how we are going to set the polarizers, our choice is not really free … I don't want to be a physicist in that world.” – Alain Aspect “But, we maintain, skepticism of this sort will essentially dismiss all results of scientific experimentation. Unless we proceed under the assumption that hidden conspiracies of this sort do not occur, we have abandoned in advance the whole enterprise of discovering the laws of nature by experimentation.” – J. F. Clauser “The theory that the entire experiment, including choices and outcomes, is pre-determined by initial conditions is known as superdeterminism. Superdeterminism cannot be tested.” – Anton Zeilinger et al.

Conclusion

As currently designed, ambiguous empirical evidence supports scientific theories. However, unambiguous empirical evidence supports the laws of nature – Principle 1. In other words, we find ourselves in a situation of the pot calling the kettle black when scientists, including Nobel laureates who also nominate future laureates, neglect their responsibility to advance science following a new discovery while also objecting to someone leading the DHHS who is not a scientist.

More than two decades have passed since empirical evidence of a super-deterministic universe was first obtained, necessitating a fundamental change in the methods used to study nature. Regrettably, after all this time, it now appears that a non-scientist, not necessarily RFK Jr., will most likely be required to help advance science. As unambiguous empirical evidence has shown, we can indeed do better than this.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://dailykos.com/stories/2025/1/15/2297137/-Should-a-Non-Scientist-Head-the-Department-of-Health-and-Human-Services?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.