January 28, 2016

The Fox and the Framework (Rejecting the Corporate Science Paradigm)


Under the corporate science paradigm there’s no such thing as a conflict of interest. Colloquially, we often say journalists or scientists or government officials have a “conflict of interest”, though usually it’s difficult to detect any conflict whatsoever; they’re clearly 100% for the corporate imperative. This is often in part because of mundane corruption. But there’s a deeper reason for this lack of a conflict. The fact is that usually there is no conflict except on the most superficial propaganda level (i.e. the person lies about being something he’s not and doesn’t see himself as). But structurally the very notion of a conflict of interest is a misunderstanding and a myth.
By definition a corporation can have no conflict of interest. Corporations are sociopathic in principle and always in the practice that derives from this principle. In principle the only corporate value is maximizing power as measured by profit. Scientific truth and public health do not exist as values for the corporation.
Therefore in principle the corporate version of science is supposed to produce, not an objectively truthful result, but the result which is most useful propagandistically for the corporation. This is no abuse of science. Rather, it’s quite simply what normal science is in any context dominated by corporations. This science paradigm, where “science” means whatever the corporate marketing department says it means, I have dubbed the corporate science paradigm.
This is the first, principled, structural reason why anyone who does value public health, environmental health, and scientific truth must reject out of hand all testimony from corporations and their factotums, including testimony from the corporate regulators and corporate scientific establishment which operate under the corporate science paradigm.
The second reason is that no sane, rational person would ever trust the fox to guard the hen-house. This would be true even if we didn’t know a particular fox. This was always straight rationality and common sense. By now we also have the entire historical evidence record proving that the corporation will always lie whenever its profit is at stake. We can call this the Fox Rule. This, as we discussed above, is what a corporation is supposed to do, in principle. If we don’t want to live with organizations which are designed with this mission, if we recognize that it’s impossible for humanity to coexist with formally psychopathic organizations, then we must abolish the corporate form.
The Fox Rule is always true of every big corporation. Monsanto and Dow are especially egregious examples. Their records of falsehood are perfect. Therefore no rational person or agency would place any value other than zero on the testimony of Monsanto and Dow or any chemical corporation where it comes to the safety and scientificality of their products and research. We must reject out of hand all corporate testimony attesting to itself.*
Yet under the corporate science regime, regulators always accept the corporation’s own testimony about its profitable products as the state of science. This is because corporate regulators exist to serve the corporate “client”, as the regulators call them, so it follows that from the point of view of a regulator like the EPA or FDA or USDA science is nothing more than whatever the corporation says it is. So the regulator accepts the corporate version of science on ideological principle. The regulator not only accepts the corporation’s self-testimony but accepts only this testimony while defining independent science and epidemiological science in general out of existence. Therefore we must reject out of hand all pro-corporate regulatory declarations. These are regurgitated directly from the corporate decree and convey nothing but the original corporate lies.
A third reason to reject all testimony and findings of corporations and their regulatory counterparts is that corporate science is also overwhelmingly secret science. But “secret science” is a contradiction in terms according to the Popperian idea of the scientific method. On the contrary, by definition the only data which could count as part of the scientific record is public data, and the only scientific conclusions are those derived from public data. Therefore by definition anything secret or derived from secrecy cannot be part of science, but is merely anti-scientific innuendo and rumor puffed up into propaganda. We must reject out of hand all “secret science”, on principle.*
The proximate reason for all the secrecy is of course that these corporate products don’t work and are extremely poisonous to humans, animals, and ecosystems. Therefore the corporation requires extreme secrecy in order to cover up the gross evidence even its own fraudulently designed research uncovers.
But a bias in favor of secrecy is also inherent to the corporate science paradigm. This is because corporations are bureaucracies, and bureaucracies are inherently autocratic and secretive. It’s also because corporate capitalism is based heavily on pseudo-“competition” and intellectual property. These phenomena require each corporation to maintain a high level of secrecy about all its actions including its scientific affairs. Therefore it follows that the corporate science paradigm allows and privileges secret science. This proves that corporate science is the radical antithesis of Popperian ideas of science, enshrined in the conventional notions of the scientific method, falsification, and science as a constructive contributor to an open society. To whatever extent practicing scientists and the citizens of a democracy claim to embrace these ideas of science, they must recognize that the corporate science paradigm embodies the exact opposite, the most extreme rejection of these ideas, and they must in turn reject corporate science as a whole, completely, as nothing but a pure mass of lies.
Corporate science is exactly upside down. It is exactly, perfectly wrong. We can state as axioms: Corporate science is a lie; Regulator-vouched science is a lie; Secret science is a lie.
*The only exception is where the corporate practitioners themselves are unable to cover up adverse results. It’s highly significant how, in spite of the most strenuous efforts on the part of the foxes to deploy false study frameworks, bogus methodology, fraudulent interpretations, and suppression of data, to strip the hen-house bare, nevertheless so many corporate studies still were unable to cover up completely and provided significant evidence of the harmfulness of pesticides and GMOs.
In such cases we can use this adverse data, assuming all the while that the truth must be far worse. In these cases the truth is so bad that even these masters of obfuscation couldn’t cover up completely.



  1. […] second or would place any value at all on the self-testimony of corporations like Monsanto and Dow whose entire history is nothing but an unbroken record of lies. I defy anyone to explain to me how it’s possible rationally to believe a word a corporation […]

    Pingback by Science is Part of Human History | Volatility — February 1, 2016 @ 2:49 am

  2. […] Edwards, a scientist who helped expose the poisoning of the Flint water supply, is a case study in how normal science really works under corporate rule. He speaks to how rare it is for the scientific method, falsification and all, to actually be […]

    Pingback by GMO News Summary, February 5th 2016 | Volatility — February 5, 2016 @ 5:18 am

  3. […] “But it’s too soon to say whether feminized fish are indicative of health effects for humans too.” No, it’s not. The corporations and government have known for decades that ALL of these chemicals are extremely toxic to ALL kinds of animals including humans. That includes endocrine disruption effects at low doses. So the EPA has known since the 1970s that there is no safe level of environmental presence. Their continued policy since then of setting “tolerance” levels for these poisons and claiming the chemicals are safe up to those levels, instead of banning them, is nothing but a Nuremburg-level criminal conspiracy, using that word exactly as it was defined at Nuremburg. . What could be the goals that justify such monstrousness? Today’s corporate and engineering elites want to use genetic engineering, gene therapy, and hormone therapy to deliberately re-sculpt all life according to their own specifications. This is because they have an elemental hatred for evolution and nature and because they believe this power to control and manipulate will literally turn them into gods. They have a long record of rhetoric openly proclaiming this goal. It also reflects how the scientism/engineering cult arose from fanatical religious roots in the first place (specifically, millennarian Christianity) and never transcended those religious roots in the modern era, but simply recast them in “secular” terms. David Noble’s Religion of Technology is an excellent survey of this history. . So right now we have corporate sectors being allowed to poison humans and the environment on a massive level. From the corporate point of view this is for power and profit. From the point of view of the cultist true-believers, they’re supporting corporate poison products for careerist reasons and reasons of general authoritarian ideology (STEM types are inherently prone to be anti-democratic and authoritarian), but they also have a special project for it. The eugenic control project is at the stage of conducting a massive uncontrolled experiment in genetic engineering (via transgenic contamination and in general the wholesale domination of wise stretches of habitat by agricultural GMOs), “gene therapy” (the genetic damage caused by pesticides and other industrial chemicals), and “hormone therapy” (the endocrine disruption and reproductive system damage and birth defects caused by these chemicals). . The reason STEM types support all this is because they hope to use the data generated here toward designing and carrying out future controlled experiments along these lines, eventually toward a full-scale eugenic policy deployment to eugenically sculpt all of society and nature. Of course along the way they’ll also use the data to develop lucrative luxury products, providing human modification services to the gullible rich and so on. . I’m not saying that right at this moment there’s some master cabal somewhere which is consciously planning all this, though as I said they often informally talk about it quite openly. I’m saying their entire pattern of action is trending toward this goal, and the entire history of their type (the history of eugenics specifically, and the control ideology among engineers in general) proves that at some point they will consciously organize to attain this goal. . So I think that’s where we are along this historical vector: Agricultural GMOs, the rising phenomenon of GE animals, and the wholesale toxification of the Earth including the genetic damage and endocrine disruption being systematically, if in an uncontrolled way, inflicted upon humans and all other kinds of animals, are all being done for their own proximate power/profit purposes, but are also a stalking horse for future eugenics and are being used to gather data toward future controlled experiments. (If I’m right about this, it would follow that the corporations, governments, universities probably are gathering real data on the effects of these poisons, though of course doing their best to keep this data secret. There’s one of the core reasons for the secrecy campaign of corporate “science”.) […]

    Pingback by The Goal of the Scientism Cultists | Volatility — February 8, 2016 @ 3:37 am

  4. […] even though this is the most complete scientific evidence possible), but instead recognize only “secret science”, which by definition is not science at all. The BfR and EFSA consulted only this mythical pseudo-science and, to add insult, berated the IARC […]

    Pingback by GMO News Summary February 12th, 2016 | Volatility — February 12, 2016 @ 8:01 am

  5. […] and be automatically “for” anything. You can have one or the other, not both. Just as you can have secrecy or science, never both. There we have just two examples of how radically anti-science the pro-GMO activists are. Of course […]

    Pingback by GMO News Summary February 26th, 2016 | Volatility — February 26, 2016 @ 3:15 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: