This common yet very famous powerful statement in my title above is often more commonly heard from some court room drama whether an actual real life situation or from some Hollywood fictional entertainment character. There is another very famous quote from the Biblical account about the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate cynically asking a question he has no real interest in knowing an answer to. This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, big business leaders and politicians. They hold that truth—especially moral and spiritual truth—is not absolute but relative and ever changing. The changing attitude allows people to determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations today. In that way they may even feel comfortable in definitions of various truths being grayed or murky.
Unfortunately in our modern times unscrupulous advertisement agencies, public relations firms, campaign managers employed by politicians, corporations or other special interest entities take liberties at playing with the truth to attain whatever goals or agendas they want pushed forward for whatever motivation. The average person is viewed by these professionals as nothing more than an ignorant gullible public who need to be cleverly manipulated for their own good. Often an apathetic public allows this manipulation by not being a responsible skeptic. And there appears to be a new twist into the way these Entities accomplish this manipulation. They have found that they don’t have to lie anymore, which is the extreme opposite from the definition of truth. There’s a sort of technicality strategy of just not telling the whole truth. Here’s how it works and pay attention to a couple of examples here and see if you don’t also see this same modern day trend as well.
Well this is certainly a popular marketing praze isn't it ? Especially since the world financial markets meltdown back in 2008 where things went crash, consumer prices sky rocketed and even more awareness of just how this obsesion with consumerism has been taking it's toll on our Earth's natural resources. Hence there were a number of ecology news segments created by several of the world's leading Media giants like CNN & BBC. The shows consisted to supply us with every type of Eco-Green idea and product being accomplsihed or manufactured around the globe. Suddenly this term or other various terminologies associated along these ecology lines became the popular catch phrazes in the latest marketing advertisement ploys to sucker people into not sonsuming less, but more. On the regular programming part of CNN News Reports some months later in 2009 there was a regular News item which exposed almost 95% of those products and/or companies labled as Eco-Green as being bogus. Here's an example below. Ever see this logo and do you know what it means ?
Well here is the official definition of what it is, what it stands for and who created it and what countries later adopted it's standards as their own. From Wiki:
Energy Star is an international standard for Energy Efficient Consumer Products originated in the United States of America. It was created in 1992 by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy during the Clinton Administration. Since then, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Taiwan and the European Union have adopted the program. Devices carrying the Energy Star service mark, such as computer products and peripherals, kitchen appliances, buildings and other products, generally use 20%–30% less energy than required by federal standards.
Incredible! In fact this is what the Financial page of CNN online has on record about how truthful this labeling can be trusted or not. This is quite entertaining, click on each gallery page by clicking on the 'Next' button.
A recent government investigation exposed some pretty big holes in the Energy Star approval process.
Here is another example. The common folks understand how politics and Big Business are truly hucksters when it comes to pimping their wares, but sure science isn't effected by such dishonesty. Why it is said that science is the ever evolving ever self correcting self policing mechanism un-effected by the imperfections common to other disciplines. Is this really true ? Here's how it is supposed to work with this infallible thing called Science. Scientists are supposed to be able unbiased & objectionable and base their judgements on verifiable data along with very careful repeatable observations. But once again, despite what many would have you believe, they are also human with the same flaws and imperfections strung along by their own personal metaphysical biases and preconceived assumptions and assertions which colour their thinking on a matter.
Back on October 19, 2010 there was an article in the Journal called “Annals of Internal Medicine” by the American College of Physicians entitled, “What’s in Placebos: Who Knows?, Analysis of Randomized , Controlled Trials”.
So here is just one example of how a cleverly truth manipulated placebo verses Diabetes Drug Study can do wonders for the profitability of a big business entity of a large Pharmapseutical Company when looking for that precious approval standing with the FDA who is supposed to be looking out for the average Joe/Jane Q-Public citizen. It works this way. Most placebos by their very definition nature are supposed to be inert, which means they have no actual physical effect on the control subject under study. Yet as we all know about most Placebos, they are mostly "Sugar Pills" right ? Now it doesn't take a genius here to realize or understand that 'Sugar' is not exactly a good thing for people with Diabetes, right ? So what type of an outcome would you expect from an experiment which gave one group of diabetics "Sugar Pills" and the other group of diabetics the proposed wonder Diabetes Drug ? Would the proposed wonder drug group perform superior than the "Sugar Pill" group ? Well of course they would. But would you really consider this an honest experimental trial ? Can you see how they manipulated the truth in this case ? Did they technically lie ? Well no, they just didn't tell the whole truth. Which also means they didn't lie either or so they schemed. Yes the study did show the Placebo to be far inferior to the wonder Drug, but they just didn't tell anyone what was in the placebo. The article went on to mention how serious this was in that it was possible that hundreds of drugs could be taken off the market as a result of this less than honest practice. The really spooky thing is here is how many potentially dangerous drugs were allowed to be released on the Public ?
Now let's go for another Science example:
University Scientists, Researchers and Professors or even those Scientists and Researchers who are employed by big corporations are shackled to the same human imperfection and failings that we all have. They are not above any of that despite how many of them often promote themselves and their research. Take for example the way many of them write up a research paper for those longed for “Grant Monie$$$” which of course are very very important to furthering their research. Everyone gets that. Now it’s irrelevant what the actual subject or research field is, they are all pretty equal. But let’s say that only 35% of their personal research findings was favorable towards impressing the contributing parties, but yet, there was also this 65% percentage in those same findings that might be considered unfavorable in obtaining those precious grant funds to keep their personal pet research projects going. So what does one do? LIE ? Absolutely NOT! You just simply say nothing about the negative data. You omit them entirely from the Grant Application. Then you proceed to exaggerate and embellish upon the favorable informative material in your Grant application. But what is the real motivation behind why they do this?
It’s because like the rest of us they all need their employment and sometimes in desperation they will do whatever it takes to meet that end. After all, there are careers and tenure to be maintained. Not receiving these funds might even be considered a personal failure and an embarrassment among their peers. If they are employed by a large corporation, then there are CEOs and other Execs to answer to, investors to please and consumers to satisfy. So this pressure to manipulate the truth may be considered a necessary evil towards what is believed to be an ultimate good. However, for me personally, I think the world would benefit here by knowing what many of those unfavourable failures were. Unpublished reports which have unfavourable data may be of use in other ways. It could prevent someone else (another Scientist or other Researcher) from taking a wrong turn OR it may trigger an idea in someone else who will recognize where the problem is, where things went wrong and the direction it should have gone. But if it's locked up or destroyed, then who will ever know what could have been ?
This subject of "Unpublished Negative Results" was the very subject of a letter Linda Chalker-Scott published in her weekly WSU News Extension in the section 'The Garden Professors' where she and a collection of other researchers and professors give their professional scientific conclusions to questions asked and it has public comment participation. She was at a speaker at the Connecticut Tree Protective Association and came across one of the attendees at that convention who later wrote her an email explaining his desire for knowing the negative data. His appeal made real sense to me.
"Thank you for the comments and presentations you delivered on Thursday, January 19. I hope you had a pleasant and less difficult return journey from Connecticut.
"One point that you mentioned bears emphasis and enlargement although you got it right the first time. Specifically, you mentioned one anecdote that has additional implications, the researcher friend who was reluctant to publish findings that disappointed her because they did not bear out her original conclusions, i.e., the feeling of disappointment and the chagrin to have missed one's own best guess. These are natural feelings and you are not the first in my experience to notice this very human inclination in scientific researchers. There is a rush to publish meaningful results, but the negative findings tend to pile up in the stack of unpublished material.
"The root of this matter, it seems, lies in the unwritten assumption that science is the means by which we discern and expose the truth. Certainly that's what is hoped since it could lead to recognition and prestige.
"In fact, it is just as useful, if not more useful, to disclose that which is not true. The beneficiary is science itself and not the individual. Systematically done, this will eventually result in the elimination of errors of fact or judgment and prevent the repetition of similar investigations that for similar reasons might remain unpublished. Viewed in this manner, a failure is as valuable as a success and therefore just as deserving of publication as the most insightful of findings. Failures often precede success.
"Thanks again for your informative presentation. As a former horticultural extension agent, I understand just where you are coming from."
Henry A. F. Young, President
Young Environmental Sciences, Inc.
January 24, 2012
I once lived in the back country of Riverside County up in Anza California for almost 25 years. In all that time I’ve seen large investment firms buy up large tracts of land. Some of this was simply sat on and untouched only to be re-sold later to someone else at a profit. Others had greater schemes in mind. It is often a ploy to do things under the guise of Agriculture to avoid government regulations on otherwise restrictive rules which govern commercial enterprises. I remember this very situation in a very remote uninhabited Valley which has only one large landowner between Anza Valleys in Riverside County and Chihuahua Valley south in San Diego County. You could get to this valley by way of an easement through the Cahuilla Indian Reservation or from a road off Chihuahua Valley road. If you stumbled across this place you would see a rather large orchard of not so well taken care of Pear trees. What ever they did there, they weren't Pear Farmers. In fact a local Deputy Sheriff would chase you out of there if you were off-road exploring. Some months later it was found out that far less than legal enterprises were going on there than innocent Pear Orchard raising. Oh and the deputy Sheriff wasn't always sheriffing either. Surprise Surprise.
But many other legitimate Business Developers often do as I stated the same things under the guise of Agriculture like building well maintained large ranch roads that go apparently nowhere. Some years later either lots are parceled or developed as some sort of private country club development or other commercial enterprise.
This subject was touched upon by the California Chaparral Institute who alerted readers from their California Chaparral Blog recently to happenings in the pristine location east of Escondido called the “Rancho Guejito” wildlands area where owners of the property were ordered by San Diego County to repair damage done under the guise of Farm/Ranch maintenance. Everyone should be aware that this is not just a new loophole used by the owners of this property. This has been done for years by many big landowners who have acquired large tracts of real estate with grandiose plans for development even if those plans are decades on down the line. You should know and be aware that once roads are cut and graded and used for so-called farm/ranch usage, that there are something called easement rights and perhaps after so many years becomes legally acceptable depending on the other manipulating professional processes used by a Corporation’s Law firm. So be skeptical and alert to these tactics. When any large land owning company wants to finally initiate those long planned for schemes, why low and behold those roads which required no rules, regulations or environmental habitat studies or official permits are already there. No need for those expensive costly permits & studies.
Here is that article:
"I am absolutely infuriated that everyone has found out that I cheated on my wife or took those non-profit funds for my own personal usage, now I have to humiliate myself & provide this half-hearted apology to pull my political career out of the cesspit of despair"
Suddenly, everyone realizes that the individual is not sorry so much for the horrible act, but rather for the fact they got caught and exposed for their misdeed. When it comes to environmental issues, people often have no problem being the conventional corporation skeptics on well known environmental issues when it comes those Amazon Rain Forests or saving other beautiful old growth redwood forests like up in the Pacific Northwest. Why we need to protect and save Rain forests. That’s called being a “Safety Zone Skeptic” , that is, one who is comfortable with what they think they know about a matter. But support a cause for something like the Chaparral plant community ? Wow, hold on there. It’s just a bunch of jagged stickery rangy looking brush. It's worthless, boring, mundane and even invasive in it's own habitat, according to the Forestry Officials and Reseachers in positions of charge and responsibility. Or what about high desert Pinyon/Juniper scrub or low desert mesquite bosques? Or how about grasslands? Every type of plant community ecosystem has value and importance on this planet and yes even the often lowly viewed chaparral has a real ecological and economical importance when it comes to weather factors and climate change. Climate Change ? YES – I’M SERIOUS!
Nothing wrong with being a skeptic in our day and age, I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of conventional scientific thinking. I wonder who's behind it, what was their motivation for it and who benefits financially from this research. I actually think this all the time. I'm skeptical of religion and politics as well.
I love the work and research of a man named Viktor Schauberger (1885-1958) who not only came from a family of foresters in the country of Austria and was himself a forester, but also became a self-taught physicist in the unconventional thinking outside the box sort of way by observing what he saw in nature. He had amazing theories about obtaining energy from water. He had privilages of studying and observing a forest in it's most pristine state as it does not even exist today. However, as much as I admire someone like Schauberger, if you Google his name on the Internet, you will run across many people who are involved in a lot of bizarre 'New Age' philosophy of ancient aliens helping some long since dead civilization of humans with hidden mystic technologies centuries ago with pyramids or whatever. Even when there is a subject I like and gravitate towards that subject, I still ask tough skeptical questions, especially when some of these nature movements people try and tell me about how they’ve seen ghosts, spirits coming back from the dead or other unexplained unnatural phenomena. Then I'm a true skeptic and run completely the other way. It is at that point for me where I find a credibility issue and I think everyone else owes it to themselves to use their brains and educate themselves on some of the rubbish those in charge have been pimping for years whether it's the environment, religion, politics, economy or whatever else you want to add to the list.
I think people over in the USA should be skeptical when both Political Parties who normally hate each others guts publically, behind the scenes are united in going to bed with a company called Monsanto. What's up with that ?
I think you should even be skeptical when it comes to things posted in any blog, including this one. Test it out. If I tell you something about the environment that I have experienced or observed first hand, don't take my word for it, go out and prove it to yourself. Of course, you'll have to shut down your electronic age life for a time to actually do this, but you'll thank me for it later.
Hopefully I've tried to explain here even my own mistakes and errors when it comes to ecology or habitat restoration. When I revealed my passion for habitat creation with Torrey Pines on Rattlesnake Mountain in El Cajon CA, I told the truth about the failures of some of the trees I planted because of using the old outdated science-based conventional thinking of clearing the landscape of all chaparral and mulching all around the trees (A practice still used by Forestry Industry). Even the conventional Organic Nature Gardening literature said I should do this, but I mostly failed. It was not until I stopped, went down to Torrey Pines State Reserve and actually observed young Torrey Pine trees growing out of Lemonade Berry or other Chaparral species that I remembered what I had read about Nurse plants or Mother Trees. Unfortunately I didn't think much about it at the time I studied it in the 1970s. That's where practical application would have helped prove it to me and burn the experience into my brains cells earlier in life than later. Think of all the time I wasted not investigating for myself and putting trust in conventional traditional wisdom which as we now know was terribly flawed and our natural world bares this out. When I applied this method on two young Torrey Pines trees, it was only by putting them inside of a large deeply rooted native Laurel Sumac shrub, that these are the ONLY trees to survive to this present day and there is no earthly reason from conventionally thinking that these trees should even exist up there today and prosperously so. The new method I employed worked and succeeded because I became skeptical of the conventional biased product driven wisdom and decided to view things from a how the engineered natural world works point of view. As incredible as it sounds, the old school science of habitat restoration and land management still exists to this day despite the numerous scientific findings to the contrary. So who benefits from all of this Status Quo ideology ?
So it’s okay sometimes to be a skeptic even if you’ve supported a cause, group, product or institution for years. But you owe it to yourself and in fact you are encouraged to be one in this day and age where definition shell games of the very word 'truth as being relative with no absolutes', has brought us this crazy ever constantly changing ideologically driven power obsessed world which is presently destroying this planet. Go find out the truth about many things you've long believed in. This morning I replied to someone with a scriptural verse from wise King Solomon. Don't be offended if you don't lean that direction, it's okay, I find most people who often say they are religious don't even respect this book they claim to be holy either. Still the verse makes sense.
"Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps."
A further follow up article is found here below:
Addendum to The Whole Truth: Is the Survey Lying or Just Not Telling Us Everything