Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


The journal Science joins the cover-up

It’s not the crime it’s the cover-up: According to Science, Michael Mann of the climategate scandal did not advocate the illegal deletion of emails that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as reported earlier by the Daily Caller. All he did was forward an email by Phil Jones, also part of the climategate scandal, that requested that emails should be deleted. He is therefore innocent.

This is getting absurd. That a journal like Science would try to justify this idiotic argument puts a serious stain on almost everything they publish. Michael Mann was requested by Phil Jones to contact Eugene Wahl and ask him to delete emails illegally. Mann took the easiest approach, and simply forwarded Jones’s email. Without question he was complicit in this illegal act.

If the scientific community doesn’t wake up soon and honestly deal with this scandal, they are going to destroy a four hundred year track record of honesty. Worse, they are going to find it increasingly difficult to get funds from anyone for their research.

Readers!
 

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Your support is even more essential to me because I keep this site free from advertisements and do not participate in corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

2 comments

  • Scientists won’t find it difficult to get money for research. They’ll just go with the prevailnig political winds du jour. So it has ever been.

  • Tom Billings

    This has happened before.

    When the Greek philosophers were inventing the first scientific methodologies, though lacking experiment, people like Thales were making excellent observations of the physical and social world, and were using logical inference, and other logical methods in doing so. These philosophers were called “The Ionian Sophists”.

    Then, the imperial successors to Alexander divided up the Greek Cosmos. Funds were available, because a reputation for supporting philosophy was politically useful. But what the sophists of Athens did was to place logic at the service of powerful patrons who would support them. They were willing to lie, to use logical fallacies, to assume tautologies, just to come to the conclusion the current ruler desired. Thus, our modern understanding of sophistry was born.

    Sophistry, even inside the scientific community, never really died, though it was hoped that the demand for experimental replication would keep it within tight bounds. It is notable that the first prominent politically potent examples of modern sophistry have been those which claimed that replication was impossible. First, in the social sciences, because of the perceived need for individual privacy, and in climate science, because governments demanded that their data be kept sequestered.

    Until we refuse, to accord work that does not meet the standard of replication the status of “the scientific method”, we will keep getting this sort of scam. The vast majority of scientific funding comes from a small number of governmental and NGO sources that amount to an oligopsony verging on monopsony. These bottlenecks in funding have allowed those in political power for long periods to shape entire scientific disciplines, by funding what helps their power, and ignoring or suppressing work that undercuts their political arguments for more power. The result has been a power elite that cannot tell, and in many cases does not *want* to tell, the difference between a sophisticated argument, and a sophistical argument.

    There are few greater contributions to science that can be made today, than a system to connect voluntarily donated money from the majority of individuals in the population, to researchers in need of funding, in a network of so many possible paths, that political power cannot create a funding bottleneck to exploit it for bending scientists to sophistry.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *