Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

If you want honest members of the government take away their legal right to lie to you

Posted by pwl on November 29, 2010

The legal right of the government to lie to the people has always bothered me as it smacks of a lack of integrity by the very people allegedly empowered to have the highest levels of integrity and honesty by the people. The members of the government, in whatever capacity or role they are filling, have a special trust to uphold and when they use deception why are they allowed to get away with it and yet a different standard is applied to the people when they lie? If a defendant in a court case lies at any point while being investigated it’s treated with such great importance that it’s as if the world came to an end… but when the cult members of the cult of government lie it’s for the benefit of the people and lifted up as somehow an honorable trick that was played to get at the truth when in fact it’s no different for it was a lie, a deception, a non-truth, falsified information, a fabrication designed to give false impressions. It’s ironic that some of the best liars are likely working within the government and get rewarded for it.

It seems that the government cult members just can’t help themselves:

“Evidently CARB [California Air Resources Board] is contemplating a regulation that would enable penalties for what would be judged “dishonest statements or submittals” provided to it or “staff.” I think one can safely assume that it is aimed at curtailing challenges to CARB’s agenda that are based on alternative scientific information and interpretations.” – Surreality: CARB contemplating a “skeptical science” regulation with penalties

I found this following article about the limits of when and how the police are “allowed to lie” to suspects and it’s quite shocking… they can almost get away with any thing… I wonder how this applies to those within the framework of the cult of government working as scientists (including university staff or students receiving government grants) are allowed to lie? How far can their fabrications go? What are the limits of lying in science? How many lies make it into peer reviewed papers? How many are caught or punished?

The landmark decision regulating false statements made to a suspect is the U.S. Supreme Court case of Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 1969. The case involved the interrogation of a homicide suspect who was falsely told that an accomplice had already implicated the suspect in the killing. This lie persuaded the suspect to confess to the homicide. The Supreme Court ruled that such use of trickery and deceit can be permissible (depending on the totality of circumstances) provided that it does not shock the conscience of the court or community.

Furthermore, the court offered examples of police conduct that would shock the conscience of the court or community. Such impermissible conduct includes an investigator lying about his identity and introducing himself as the suspect’s court appointed attorney. Similarly, an investigator who poses as a clergyman in an effort to obtain a confession under that guise would constitute behavior that shocks the conscience of the court or community. Over the last 35 years courts have upheld countless confessions even though the investigator lied to the suspect during an interview or interrogation. In most of these cases the investigator made false statements about being in possession of evidence that implicated the suspect in the crime e.g., eye-witness, fingerprint, DNA, etc.

On the other hand, courts have consistently prohibited investigators from lying to suspects about the possible consequences the suspect faces if he is guilty of committing a crime. An example of this would be if an investigator falsely tells a suspect that recent legislation allows the suspect to receive probation if he expresses remorse for his crime. Other instances of impermissible false statements include telling a suspect that if he confesses he can sleep in his own bed that night (when such is not the case), or that if the suspect does not confess her children will be taken from her and placed in a foster home.

A 1993 case draws a clear distinction between intrinsic lies (dealing with the current investigation) and extrinsic lies (relating to legal issues or the court system).1 That case holds that telling extrinsic lies to a suspect constitutes inherent coercion and, consequently, renders a confession inadmissible, per se. Other states have adopted a similar position. For example, a recent decision from Minnesota involved a case where the investigator told the suspect that if he acknowledged having sexual contact with the victim many years ago, that the suspect would not be charged with a more serious offense. The court suppressed the subsequent confession relying, in part, on the rationale that an investigator is prohibited from telling extrinsic lies during an interrogation.

An interesting application of Kalekolio is the permissibility of lying to a suspect about the purpose for an interview. As an example, consider that Frank is suspected of engaging in illegal gambling activity and investigators wish to talk to him about that. For fear that Frank will destroy evidence if told the true purpose for the interview, investigators lie and tell him that they would like to question him about a recent hit and run accident. Once Frank voluntarily presents himself to the interview room he is told the true purpose for the interview and subsequently confesses to illegal gambling activity. Lying to a non-custodial suspect about the purpose for an interview may be considered permissible if the investigator can establish a reasonable purpose for the deception and that the interview was voluntary. However, if Frank was arrested and taken into custody, it would be clearly improper and illegal to elicit a Miranda waiver under the false pretest of wanting to talk to him about a hit and run accident. Obtaining a valid waiver of constitutional rights is clearly extrinsic to the investigation and an investigator can not engage in trickery or deceit to obtain that goal.

False assertions vs. manufactured evidence

A Florida case offers further guidance with respect to making false statements to a suspect.2 In the Cayward case police created a fictitious crime lab report which indicated that Cayward’s DNA was found on the victim. After reading the report, Cayward confessed. At trial his confession was suppressed because of the court’s concern that such manufactured evidence may find its way into a court room and undermine the integrity of the evidential system. The significant language from Cayward is that a distinction must be made between, “Making false assertions and manufacturing evidence”. The implication is that Cayward’s confession would have been upheld had the investigator only made the false statement, “We have a crime lab report and your DNA was found on the victim.”

This same logic was applied in a recent New Jersey case to suppress a homicide confession. 3 In preparation for the interrogation, investigators staged an audio-taped interview where a fellow investigator pretended to be an informant who witnessed the killing. Upon hearing the manufactured tape the suspect confessed. It should be made clear that the Cayward case does not prohibit an investigator from using visual props during an interrogation provided that the props would not reasonably be perceived as actual evidence against the suspect.”
Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go?

This part of the conclusion of the article is interesting as it could relate to the CARB directly. Maybe the limits of the police lying somehow can be applied to government funded scientists?

When the decision is made to lie to a suspect, the investigator must be aware of case law and avoid any lies that relate to legal issues or the criminal justice system, e.g. leniency, lesser charges, reduced sentence. Further, lies made to a suspect should be limited to false verbal assertions. This does not preclude the investigator from using visual props such as a thick evidence folder or a blank VHS tape. However, it is unacceptable for an investigator to manufacture fictitious evidence against a suspect.”

Above all though, how can a “false statement” made to CARB be known to be made on purpose or by mistake? What about CARB’s own people? What happens to them when they make false statements? Are they protected as the police and other cult members of the various cults of government are protected? Are the CARB people lifted up by lying? Do they have a culture of lying to advance their “cause”? Are they authorized to lie to the public?

It’s always bothered me that the cult members of the various cults of government are authorized to lie to the people as it smacks of an incentive for them to act dishonestly and without integrity. Maybe it’s because of the nature of politicians, everyone expects them to lie and while maybe not all do it’s intrinsically part of the culture of politicians who make the rules to lie, is it not? Everyone expects a politician to break their word, especially to get elected. So if the government is corrupted by the culture of lying from the very top offices on downwards why do we expect any different from government departments involved with the environment or with science to either permit lying or actively encourage it or to let it pass when it’s found out?

The bottom line though is it’s not enough to show that a statement is false, intent to fabricate must be shown. In science speculative statements are made as part of casting the nets of hypothesis, and many of these will be shown to be false in the long run as is par for the course.

Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch.” – Novalis

In the end though science rests not upon the intent of the scientists but upon how close their hypothesis turns out to correspond to the objective reality of Nature in all it’s magnificence and stark horrors.

I’m trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS.” – Richard Feynman

Along the way to finding out how Nature IS one will likely find out many thousands of way that Nature is NOT!

Ultimately science doesn’t rest upon trusting the scientists involved, but rests upon their works being independently verified by others including their harshest critics.

Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What’s left is magic. And it doesn’t work.” – James Randi

What is challenging in science is showing “intent” to lie or deceive, which is why the Climategate emails are so damning for they alleged as clear as day the intent to lie for the purposes of deception and political gain of those conspirators involved.

Yet in the end those that are caught in that web of deception revealed to the public now must tread much more carefully for their are under a lot of scrutiny. While they have hidden behind the veil of their intuitions and the veneer of the thinly disguised inquiries to clear them with a whitewash of soap suds they are now being watched to an even greater extent. Their magic is caught out, how many more tricks are up their sleeves? How many more deceptions will they try? It’s in their culture after all? How much more will they mannufacture and fabricate with tricky statistics?

An account of an experiment or observation should give the reader all the information required to carry out exactly the same procedure and observe the same outcome [82]. This is clearly a severe constraint on the type of knowledge considered acceptable to science. As every scientist knows, this regulative principle both limits and empowers the concept of an empirical scientific ‘fact’.” – Real Science, What It Is and What It Means, J. Ziman

It’s curious to me that so much of the alleged climate science is so speculative. It’s not like in physics where equations like f=ma or e=mc^2 have been pegged down to many decimal places of accuracy. The fact that climate science is veiled in so many “could”, “might”, “what if”, and other possible ways that climate could work is seriously problematic.

The fundamental flaw of course is the predictability of the future. Maybe we did get cocky with the success of hard physics and it’s equations that enable accurate yet verifiable ability to predict the future to some extent. Sure their are limits to hard physics but it lets us travel about the solar system and even beyond.

I wonder how anyone can take the predictions of climate science seriously given that climate systems are inherently complex chaotic systems and given that Stephen Wolfram has clearly shown that even simple systems in Nature can generate complex behavior that is inherently random and the only way to know the outcome is to let the Natural systems unfold in the course of real time events (see A New Kind of Science, Chapter Two in particular). Given Wolfram and other proofs about the limits of predictability how then can an entire scientific field avoid such limits and keep on making their predictions anyways? Is it the futile efforts of those blinded by hubris of their chasing the hypotheses? Is it that they are blinded by the grant monies while knowing that it’s neigh impossible to predict the future? Is it a culture of authorized deception as it is with the rest of the various cults of government where it’s approved to lie in order to be doing the peoples business?

Given that Wolfram provides a mathematical and computer science proof that even simple systems generate complex behavior that renders predictability of systems as complex as weather and climate systems impossible, how can any prediction of climate be taken to be anything except a “dishonest statement”?

Soothsaying climate futures seems a lucrative business that has no regards for the known limits of predictability. It’s very interesting that Wolfram shows that Nostradamus had just as much chance at predicting the future as climate scientists have. The limits in Nature can be harsh indeed.

A soothsayer is a person who claims to speak sooth: specifically one who predicts the future based upon personal, political, spiritual, mental or religious beliefs rather than scientific facts.” – Living in the Shadow of [Climate] Soothsayers

It’s time that all the members of the various cults of government be held to the highest standards of integrity and honesty at all times in all contexts, and that includes all those receiving public funds to fund their soothsaying of doomsday scenarios. It’s time to remove the asymmetry from the laws that allow the cult members of the cult of government to be exempt from the same laws that allegedly are suppose apply to everyone else, there are far too many exceptions and exemptions written into the laws to protect those in government from the force of law. It’s time to impeach all known or discovered government liars.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: