Forbes Should Stick to Finances
Forbes magazine has become famous for its financial forecasts and conservative politics. It was founded by B. C. Forbes in 1917 and is now run by Steve Forbes, a two-time presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000 on the Republican ticket. Forbes.com was founded in 1996 and does the same as the print magazine. But in addition to financial issues, per Wikipedia, Forbes also delves into “technology, communications, science, and law.” The science issues can be found at Forbes.com/science. It is an assortment of, shall we say, the mainstream Zeitgeist on what you are required to believe about science if you want to be a card-carrying member of popular society. Some of its current articles are: “Origins Card Game Teaches Basics of Human Evolution” and “Don’t Compare Species On Earth With Aliens In No Man’s Sky,” and “Human Ancestor Hoax At Piltdown Finally Solved,” all of which seek to discredit Creationism and give absolute devotion to Darwin. You can only imagine what Forbes.com would do with those who think Copernicus was wrong! Hold on. I will show you momentarily.
Interestingly enough, the other day I was browsing the works of Sigmund Freud, the inventor of “psychoanalysis” in the early 1900s. In his Introductory Lectures to Psychoanalysis, vol. 15, pp. 284-5, Freud tells us that his main enemy is Christianity (not a surprise from a Jewish atheist). He is proud to say that modern society has given “three wounds” to Christianity. The three are: (1) Copernicanism, (2) Darwinism, and (3) Freudianism. There is probably not a lot to argue about here. For once in his life, Freud was right. His main complaint is that Christianity tries to make man significant beyond what he deserves (ring any bells with our “I am Significant” campaign at ThePrinciple.com?), but that Copernicus, Darwin, and now Freud, have all shown that man is insignificant, dethroned from his “megalomania.” As he puts it:
In the course of centuries the naive self-love of men has had to submit to two major blows at the hands of science. The first was when they learnt that our earth was not the center of the universe but only a tiny fragment of a cosmic system of scarcely imaginable vastness. This is associated in our minds with the name of Copernicus, though something similar had already been asserted by Alexandrian science. The second blow fell when biological research destroyed man’s supposedly privileged place in creation and proved his descent from the animal kingdom and his ineradicable animal nature. This revaluation has been accomplished in our own days by Darwin, Wallace and their predecessors, though not without the most violent contemporary opposition. But human megalomania will have suffered its third and most wounding blow from the psychological research of the present time which seeks to prove to the ego that it is not even master in its own house, but must content itself with scanty information of what is going on un-consciously in the mind.
Can you see now why we are paying so much attention to Copernican Principle in our making of The Principle and Journey to the Center of the Universe? The atheists, agnostics, the God-haters, the know-it-all professors and university students, and even the average man, know that Copernicus is the lynch pin. He is the anchor upon which modern society has been built for the last 500 years. Getting the Earth out of the center was paramount if mankind maintained any hope of escaping from under the authority and influence of Christianity. How could they possibly preach that Darwin’s monkeys were our uncles and that Freud’s id controlled our basal impulses if the Earth was still in the center? They know it screams that God exists and mankind is very significant; that man was made in God’s image, not a monkey; and that Original Sin is the cause of our basal nature, not Freud’s subconscious id. Of course, that would mean that modern man must stop giving excuses for his immoral behavior and start making himself accountable to the God who created him. Anything but that, of course. In case you didn’t notice, this is all about life style. Can I live the way I want (riches, sex, power, leisure, etc.) or do I have to live the way some unseen God is telling me to live?
We see no better example of that secular drive than in Tony Bradley, the correspondent from Forbes.com who recently interviewed Rick Delano about The Principle and then wrote the scathing article titled: “The Principe is What Happens When Good Science Gets Twisted” (although Forbes.com is considerate enough to put a disclaimer on Mr. Bradley’s opinions by stating upfront that “opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.” Thank God for that!)
The bio of Tony Bradley that Forbes posts before his articles says: “Tony Bradley is Community Manager for Tenable Network Security and Editor-in-Chief of TechSpective. Tony has a passion for technology and gadgets—with a focus on Microsoft and security. He also loves spending time with his family and likes to think he enjoys reading and golf even though he never finds the time for either.” So we know right off the bat that Tony really doesn’t know much about cosmology, and our interview may have been his first introduction to the topic. Tony’s fondness for “family and gadgets and cyber security,” is all well and good, but that certainly doesn’t qualify him to judge the movie and make the scurrilous remarks about the movie that he does in his article.
My guess is that Tony Bradley was the closest thing to science that Forbes could provide to do the interview. We can just hear Tony now: “Hey, dude, I don’t need to know cosmological science in order to know The Principle is wrong from the get-go. Everybody knows the Earth isn’t in the center of the universe.” One read of Tony’s article and those of us who do know the science can figure out quite easily that he came to the interview with his politically correct agenda well in hand.
Proof of this is when Tony says in his article, “I disagree completely with the premise and conclusions of the movie.” In other words, “I don’t like the idea that you made a movie that challenges or contradicts what we already believe, but I won’t bother to substantiate my opinion by addressing the 90 minutes of scientific-packed evidence that is between your premise and your conclusion.”
My understanding of Mr. Bradley’s tactics is backed by the fact that he doesn’t cite one instance—not one—in the movie in which our science can be discredited, yet he makes snide comments like “I recommend watching this movie for the lesson in how actual facts and science can be cherry-picked and taken out of context.” Like what, Tony? Give us a “for instance,” for Pete’s sake! Was it when Lawrence Krauss is quoted as saying that the Earth could be in the center of the universe? Or how about when Max Tegmark changed his mind during the filming of the movie and declared that he now believes man IS significant? Or was it when John Hartnett showed the galaxies are arranged in concentric spheres around little Earth in the center? Or was it when Michio Kaku admitted that the Big Bang—the very cosmology that tries to say there is no center—contradicts itself to the tune of 10 to the 120th power? Come on, Tony! If you are going to call yourself a fair and unbiased journalist then at least have the decency to prove your point to your audience so that you won’t fall into the same demagoguery and manipulation that you accuse the producers of The Principle of using.
You know what I think? I think the movie got to Tony. He never expected the science to support our view and go against his, especially since ours is the first movie in history to debunk Copernicanism by using the actual statements and experiments from die-hard Copernicans.
But here is what happened. Although Tony was affected by the scientific evidence we brought forth, he had already told himself that he “wasn’t going to accept its premise or conclusion.” The result is that Tony is forced to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
On the one hand, he says that The Principle is “suggesting there is a massive cover up by the scientific community…To be fair, that happens. Most major scientific breakthroughs are initially met with skepticism.”
On the other hand, Tony goes into nothing less than an irrational rant that concludes that though a cover up is possible, we all know that it’s not happening in cosmology, and thus he concludes:
“Bold, baseless assertions are inserted—but never really supported—and juxtaposed with actual scientific fact in a way that makes them see like they’re equal arguments—two side of the same coin. It’s crappy science—but it’s masterful marketing and manipulation….Watch The Principle. Just don’t watch it as a scientific movie or take its premise seriously. Instead, watch it to learn how a well-polished work of pseudo-science can somehow seem plausible if you’re not careful.”
Ah, yes. Read between the lines and you will figure out that the Dr. Jekyll side of Tony Bradley was taken in by The Principle (no intelligent person can’t be), but his Mr. Hyde side just couldn’t bring itself to give it even a smidgen of a chance in his already made-up mind. So in order to extricate himself from the half that was drawn in, his other half excoriates the film as a mere manipulation of the facts. I’ve seen it hundreds of times when people are confronted with this particular topic.
The real truth is, the scientific facts are so overwhelming that one realizes he is being convinced, but then he thinks of the consequences of actually accepting the ‘premise and conclusions’ of a central Earth and he becomes utterly frightened to his gourd. The loss of his friends, his family, his job, his reputation, and his fortunes all flash before him in an instant, all of which scream to him to discredit the film and get as far away from it as he can.
This is accomplished by making snide remarks and unsubstantiated accusations, all with a good measure of wit in order to pass itself off as attractive journalism. The real marketeer and manipulator here is Tony Bradley. Anyone trying to convince his audience to reject The Principle and its claims without at least giving one example from the movie of how it transgressed his sacred territory, is not journalism. It’s more like a tabloid (and we all know how well tabloids sell). In fact, Tony Bradley’s piece is not journalism at all. It is a hit piece disguised as journalism. The very reason Tony didn’t mention any examples to prove his point is because he is using an old trick in journalism – don’t give any examples precisely because you don’t want anyone arguing against your biased and unsubstantiated conclusion.
Forbes should stick to finances, for it is obvious that its “contributors” to science both don’t know the science and don’t have the courage to investigate it. Tony Bradley, you’re a disgrace to journalism. Go back to your gadgetry and cyber security. Yet again, if your capability in science is any indication of your capability in cyber security, I may as well put my vital statistics on the TMZ website.
Let face it. Today “science” has become as entrenched in the political fabric of society as much as Hollywood actors have become spokesmen for political parties and issues. There is little objective science any longer and people like Tony Bradley will continue to promote the status quo no matter what the evidence says.
Oh yes, scientists are rather good at collecting data with all their new gadgetry, but what hasn’t changed much (barring a few exceptions) is the scientist who does the status quo interpretation of the data and the media reporter who is ruled from on-high by his corporate sponsor. There is little hope of him changing their collective biases anytime soon, barring a worldwide paradigm shift.
We at ThePrinciple.com are working hard to bring about that paradigm shift, especially when the data we uncovered from the very “gadgetry” of biased Copernicans and Darwinians admit, by some of their own interpretations of the data, that a paradigm shift may soon take place.
Until then, we have to put up with people such as Tony Bradley of Forbes.com.
One more thing, Tony. If you want to see how a responsible and unbiased journalist is supposed to cover a documentary packed with new and astounding scientific evidence, that is, one without the agenda-driven drivel that you wrote, take a look at Breitbart’s piece at: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/10/filmmaker-rick-delano-the-principle-tells-the-most-interesting-detective-story-in-history-that-scientists-want-concealed/. Notice how he allowed Mr. Delano to explain the science behind the film and allowed his audience to judge its merits. Take a lesson.
By the way, Breitbart has many more viewers to its website than yours. Thank God for that!