Here is a scientific paper by our real uneducable pedantic story teller, which proves my comments about the extreme nature of both his political and scientific views and the obligatory conspiracy fabrications......
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/independenceOfScience.pdf
extracts....
I do not want to whine here about the poor fate of scientists:
Now, if you, as a young scientists, have to think about a future job, it becomes very dangerous for you to argue against mature scientists: May be, your next job depends on their opinion? Now, revolutionaries, in science as well as in other domains, are usually young man, who like and have to fight against the establishment. But who likes to start a scientific revolution, knowing that he has, in one year, to ask his worst enemies in the scientific fight for a job?
Summary. We have considered the major ways of control of scientist in the modern organization of science. And we have found, that they all have adverse side effects on the scientific process. Especially problematic is that they all lead to a concentration of scientific research in a few number of directions, with large numbers of scientists working in these popular directions. The young scientist is forced to choose such a direction, because it offers more working places, more journals to publish your results, reviewers who evaluate your papers more favourably because they work in the same domain, more scientists who can possibly cite your papers, more conferences, thus, more possibility to give talks and to publish in conference proceedings. If you have a tenured position, the monopolistic direction offers you, as well, more possibilities to get grants. These are sufficiently strong social and economic pressures: A young scientist has to look for another profession if one does not follow them. There is no place for outcasts in the modern organization of professional science. Those who get a tenured position have already invested most of their best years into the monopolistic direction — too much to change it. Such pressures into the direction of an already existing monopoly are very dangerous for science. They lead, obviously, to a preservation of existing theories, thus, to dogmatism, and prevent scientific revolutions. This is, clearly, not what we want from science. In the extreme, the resulting monopolistic “scientific theory” would be better named religion. Science should be, instead, organized in a way which minimizes the pressure to conformity.
5
. My proposal I’m a libertarian, and reject the state. This is, clearly, a minority position. Therefore I make two proposals here: A libertarian one, and an alternative for those who believe the state is necessary to pay for science. The libertarian proposal would be a quite simple one: No tax money for scientific jobs. The consequence would be a return to the old way to do science: Scientists work as teachers in universities and do science as a hobby, to increase their reputation. Universities, who live from the money paid by students, will support this – if their teachers are well-known, successful scientists, this increases the reputation of the university, so that they can increase their prices or their number of students. But not all university teachers have to be good scientists – some have to be good teachers. If one does not have success in science, one will not be fired, but has to care more about teaching. The proposal to improve state science is also a very simple one: Let’s transform all short time jobs in science into permanent jobs. Point. Is this sufficient to make scientist independent? It is. Without the fear of unemployment, scientists will do what they really like – to work in the direction which they find most promising. Even if the job is not well-paid, and there is some competition for better paid jobs, it is not likely that the results are dangerous for the freedom of science. If, for getting these better paid jobs, he has to do things he doesn’t like – to work in a direction which he considers to be hopeless, to give up his own research which, he hopes, will lead to a scientific revolution, to remain silent if authorities talk nonsense – will he do it? The situation of the scientist is, in this point, different from that of a typical worker: The average worker is doing things he does not like very much, things he would not do without payment. Instead, the independent scientist is doing exactly what he likes to do, he is doing this even without getting paid, in his free time. This is nothing one easily agrees to give up for a little more money. Thus, with a safe job as a background, the positive motivations of the scientist – to find scientific truth, to receive scientific honour, and, last but not least, simply to do what he likes most – seem strong enough to protect freedom of science.
Much much much more political and conspiracy orientated views expressed with science seemingly as an means to an end.