Honesty
Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Caltech had an honor system when I attended. I am sure they still do.
The honor system means we are truthful to our fellow students and to our teachers. It means we would not steal from, cheat, or harm others.
We would compete fiercely to win in games. But we would play by the rules.
The honor system had a purpose. It taught us that to be good scientists, engineers, or other professions that we choose.
To produce value in life, we must be honest to ourselves.
The goal of all professions is to be truthful. That does not mean that we tell our enemies the truth because our enemies are those who try to steal from us, or capture us, or kill us. In matters of war, our goal is to win for our group.
We must identify our assumptions before we make final decisions.
Because decisions made on false assumptions will not lead to truth. In the worst case, making the wrong decision because we made a false assumption can get us killed.
Our obligation to be truthful does not apply to matters that are private. Sometimes the truth can hurt our friends.
Our obligation to tell the truth applies to matters that are part of our community of friends who seek to achieve a common goal.
As a nation of friends, we have common goals to preserve and benefit our nation. Nations have elections. The goal of elections is to honestly count the votes and abide by the majority preference in each group that votes.
What if our leaders lie to us? Then, we have the wrong leaders. We should vote, if possible, for new leaders.
Elections must be based on truth. It is our obligation to seek the truth before we vote.
To follow the truth, we need truthful information. That does not always happen.
In fact, it seldom happens because in the competition to win, each side is motivated to hide the truth and manufacture false truth. It is more like a war.
Differences of opinions about political matters do not mean an opposing party is dishonest because in many cases there is room for differences of opinions.
In matters where truth can be determined with honest science, we must take the side of truth. Attempts to oppose nature have grave consequences.
Climate change is about science, not opinions.
We must follow the scientific method to find climate truth. Where truth is found, there is no room for opinions. We have found that human carbon emissions do not change the climate.
Those who reject this truth are dishonest with themselves as well as with others. If we elect such people, they will damage our lives, distort our economy, and cost us our freedom.
The World Economic Forum purposely lies to us about climate because it gets its power over us by getting us to believe their lies. WEF is our enemy.
It used to be that most Republican leaders were on the side of climate truth. That is no longer true.
Today, we have Republicans who are on the side of WEF. These Republicans have chosen the evil side. It is no longer true that an “R” after their name means they are on our side.
AG Knudsen followed WEF orders to purposely lose Held v Montana. This loss has consequences to our lives and our freedom.
We have Republican candidates who fully support Knudsen’s loss. These people are not our friends. They are Trojan horses in the Republican Party.
If we elect them, then they will soon take over the Republican Party. Then we will no longer have a party of truth.
To follow the truth that will make us free, we must consider very carefully what will happen when our enemies control our own Republican Party.
We must check our assumptions before we vote, to be sure we are voting for honest candidates who are on the side of truth.
Aah. The comforting words of Jesus. “The truth will set you free – just not on YouTube, that’s all”. The future is is cross-border, cellular democracies, more powerful than governments. Untouchable by infiltration (too many of them) and one-man-one-vote-per issue. Independent of elections – cells self-elect with members free to transfer at any time. That or similar is the only way out of the global dictatorships.
I don’t understand what that means, “one-man-one-vote” per issue.
The thing about Sheehy is that after watching his interview on Megan Kelly’s show, I’m not sure if he could understand Climate Science. I am sure he understands the truth. He appeared dishonest during the interview and would not directly answer her questions. I would not voted for him.
Well, Sheehy is elected for six years. Voters followed the madness of crowds.
Zinke should have chosen Dr. Al Olszewski rather than Sheehy. Al would have made an excellent Senator.
But Zinke made a conflict of interest deal with Sheehy.
Zinke, as head of Dept of Interior, gave Sheehy contracts worth megabucks. In return, Sheehy donated big time to Zinke’s campaign, and who knows what other favors.