Science- because figuring things out is way better than making shit up

The only science that will be unbiased is that coming from
an unbiased observer. There are no unbiased human observers !

A true scientist remains brutally honest !

"Science is essentially prophecy." - Alan Watts

milky way

"The history of scientific knowledge consists of a perennial rigging and collapsing of ever expanding paradigms - every expansion denied and fought off with the last-ditch obstinacy of old guard scientists."- Lew Paz

watch the stars

17 Equations That Changed The Course Of History

"In social sciences, the conventional terminology eliminates critical standards and puts ethics on ice." - Andrew M. Lobaczewski

"The world-view of classical science informs the dominant beliefs of our culture. Science is a vast and elaborate articulation of the defining myth of our civilization: that we are discrete and separate selves, living in an objective universe of others. Science presupposes, embodies, and reinforces that myth, blinding us to other ways of thinking, living, and being." - Charles Eisenstein

Science does not ain=m at establishing immutable turths and etrenal dogmas; its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it. They must demand that, in order to be taken seriously, an investigation should largely conform to the currently predominant beliefs about the nature of things, while allowing that in order to be original it may to some extent go against these." - John C. Polanyi

Nature and Philosophy of Science

The Goal of Science is to obtain True Knowledge of Reality, which interestingly enough, is precisely the same goal as that of the ancient gnostics.

Philosophy of science deals with the systemic nature of scientific inquiry which is equivalent to gnostic inquiry.

To properly understand the philosophy of science, which is also to understand the methods of gnostic inquiry, it is necessary to understand basic components of science which include data, theories, and shaping principles.
Collections of information about physical processes are termed data.

Collecting data to support theories is laborious. Details of that process, including fundamental assumptions made, are often excluded when forming a scientific theory. Data that is vague or overgeneralized is easier to fit to a scientific theory than specific data.

Scientific theories come in two forms.

Phenomenological theories are empirical generalizations of data. They merely describe the recurring processes of nature and do not refer to their causes or mechanisms. Phenomenological theories are also called scientific laws, physical laws, and natural laws.

Explanatory theories attempt to explain the observations rather than generalize them.

Whereas laws are descriptions of empirical regularities, explanatory theories are conceptual constructions to explain why the phenomena exist.

Shaping principles are non-empirical fundamental assumptions that form the basis of science and go into selecting every theory.

Originally science, a systematic way of acquiring knowledge, was seen as absolutely objective, rational, and based on purely empirical observations.

This traditional image of science held that scientific theories and laws were to be conclusively confirmed or conclusively falsified based on objective data.

It was believed that "the scientific method" excluded cognitive biases, emotion, intuition, assumptions and was based entirely on logic and reason.

The definition of what "the scientific method" is has changed over time.

In the early seventeenth century Baconian inductivism was considered to be "the scientific method." The basic idea was this: collect as numerous of observations as humanly possible, remain unaffected by any prior prejudice, theoretical preconceptions or cognitive bias while gathering the data, inductively infer theories from those data (by generalizing the data into physical laws), and collect more data to modify or reject the hypothesis if needed.

Unfortunately, when using inductivism to arrive at natural laws, certain theoretical preconceptions are absolutely vital.

To generalize the data into physical laws, the individual must assume that the laws apply for physical processes not observed. This results in several assumptions being held, such as the uniform operation of nature. Even if we put aside the fact that inductive logic is invariably based on such postulations, there is another problem. Science deals with concepts and explanatory theories that cannot be directly observed, including atomic theory and the theory of gravity. Many other theories include unobservable concepts like forces, fields, and subatomic particles.

There is no known rigorous inductive logic that can infer those theories and concepts solely from the data they explain.

Sir Isaac Newton developed hypothetico-deductivism in the late 1600s.

Essentially, one starts with a hypothesis, basically a provisional theory, and then deduces what we would expect to find in the empirical world as a result of that hypothesis. The idea was to quarantine human irrationality or cognitive bias. A theory did not become a valid theory by its origins, but because of the hypothetico-deductive method of verification.

Hypothetico-deductivism fails if rigorous proof is necessary for valid science . We must assume that: sense experience, memory, and testimony are all generally reliable; we have examined all the data and there is no possibility future observations will behave unexpectedly. Every theory has an infinite number of expected empirical outcomes, and we are incapable of testing all of those expectations. So even though a scientific theory can be confirmed to some extent by empirical data, it can never be conclusively confirmed. In science or anywhere else, any given body of data (no matter how large) will always be in sync with an unlimited number of alternative theories that explain the exact same data and at least some of the theories will contradict each other. This reality is expressed as data underdetermining theories, or is simply referred to as the underdetermination of theories. As a result of the underdetermination of theories and the risk of undiscovered, contradictory empirical evidence, a scientific theory cannot be conclusively proven merely through the data.

Karl Popper recognized that one could not record everything observed. Some sort of selection is needed, and thus observation is always selective. Karl Popper believed that a hypothesis had to be created first for scientific investigation to begin as there is no other way to tell which data is relevant and to be observed. More importantly Karl Popper developed the idea of falsification which suggests that if a prediction does not come true, then the scientific theory must be false. Popper's idea of the scientific method was for scientists to test scientific theories in experiments where the outcome could potentially falsify the theory, especially in experiments where the theory would most likely collapse. The necessity for a scientific theory to be conclusively falsifiable is known as the demarcation criterion.

Surprisingly, the problem is that it is impossible to conclusively falsify theories by empirical data.

Scientific theories, by themselves, are incapable of making predictions. Instead, the empirical consequences of a theory invariably rest on background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions) from which to derive predictions and even to obtain data.

Suppose we have a particle theory that says if we process a certain particle in a particular way, we will get specified values on various measurements.

1. All theories (the particular electrical, atomic, particle, etc. models that are used) involved in deriving the prediction are correct;

2. The specific version of those theories and models (from #1) from which the predictions are derived from are correct (for example, belief in atoms have been widely accepted for quite some time now, but the precise details and models of the exact composition, components etc. have significantly varied.);

3. The prediction derived from those theories and specific versions of those models is mathematically or logically correct; and

4. Some other things we'll skip.

Note that most of the items depend on scientific theories. But scientific theories, remember, cannot be conclusively proven. The dependence on background assumptions to make predictions is sometimes called the Duhem-Quine problem. Besides using auxiliary assumptions to make predictions, such assumptions are necessary to find out if the predictions come true. Suppose that in order to test our particle theory in the real world we must use a certain particle accelerator in a particular way. To experimentally test this, we must adhere to the following statements:

1. All of the theories and models (particle, electronic, engineering) used in what we believe happens inside this accelerator are correct (including the specifics);

2. All theories (electronics and so forth) on how the detector works are correct (including the specifics of the models involved);

3. Both the detection devices and the accelerator are operating as designed;

4. Both of the above devices are being used properly (including the assumption that the readings are recorded correctly); and

5. Some other things we'll skip again.

scientific discovery

Notice that several of the items are again dependent on scientific theories, which cannot be rigorously proven. Suppose the prediction does not come true and we observe that, "this particle did not have the specified properties that it should've had." That observation would be heavily dependent on theories. Although it is possible that our theory could be wrong, it is also possible that instead one or more of the assumptions listed are wrong. Often, the terminology used to describe experimental results in addition to the measurements and instruments used in testing theories make up another set of background assumptions. The dependence on such postulations for obtaining data is described as observations being theory-laden.

Theories can neither be conclusively proven nor conclusively falsified by empirical data. It is possible to salvage a troubled theory or make arguments against a well-supported theory simply by altering auxiliary assumptions to produce different predictions or change the meaning of theory-laden observations. It is also possible to modify virtually any theory so that it's consistent with whatever data that might come up.

It is evident that theories and data by themselves are insufficient for science to work, and thus other factors are needed for science to operate. This group of factors in the nature of science is that of shaping principles, which can be used to select theories and form the foundations of science. Many assumptions are made in science. One example is the uniformity of nature. That is, the belief that natural processes operate in a fairly consistent manner. This shaping principles is the basis for the idea of natural laws. Natural laws could not exist in science without assuming the uniformity of nature. Other assumptions made for science to operate include the belief that there exists an external objective reality, that our senses are generally reliable, and so forth.

Another set of shaping principles evaluates the empirical evidence to select theories. Because of the underdetermination of theories, there is always an infinite number of competing theories that can accommodate any given set of empirical data. Since these competing theories are empirically indistinguishable from each other, if science is to pick out a theory from among these numerous competitors and claim that it is correct, then such a selection must be based on nonempirical principles (whether they be philosophical, personal, societal, or whatever). Ockham's razor or the law of parsimony, a fundamental shaping principles of logic, states that, if all other aspects are equal, the simplest theory is preferred over other theories involving additional complexity.

The law of parsimony especially applies to theories with ad hoc hypotheses. The lower the number of ad hoc hypotheses a scientific theory has, the better. Other principles include (but are not limited to) empirical adequacy (covering the pertinent data in some suitable way), self-consistency, fruitfulness (giving rise to other understandings and having stimulated pioneering investigations and advancements), and explanatory power.

Another key shaping principle is how well a theory ties in with other scientific theories and concepts that are rational to believe. It is only when these kinds of shaping principles interact with data can science then provide rational support for a theory over its competitors.

There are a few exceptions to the idea that there is no conclusive proof in science. Logic is the closest we can get to rigorous proof and falsification. Sadly, not very many helpful theories can be thoroughly proved by logic, and logic disproving a scientific theory is almost never used because seldom does a scientist propose a theory that is logically impossible. Typically science relies on other shaping principles to pick theories.

When using shaping principles to select a theory, we must have some philosophical basis for believing that nature's preferences are similar to ours. And for many of these principles there is no logical rule to imply their reliability. For example, in picking out a theory from among it's empirically indistinguishable competitors (and when all other factors are held constant), the notion that reality favors simple theories over complex ones is nevertheless a philosophical principle. Although these indicators of theoretical truth are necessary for science to work, they are significantly indirect, circumstantial, highly fallible, and are still unable to prove/disprove theories.

While science may be the best we can do, the limitations should still be recognized.

Scientists intuitively feel how rational scientific theories are, rather than having a precise logical method for such judgements. These intuitive feelings result from shaping principles. The interactions of shaping principles in the minds of scientists are so complex and so numerous that we may never come up with a rigorously logical system to select theories. Most of the shaping principles are frequently unspoken and sometimes scientists themselves do not know they are using them. Although some shaping principles are based on logic, others are not always so sensible and objective. Scientists (and regular human beings) are also affected by cultural, social, and personal beliefs. Shaping principles influence the data we perceive as there is a tendency for the mind to unconsciously fill in patterns based on these notions. Such human contamination is called internal theoretical orientation of data. As a result, totally objective data cannot be obtained.

Unfortunately there is no known way to separate the helpful principles (explanatory power etc.) from the unfavorable ones (personal biases etc.) in the subconscious minds of scientists that make these theory judgements. Because every human being has their own unique set of shaping principles, different scientists (and regular human beings) can look at the exact same set of data and disagree about which theory most rationally explains the observations. Science, therefore, is inescapably corrupted with bias as a bias towards favored theories is actually built into all scientific research.

A delicate tapestry, a spider's web, is woven based on background assumptions and a collection of theories combined with their shaping and background principles which thus make up an explanatory matrix, or conceptual grid, in which to fit the observed data.

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

unified field theory

a rational mind is an ethical mind

A truly rational mind is an ethical mind. Integral consciousness evolved through the conscious realization that one's own mind was irrational.

The magical mind lacked real awareness of its own irrationality. The mystical mind was steeped in a magical mystical reality that may simply be due to the large number of variables that are very difficult to track.

The magical mystical mind built Creation narratives to explain its existence and embellished upon those narratives in the attempt to understand the Nature of the Reality it inhabited. Eventually people began to recognize their own ignorance and discovered that there was knowledge that did not come down through the Oral Tradition.

There was knowledge not known traditionally that was worth pursuing and knowing. The modern mind conceived of a new way to think in the matrix of evolving human consciousness - rationally.

There can be no rationality without the recognition and the precondition of ignorance.

Modern science is the methodology of turning ignorance (nescience) into knowledge (science).

Thus the truly rational mind is imbued with a set of ethical or meta-ethical principles: (1) Intellectual honesty (and consequentially humility) in the recognition of the fundamental human through the recognition of one's own ignorance. (2) Intellectual integrity in the commitment to (seeking and knowing) truth. (3) Intellectual responsibility in the discipline of critical thinking.

Intellectual honesty, integrity, and responsibility constitute the meta-ethical foundation of ethics.

That which makes the discipline of modern (natural/physical) science an authentic science is the scientific method.

Can the scientific method be applied individually to individual thought patterns?

The consciousness that is not fragmented and the mind that is truly scientific will pursue ethical questions with intellectual honesty, humility, integrity, and responsibility, and will attempt to make choices that take all parties into consideration while respecting their individuality.

Mistakes will occur but the truly ethical rationalist will recognize mistakes and make the proper retractions and corrections.

The integrally conscious mind that is not fragmented and truly rational will pursue ethical questions with intellectual honesty, humility, integrity, and responsibility, and will refrain from judgement for as long as is psychically possible.

For the human mind that is steeped in magical mystery, no rational ethical perfection is possible for that mind refuses to actually look at its own magically mystical bias'.

Only the individual that uses the human mind in a rational manner - careful observation of variables along with careful observation of internal reactions to variable events - will ever come close to ethical perfection.

Those that feel they need to own a series of symbols which convey a concept are reminded that words in series are like math formulas and Everything is a Remix.

The truly honest and ethical mind will not attempt to "enclose" concepts, ideas or symbol series while pretending to own castles in the air ! It will share those castles !

The truly honest and ethical mind recognizes its place in the collective.

And will know it is not wanted !

adapted from a facebook post made by Yasuhiko Genku Kimura


Diseases have natural origins.

Hippocrates, Greek physician

Mechanical methods can suggest the truth of mathematical propositions, which then may be rigorously proven by mathematical methods.

Archimedes, Sicilian mathematician

The distance and size of the celestial bodies can be found by determining the size of their eccentric and epicyclic circles relative to the Earth's radius.

The spherical Earth can be projected onto a plane map using geometrical techniques; localities can be plotted on a standard grid of latitude and longitude lines.

Problems in plane and spherical trigonometry can be solved with the help of a table of the chords subtending the arcs from 0° to 90°.

The data derived from experiments can be represented by mathematical equations and can be presented in tabular form.

Ptolemy, Eygptian astronomer

Motion is relative.

The Earth is not at the center of the universe.

The sun, the planets, and the stars do not revolve around the Earth; rather; the Earth is one of the planets, and it revolves around the sun, as do the other planets.

The apparent "loops" that the planets make in their motions across the heavens are not real motions; they are mere appearances, caused by our position on the Earth and the Earth's motion around the sun relative to the other planets.

The appearance of the heavens' rotation about the Earth is due to the fact that we are on the Earth's surface and the Earth is rotating about its axis once every twenty four hours.

Nicholas Copernicus, Polish astronomer

The goal of science is the pursuit of truth.

The logic that holds together mathematics pervades the universe; we understand the universe by understanding it's underlying mathematical theories.

Carl Freidrich Gauss, German mathematician and scientist

Analogies are a valid
and important tool in physical theory.

Fundamental forces have a reality
of their own spreading through all space.

Light consists of transverse electromagnetic waves.

our knowledge is of relations between objects
rather than of the objects in and of themselves.

James Clerk Maxwell, Scottish mathematical physicist

In our disenchanted world, violence has become the decisive means for politics.

Society must be understood objectively, a procedure that entails refusing to jump to evaluative conclusions.

An important contribution of the social scientist is to alert us to inconvenient facts and the unintended consequences of human action.

Humankind may be constructing its own iron cage:
Ironically and tragically, our own presumed success and progress may trap us.

Max Weber, Maximilian Weber, German political economist and sociologist

Formerly no one was allowed to think freely;
now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more.
Now people want to think only what they are
supposed to think, and this they consider freedom.

Oswald Spengler, German mathmatician

Perhaps the most obvious political effect of controlled news is the advantage it gives powerful people in getting their issues on the political agenda and defining those issues in ways likely to influence their resolution.

W. Lance Bennett, political scientist

See psychological operations

What are the moral convictions most fondly held by
barbarous and semi-barbarous peoples?

They are the convictions that authority
is the soundest basis of belief;
that merit attaches to readiness to believe;
that the doubting disposition is a bad one,
and skepticism is a sin.

Thomas Henry Huxley, British biologist

The breakdown of social structures occurs when creative individuals fail to lead through the excercise of creative power.

Arnold Toynbee, English economic historian

There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy. All information is imperfect. we have to treat it with humility.

Jacob Bronowski, English-Polish mathematician

Iron rusts from disuse;

stagnant water loses it purity

and in cold weather becomes frozen;

even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind.

It is hard to have patience with people who say

'There is no death' or 'death doesn't matter.'

There is death.

And whatever is matters.

And whatever happens has consequences,

and it and they are irrevocable and irreversible.

You might as well say that birth doesn't matter.

Leonardo da Vinci, Italian scientist and artist

None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free.

Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, German scientist, philosopher and author

theoretical physics

I believe in an immortal soul.

Science has proved that nothing disintegrates into nothingness.

Life and soul, therefore,

cannot disintegrate into nothingness,

and so are immortal.

Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun, German rocket scientist

lurking fear

There is a lurking fear that some things are not meant 'to be known,' that some inquiries are too dangerous for human beings to make.

Carl Sagan, American astronomer and astrobiologist

find your center

"We are so dumb about what life is because we have one example. It may be true that we sail through the universe and everything we find is carbon and water, but I would hesitate to conclude that based on the one example."

Chris McKay, astrobiologist

spaceship mutiny

"We won't have a society if we destroy the environment."

Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Thanks to television, for the very first time the young are seeing history being made before it is censored by their elders.

I must admit that I personally measure success in terms of the contributions an individual makes to her or his fellow human beings.

I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world.

It is an open question whether any behavior based on fear of eternal punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly.

The solution to adult problems tomorrow depends on large measure upon how our children grow up today.

Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist, Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient

graduate students

"Science teaches us to look more closely, to see more clearly. We decide that a theory is valid only when it is proved by experimentation and that experimentation can be replicated, and if it cannot be, we learn from this too and say: Here are the limits of what is possible now. Science is valid because it cannot be taken on faith alone. In a complicated reality, the public must trust experts, because how can you know what to do if you cannot know what is real?

Tell the truth, always, we teach students, withhold nothing from your data. It is a categorical imperative for science and indeed for all societies. To 'tell the truth always' comes from Immanuel Kant." - Laurie Zoloth, professor of medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University's Feinberg School

In August of 1962, Mariner 2 was launched for a quick rendezvous with nearby Venus, zipping by at a distance of 22,000 miles, scanning its radiation field and proving that a terminal case of global warming had completely ruined its surface for our kind of life.

That fly-by ushered in nearly half a century of interplanetary visitations of historic evolutionary significance. About 4.6 billion years after Earth and a handful of planet siblings were assembled by random collisions of rock, metal and ice, our planet began flinging small bits of itself back out into the darkness, trying to satisfy a newly evolved curiosity with fragile machines equipped with cameras and radio transmitters.

It took so long because first there had to be a species with the audacity to think that it could build such contraptions, calculate their trajectories and make them fly. We did it. There is no more solid, visceral confirmation of the truths embodied by the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution.

If our ideas about other planets are merely a "text" to be deconstructed, or another creation story to debate, if they are culturally determined, internally constructed, dreamed, projected or imagined, then why are the planets there, right there, where we thought they would be?

David Greenspoon, curator of astrobiology at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science

what scientists do
back to stacks contents

unique library index

This web site is not a commercial web site and is presented for educational purposes only.

This website defines a new perspective with which to engage reality to which its author adheres. The author feels that the falsification of reality outside personal experience has created a populace unable to discern propaganda from reality and that this has been done purposefully by an international corporate cartel through their agents who wish to foist a corrupt version of reality on the human race. Religious intolerance occurs when any group refuses to tolerate religious practices, religious beliefs or persons due to their religious ideology. This web site marks the founding of a system of philosophy named The Truth of the Way of Life - a rational gnostic mystery religion based on reason which requires no leap of faith, accepts no tithes, has no supreme leader, no church buildings and in which each and every individual is encouraged to develop a personal relation with the Creator and Sustainer through the pursuit of the knowledge of reality in the hope of curing the spiritual corruption that has enveloped the human spirit. The tenets of The Truth of the Way of Life are spelled out in detail on this web site by the author. Violent acts against individuals due to their religious beliefs in America is considered a "hate crime."

This web site in no way condones violence. To the contrary the intent here is to reduce the violence that is already occurring due to the international corporate cartels desire to control the human race. The international corporate cartel already controls the world economic system, corporate media worldwide, the global industrial military entertainment complex and is responsible for the collapse of morals, the elevation of self-centered behavior and the destruction of global ecosystems. Civilization is based on cooperation. Cooperation does not occur at the point of a gun.

American social mores and values have declined precipitously over the last century as the corrupt international cartel has garnered more and more power. This power rests in the ability to deceive the populace in general through corporate media by pressing emotional buttons which have been preprogrammed into the population through prior corporate media psychological operations. The results have been the destruction of the family and the destruction of social structures that do not adhere to the corrupt international elites vision of a perfect world. Through distraction and coercion the direction of thought of the bulk of the population has been directed toward solutions proposed by the corrupt international elite that further consolidates their power and which further their purposes.

All views and opinions presented on this web site are the views and opinions of individual human men and women that, through their writings, showed the capacity for intelligent, reasonable, rational, insightful and unpopular thought. All factual information presented on this web site is believed to be true and accurate and is presented as originally presented in print media which may or may not have originally presented the facts truthfully. Opinion and thoughts have been adapted, edited, corrected, redacted, combined, added to, re-edited and re-corrected as nearly all opinion and thought has been throughout time but has been done so in the spirit of the original writer with the intent of making his or her thoughts and opinions clearer and relevant to the reader in the present time.

Fair Use Notice
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information see: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Dedicated to the establishment of knowledge, truth, justice and a clear understanding of reality as the American way!
Copyright © Lawrence Turner
All Rights Reserved