A true scientist remains brutally
"Science is essentially prophecy." - Alan
"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."-
"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." -
"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
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.
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.
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
Explanatory theories attempt to explain the
observations rather than
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
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,
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
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.
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.
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
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
1. All theories (the particular electrical, atomic,
particle, etc. models that are used) involved in deriving the prediction are
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
3. The prediction derived from those theories and specific
versions of those models is mathematically or logically correct; and
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
a rational mind is an ethical
mindA truly rational mind is an ethical mind.
Integral consciousness evolved
through the conscious realization that one's own mind was irrational.
mind lacked real awareness of its own irrationality. The
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 -
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).
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
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
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.
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'.
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.
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 !
honest and ethical mind
recognizes its place in the
And will know it is not wanted !
adapted from a
facebook post made by
Diseases have natural
Hippocrates, Greek physician
Mechanical methods can
suggest the truth of mathematical
propositions, which then may be rigorously proven by
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
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°.
derived from experiments can
be represented by mathematical
equations and can be presented in tabular
Ptolemy, Eygptian astronomer
Motion is relative.
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.
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
goal of science is the pursuit of
The logic that holds together mathematics pervades the universe;
we understand the universe by understanding it's underlying
Carl Freidrich Gauss, German mathematician and
Analogies are a valid
important tool in physical theory.
Fundamental forces have a reality
their own spreading through all space.
Light consists of
our knowledge is of relations between objects
than of the objects in and of themselves.
James Clerk Maxwell, Scottish mathematical
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
Humankind may be constructing its own iron cage:
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
W. Lance Bennett, political scientist
What are the moral convictions
most fondly held by
barbarous and semi-barbarous peoples?
the convictions that authority
is the soundest basis of belief;
merit attaches to readiness to believe;
that the doubting disposition is a
and skepticism is a
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
even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind.
hard to have patience with people who say
'There is no death' or 'death
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
None are more hopelessly
those who falsely believe they are free.
I believe in an
Science has proved that nothing
disintegrates into nothingness.
Life and soul, therefore,
cannot disintegrate into nothingness,
and so are
Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun,
German rocket scientist
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
"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."
"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
Thanks to television, for the very first time the young are
seeing history being made before it is censored by their elders.
admit that I personally measure success in terms of
the contributions an individual makes to her or his fellow human
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
punishment can be regarded as ethical
or should be regarded as merely cowardly.
solution to adult problems tomorrow depends
on large measure upon how
our children grow up today.
American cultural anthropologist, Presidential Medal of
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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
back to stacks
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
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.
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.
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
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:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. 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.
© Lawrence Turner
All Rights Reserved