The New Science 1
Old Versus New
Hang on for this one. We’re going on a mission to reconsider and modernize practices of modern “science” in the following articles. It’s quite an inspiring trip, to right some wrongs, and a learning experience. By looking at the weaknesses of modern science, it helps us understand real science.
Current science is so steeped in lies, and lies about lies, it doesn’t know up from down. Remember this principle: If there is one single lie involved, it’s not science anymore.
Real science is truth and logic, observation and experimentation.
Modern science as we know it is often yet another scam. Not much real “science” these days, since science has been “captured.” It only serves the moneyed interests, regardless of how absurd those interest’s demands might be, and you shouldn’t be surprised.
They emphasize “science,” rather than logic and rationality, which they’ve divorced from their science, because it is easier to fudge and play make-believe that way.
Not only does science not have all the answers, it looks like it seldom has any of the answers. A fundamental problem is, if your foundation is faulty, you can’t build on it to produce something even more complex. That’s why we don’t seem to be progressing, only very marginally in some confined areas. The rot extends all the way through the sciences.
What Is a Theory?
A scientific theory is a concept or hypothesis posed as a postulate or set of postulates, usually supported by evidence and experiment. It attempts to reveal some truth and consistency of behavior of our world, and provide grounds for further investigation.
Britannica’s definition seems a bit tarded, as for example in the use of “scientifically rational,” which should be simply “rational,” but some may like it.
Scientific theory
A scientific theory is a systematic ideational structure of broad scope that encompasses a family of empirical laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
Guidelines
The following forms a set of guidelines for anyone doing any scientific endeavor.
One important rule, for science workers, is to work smarter, not harder, by always referring back to these guidelines, and ensuring that they’re all rigorously followed.
It’s very important to understand that this stuff isn’t somehow limited to just scientists. It’s for all mankind. The same rules can and should be used to test scientific claims, and the gullible public desperately needs a guide of this nature.
The New Science
Our patches, required to convert current practices to the “New Science,” can be referred to as a quality assurance and “cheat sheet,” for whenever we are doing an experiment or theoretical science.
You’ll note that the scientific community is often adamant that it follows (some of) these rules, like the rule that a theory with contrary experimental evidence must be discarded, but it doesn’t. To avoid such cases, we need a strong mechanism to ensure that the rules are followed.
- In a reversal from current convention, the scientific community should be discrediting and negating/nullifying more theories than those they support. The new science demands a reversal of priorities: A real scientist is more anxious to debunk and discard accepted theories, even pet theories, than to propose and promote new theories. To do this, we need an effective, formal mechanism for withdrawal of failed or dodgy theories, something the scientific community should have had from the start. And it has to be an inflexible rule that as soon as one prediction of a theory doesn’t work out, the theory be discarded and, work be done to patch it or, to devise a new one. This shouldn’t be perceived as shameful, but admirable.
- “We don’t know,” is a valid scientific admission and tool. You’d think it’s an admission of defeat, but it’s actually a device to help us develop better science.
- As a useful rule of thumb, complexity isn’t necessarily truth.
- Conversely, a simplification is often the truth. Good science usually involves simplifications, not obfuscations, or complications.
- As a scientist, you don’t “look for something” as a solution to a problem or as verification of some idea, you do research and analyze your findings, not make dogmatic assertions that you defend tenaciously despite the facts. In fact, it’s a rule of thumb that if someone is “looking for a particular solution,” it’s more likely that their solution is fudged and wrong.
- Peer review, as it is structured today, is idiotic. Public review is considerably better. Without “peers” to suppress good science and reinforce nonsense, the whole house of cards of phony science would have collapsed long ago. All peer review in its current form does is uphold the status quo. It is an often unconscious sanction of the one of the worst of traits, confirmation bias. Peer review might be okay, only if we could find ourselves some better peers.
- Different branches of science need to mingle, sharing information and findings.
- All questions need to be asked, and answered, all solutions/answers need to be considered, with a few caveats we’ll explain and explore in detail.
- If an idea/theory is consistent with reality, it is valid, it doesn’t matter who proposes the theory.
- All the faked branches of science need to be discarded, and displayed somewhere for constant mockery. That includes parts of subjects like astrophysics, atomic physics, rocket science (astronautics); much of paleontology and medical science, and much more.
- Sanity checks: Everything needs a sanity check, like we need to check the results when we use a pocket calculator to see we don’t have a misplaced decimal. We talked about “ghost theories” earlier, which is a better descriptor than “pseudoscience” or “metaphysical theory.” With a “ghost theory,” the properties of your “theory” can support any results you want. It’s not solid, can’t be “pinned down.” All the theories and hypotheses that rely on randomness (Evolution, for example) and vague abstraction (like Mach’s principle and black holes) are indeed pseudoscience, but the scientific community will not admit it, when it comes to its pet theories and notions.
- Fraud checks: Can a supposed confirmation of a theory be faked, and how, and what would be the benefits of faking it? Just by applying this test, likely more than half of the fraud science of today could be discarded, leaving us a much easier task. How to know when you’re being lied to should be one of the first things tackled whenever you are developing methods of science.
- Partial solutions need to be examined and assessed. That is to say, you may discredit a theory, but aspects of it may be true, or it may still provide insight. Failed investigations/experiments still need to be published and read, since they’re possibly holding some good data, and others can search for the spot where the experiment got off the rails, perhaps to retry under improved circumstances. On the other hand, things like Evolution need to be put on the scrap heap, mocked and scorned endlessly to continually remind us of the folly of bad theories, and the waste of time and money created by them.
- It is profitable to look at false claims in bad science, both to understand fudges and as a tool to better understand truth. (Sample questions to ask: Are they trying to hide something? Is the opposite of a failed idea the truth? What are the opposing views on this matter?)
- Non-Theories. We know that theories must be able to provide testable predictions, and be falsifiable. And, the consequences of a theory should be the seed for further research. If a theory provides no grounds for research or discovery, it is moot, you don’t have a theory!
- There needs to be a more demanding structure to the way theories are presented, so we don’t run into the issues that we have with, non-theories, such as “Evolution,” which they just won’t let go of, and simply make up ad hoc ideas to haul its pathetic carcass along just a little further.
So, in subsequent articles, we’ll expand on these points, looking at:
- Theory Retirement
- When We Don’t Know
- Complexity Isn’t Truth
- Simplifications
- Looking for Solutions
- Peer Review
- Information Sharing
- Broadening Horizons
- Science Branch Retirement
- Acid Tests: Checking Theories for Sanity and Fraud
- Working Smarter
- Thwarting Fraud in Science
- Partial Theories and Solutions
- False Claims
- Non-Theories
- Structuring Theories to Make Sense
Comments