The New Science 3
Tests and Quests
In the last article we examined the problem of bad theories. Bad theories need to end or they go on forever in an endless loop of madness and waste.
Proceeding, we’ll look at something that should be of great interest, but seems to get short shrift.
How Do You Know When You’re Being Lied To?
Congruency, consistency and continuity are keys. How do you know if something is truth? Well, it’s prudent to apply some tests.
Tests
All scientific theories are subject to tests, such as the requirement that they be falsifiable. Which means a hypothesis or theory must have a way to be proven wrong through an conceivable experiment or observation. For example, we’ve already shown how Evolution theory is pseudoscience. When they couldn’t demonstrate slow changes and evolving traits in organisms through the fossil record, they said, “Oh, the fossil record is just too sparse.” And then, “Oh, well there are these sudden wholesale changes in species now, called ‘Punctuated Equilibrium,’ so that’s what’s up! We have no evidence for it, but that’s because this way, there can’t be any evidence!” (No, not all of the science tards subscribe to the PE notion, but it doesn’t matter, since they aren’t up in arms against it.)
Experiments to test theories have to be reproducible as well. That is, someone else needs to be able to replicate the results of successful experiments intended to support a theory.
And of course, any results you come up with have to be within your margin of error. (This tells you when you just can’t use the results of your experiment, but something has gone wrong, or, it might just be that your theory is shot.)
- Logic/Smell/Sanity Test: Does a theory or claim fail by flying in the face of logic or, in some cases, common sense?
- Evasion Test: Does a theory or claim fail by not fully addressing questions or objections, using evasion/distraction? We’ve all seen examples of this, where the tards of science resort to insults (“crackpot,” “uneducated”), or sly denigration (“not a proper scientist,” “doesn’t have an advanced degree in the field”). Or they simply shut down any dissension with, “The science is settled!” These are effective distractions that confuse observers, hiding the fact that there’s no good, explanatory response to give.
- Causality Test: Do the elements of a theory or claim explain the results? That is, do the consequences of a given claim lead in a logical, cause-and-effect way to a conclusion which matches your experimental results?
- Consistency Test: Are all factors used to explain a claim and results totally consistent? With Evolution, it’s inconsistent to claim gradual changes in organisms, than suddenly claim rapid changes.
- Fakery Test: The ridiculous practice of spinning admissions of fakery, doesn’t, as the official dweebs seem to think, bolster your case for a theory. They pulled that with the “dinosaur” hoax, when National Geographic was caught faking an entire creature that never existed, and the damage control freaks came in to blame someone else, “a farmer,” stating that when the “real experts” came in, they caught it right away, effortlessly. Any fakery at any time is a discrediting factor.
- Terminology Test: Are all the terms used in expressing the theory defined and set in stone?
If you don’t insist the theorist defines the terms used in a theory, later, wholesale changes can be imposed to a given theory to hide behind.
When the requirement of gradual random changes in organisms proposed by Evolution went unsupported, they just threw in the idea (not theory) that great bounding leaps could suddenly occur, without noting the conflict with original Evolution theory.
Also, look at how they throw around the term, “random” a lot, as we’ve discussed at length. What does “random” even mean to them? Any chemical processes, and biological processes, can’t be at all “random,” since they must comport with the rules for chemical and biological processes.
We’ve also discussed the deceptive, question-begging nonsense, regarding endless time, which they fallaciously claim imparts mysterious powers to perform impossible feats.
So it’s important that every word used in a given theory is thoroughly explained and even documented for future reference. This keeps the theorist honest, helps foster understanding, and provides entry points for future study and investigation.
In the case of Evolution ideas, this would have stalled the whole artifice from the start. There would have had to be considerable work done on investigating “random change,” clarifying when something is random rather than structured, and so on. Perhaps bacterial studies could have been performed, potentially with the use of radioactive materials to stimulate mutations.
When We Don’t Know
“We don’t know,” is a valid scientific admission and tool, a device to help us develop better science.
Some questions just don’t lead to satisfying answers. Some theories just don’t bear fruit.
What you do when you run into these situations, is sit down and analyze. First, to question whether the idea is even valid in the first place. As, for example, “what is the origin of life?” nonsense, a foolish question wherein clues leading to, if not a direct answer, at least to a better understanding, is found by discovery, not directed research.
We’ve all tackled a problem in the wrong way, got stuck, but then tried doggedly to keep plowing through, even though the pursuit was hopeless. We need a mechanism to help scientists who do this self-defeating behavior, meaning we black-box stupid concepts, and are receptive to all alternative answers.
To black-box something means sequester it as a unit that you can refer to in the future, leaving the old concept open for future interpretation, but waste no more time or effort on it! That is, the idea is tossed on the back burner and filed to await new evidence one way or the other.
Different branches of science need to mingle, sharing information and findings. (Easier when all the findings and rejected theories are assembled as a convenient reference.)
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. You look for the reasons why it is so anomalous, and we need a mechanism to enforce this.
The scientific community exhibits a weird, psychotic, attachment to their “theories,” and this is notable when it comes to Newton’s theory of gravitation, F= Gm1m2/r2. There are flaws with this idea (which is an idea based on pure speculation). Now, they’ve “derived” all kinds of “constants” from this, like the weight of the earth, but the fact or non-fact of whether two masses have some sort of mutual attraction has never been truly verified (of course they loudly claim it is). This is despite wild anomalies like the observation that plumb bobs (pendulums) in deep mine shafts don’t hang straight down, or that stars at galaxy’s edge should orbit slower according to Newton’s law, but don’t. Or that measurement of the universal gravitational constant, “G,” is crazily divergent, in one case, recording 60 standard deviations of error. This comes with odds of 1 in 6.83x10789, which we know from principles, is impossible, and there must be a critical error somewhere — or, they’re measuring a fantasy. Yet never do they go back to examine whether Newton’s law is in error, which is incompetent and anti-scientific. But there’s no shortage of incompetence, and as we’ll see in an upcoming article, even within their own community they get flustered and declare other scientists to be bunglers!
This leaves us with an important principle, though. When you have consistent problems with your (otherwise well-structured and conducted) experiments, it becomes a requirement to go back and examine the theory being used, from its first principles. That is to say, your entire foundation may be structurally unsound, which probably isn’t a cause for joy, but is a good signal to halt any more wasted time, and to black-box the old ideas.
Misguided Quest
“What is the origin of... life?” Big mystery but bad science, leave speculation for the fiction writers. One of humanity’s flaws, is the propensity to ask stupid questions.
We must reel in these goofy scientists and their grandiose quests. And keep the line tight.
The proper course for investigations of any kind is first of all to not try to answer the unanswerable, or tackle malformed problems.
Sometimes a puzzle or so-called “paradox” is raised. These are usually a result of bad thinking or wrongful use of language.
This riddle goes around from time to time: Is it the same ship if all its parts are replaced? (This is basically the same question as, “Can you turn a 1967 Olds into a 1952 Ford?”) There’s an easy answer. A ship is an assemblage of parts. If you replace all of them, it’s still an assemblage of parts. But it’s not the same parts (though they are in the same form or shape).
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, we already should know that answer. Chickens come with the eggs inside them, and vice-versa. The chicken makes the egg, the egg makes the chicken, and again, we’re describing a process, rather than the dumbed-down idea that chickens and eggs are somehow “separate.”
But “researching” detailed nonsense about black holes, quasars, nebulae millions of light years away is laughable, and questions in that area are unanswerable, and probably malformed. You don’t start your hike up, from the top of the mountain. There is plenty of less grandiose research to perform before you start into ideas about cosmology and so on. You start with the small things first, and work up. But that doesn’t bring on the accolades and grant money and get your picture on the cover of Super-Scientist Today magazine.
Accountability
The answer to all the misguided quests is accountability. And common sense, dropping the pretension and nonsense.
Much of the research done is subsidized by the taxpaying sap, whether public or private. Private companies, of course, often get preferential treatment, guaranteed markets, government contracts, grants, etc. So, there needs to be a public statement by all these researchers, as to just what their goals are, and a timeline of how they intend to reach them.
If their goals are not met in a timely way, they should face a choice: The public can vote on a new “mission,” or simply defund the project. Additionally, they should face scrutiny, and a requirement to conduct any continued research guided by a select member of the public. This person could be selected simply on the basis of having a good idea conducive to research. Turn the whole crooked scheme on its head. (Well, actually, we need to stop publicly funding research, as is made clear in this article.)
Scientists have to recognize that there are a lot of ways in which they don’t understand science itself. And they don’t understand the way flawed thinking affects our pursuits in science. Everyone has flawed thinking.
The sad truth is, nearly all of the people we routinely call “scientists,” are not scientists at all. Many, perhaps most of them, could be made into scientists, though, if they can be taught proper methodology, not the warped one they use now. As it stands today, they work to produce prescribed results or push an agenda, but they aren’t following the scientific method. Even there, it appears the so-called scientific method has holes in it that need patching, as we’re trying to accomplish here.
In the next article, we’ll look at some of the weird results and failed attempts at science that go under the radar. And, some of the seething disagreements that exist regarding certain scientific results.
Comments