The New Science 6
Are you excited?
Should be, we’ve uncovered some dirty secrets: Current science can’t deal with foundational changes, only patches. And, there’s no real “theory of theories,” that is used by the mainstream to qualify or vet their “theories.”
Without deep consideration of what constitutes a theory, we get endless nonsense, like the Evolution boondoggle. A lot of effort would have been spared if we had applied our rules to that farce.
But wait! They claim there is such a formalism!
Q: Is there a science or formalism to determine what constitutes a scientific theory?A.I.: Thinking
Searching
Yes, there is a science or formalism, largely developed within the philosophy of science, that determines what constitutes a scientific theory. This set of criteria and principles is often referred to as the problem of demarcation (distinguishing science from non-science) and has been a central topic for philosophers like Karl Popper and Rudolf Carnap.
Key Criteria for a Scientific Theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated, overarching explanation of a broad aspect of the natural world, built upon a body of facts, observed regularities (laws), and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Key criteria that define a scientific theory include:
Empirical Testability and Falsifiability: This is the most crucial criterion, famously articulated by Karl Popper. A theory must make specific predictions that can be tested against the empirical world. Crucially, it must be possible to conceive of an observation or experiment that could prove the theory false (falsification). A theory that is compatible with every possible observation is not a scientific theory.
Empirical Evidence and Support: A valid theory must be supported by a large, independent body of evidence gathered through repeated observations and experiments. It is not merely an untested hypothesis or a guess; it represents the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
Explanatory and Predictive Power: A theory must offer an explanation for why natural phenomena occur, not just describe how they occur (which is generally the role of a scientific law). It should also have predictive power, allowing scientists to make verifiable predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena.
Internal and External Consistency: The components of a theory must be logically consistent with one another and with other widely accepted scientific theories.
Parsimony: All else being equal, a simpler theory that explains the same phenomena with fewer assumptions is generally preferred over a more complex one (Occam’s razor).
Dynamic and Correctable: Scientific theories are not static; they are open to revision, refinement, or even rejection if new evidence or observations contradict their predictions.
Yep, pretty good lip service (though we know Occam’s Razor is not reliable, as we’ve discussed, and of course the part about “consistent... with other widely accepted scientific theories” makes absolutely no sense, since some of the best theories will overthrow bad old ones). But the good ideas, well, they don’t apply them reliably, sincerely or consistently. And, they’re missing important elements, some of which we’ve covered, like addressing false assumptions/beliefs, and conclusions.
Funny how they can’t keep their story straight, saying a theory is open to rejection. But didn’t they say old theories are only, “superseded?”
They mention scientific laws, but we need to be clear that those are subject to revision as well. Often they are formulated under the auspices of ignorance, therefore are incorrect, or only describe part of the picture.
Also, they neglect to mention, that a new theory should explain or help explain prior observations we had no explanation for.
But the A.I. wasn’t done yet:
Formalism in Practice
In the most formal sense (especially in physics and philosophy), a theory can be viewed as a formal axiomatic system or a set of models. This involves starting with a defined set of axioms and using logical deduction to derive empirical laws and predictions. If these predictions align with observations of reality, the theory is supported. The scientific community ultimately determines the acceptance of a theory through rigorous peer review, independent replication of results, and a consensus that the theory is the best available explanation for the observed facts.
Well, we know part of that’s a crock. Consensus proves nothing, peer review is tainted and corrupt.
So Important
Can You Imagine?
Some mungs are saying they’ve “captured Earth’s climate for the past 485 million! years.”
Well, our feelings on that are pretty strong, that they’re full of it.
But what a bonanza for the new science.
If you’re going to make bold claims, you need to also list all the assumptions you’ve made, detail all the processes and procedures, research and guidelines that led to that conclusion. But the biggest deal is, you need to list the alternative interpretations and where you might have gone wrong. This automatic assumption that they’re right about anything they tout has to go!
Information Sharing
Different branches of science need to mingle, sharing information and findings.
Chemistry, physics and biology, for example, are arbitrarily segregated, along with the other sciences. Look at any university, with its department of physics, department of chemistry, department of mathematics, department of biology... One idea is, there should be an interdisciplinary department that pulls information from each to try to make sense of the whole.
Broadening Horizons
All questions need to be asked, and answered, all solutions/answers need to be considered.
This highlights an impoverished mindset of much of mankind. Everyone knows that science is suppressed, and talk of the 100-mpg carburetor and free energy and such is routinely bandied about. But when someone actually comes up with something tangible, the public will turn on him like hyenas, when given the order. There’s no knowledge, no wisdom, no learning from past mistakes. Anything “officially scientific,” is endorsed and the mob is quick to mock and jump on the bandwagon of hate when someone promotes something new, particularly when it goes against the accepted “wisdom.”
If you don’t recognize this trait in yourself and others, you have no business being a scientist. Maybe there’s no 100-mpg carb., but there have been many other solutions provided by fringe researchers who were routinely ignored, sometimes until the swine could steal the idea for themselves.
Arrogant Brit admiralty couldn’t even accept a solution for how to treat scurvy. Navies routinely lost men to the deficiency, but ignored native populations that suggested a remedy of extracting the Vitamin C from pine needles to make a tonic. Finally, after much more unnecessary suffering, the scum were forced to include limes in ships provisions.
As discussed thoroughly in prior articles, anything new must by necessity seem “crackpot,” because the current wisdom has to be discarded before a new concept or idea can be recognized and accepted.
All conventional “wisdom” must be challenged, as long as we have any scientific questions or problems to solve, which means there will always be challenges. All questions need to be asked, and encouraged, particularly skeptical questions about things that are forced on us or assumed as gospel. We can’t move forward until taboos, squeamishness and contrived “niceties” are banished. All they do is clog progress.
Lesson for We, the People: Don’t Let Our Own Insanity Be Reflected Back at Us
There is no pressing personal reason, for the average citizen, to have hysterical beliefs in Evolution, moon landings, Sasquatches, black holes, flat or round earth, and so on. As they say, there’s “no dog in the hunt” for most people. Yet many act out hysterically, as though there were. Those individuals need to stop behaving childishly, and start acting logically. Our old rules apply here, such as the rule to say that we just don't know, in some cases. Or, in other cases, there may not be sufficient evidence, or the preponderance of evidence is against (or in favor of) some claim or theory.
Comments