The New Science 10
This series has proven to be a powerful resource with broad applicability.
To be clear: Anyone doing science must know and follow these rules, or it’s not real science.
The last article should probably have been more biting in its condemnation of what passes for science in its current form, since most advancements have been long in the past, and what we’re seeing these days, are mainly engineering advancements, while fundamental science flounders and is a victim of nefarious scheming.
Here are some of the whys:
- Published science is junk until proven otherwise.
- Academic peer review system is a tyrannical scam.
To be rigorous, we have to say, all the fakery casts doubt on everything they do.
What’s left for us is to wrap up this concluding article of The New Science series, by going back to pick up and catalog insights and rules we’ve learned along the way. We’ll also include a discussion of such things as scientific models, and practical application of the rules.
Summary of Rules & Principles
(Where we review what we’ve developed in this series. Furthermore, we have concepts from The New Logic to assist here.)
Anticipation
A powerful rule to apply in in assessment of theories is checking if theorists anticipated. This is the requirement of explaining, ahead of time, any anomalies that are going to turn up in their theories (like global warming causing cooling, another lunatic proposal from the science tards).
Here’s something devious. With the Climate Change criminal con, they have papers wildly predicting all sorts of things. So, they can just trot out any old thing, perhaps something predicting an earthquake in Peru, and use that in their ongoing racket to keep it in the news.
New rule of thumb: If they’ve published papers “predicting” everything under the sun with their theory, it’s a con.
We need mention that, of course, warming causing cooling isn’t an argument since the very same argument, with predicate reversed, can be used: warming causes warming. This leads us to a nice rule, that is: be wary of logical contradictions. Like saying “A causes B” AND “A causes NOT B.”
Consistency
Everything must be consistent. Any inconsistency invalidates a theory.
No Paradoxes
There’s no such thing as “paradox,” but if you have something that looks paradoxical, that’s great, because it’s a clue, that you need to break down your assumptions. Examining the paradox will often lead to a solution! Therefore, a paradox indicates a problem awaiting a solution, not an insoluble problem.
No Contradictions
All contradictions must be resolved. Like paradoxes, contradictions do not and cannot exist, as we saw above (“A causes B” AND “A causes NOT B”).
No Sacred Cows
Everything is fair game. Even the fundamentals need to be re-examined when you run into troubles in science. We have to apply our principles without pity, ruthlessly and relentlessly.
Shills & Lackeys
To find out who the shills and lackeys are, look for those who avoid allowing certain topics or ideas into the discussion.
Complexity Isn’t Truth
A useful rule of thumb. A complex theory, algorithm, mathematical formula or process, isn’t necessarily correct, even if everyone thinks it is. It has to work, in the real world. Also, something that does work, may only be dependable within a certain limited range of application.
Simplification Not Complication
A simplification, though, is often the truth. You cannot resolve complication by introducing yet more complication; that is, the essence of progress is simplification, not complication.
Mathematical Expressions & Formulations
Similarly, just writing an equation, putting something in a mathematical formula, doesn’t mean it’s true, without rigorous testing.
Sanity Check Principles
It makes no sense to study stuff like “the beginning of time,” “black holes,” “the formation of planets,” like this so-called “theory” that’s almost embarrassing to even quote, the “Giant Collision Theory for the formation of the moon,” that says something giant crashed into earth and knocked a piece off, that became the moon. Conveniently, the giant, Mars-sized planet was obliterated by this collision, so there’s no evidence to taint their ravings, of course.
To check this idea for sanity, some tests are needed. For example, what would change if the theory were/were not true. First thing you might be curious about is, whether all the moons are the result of this convenient “giant collision?” How is momentum transferred from one large body to another, with particular emphasis on momentum transfer when one body shatters, and the other stays intact. Is that considered an elastic+inelastic collision? Could this result in knocking the Earth out of orbit? Why wouldn’t it? Could the reported similarity of the composition of Earth and Moon be the result of a common origin, not that the Moon is formed from Earth?
More importantly, how does this absurdity warrant one penny’s expenditure?
Alternative Theories
There needs to be a formal explanation every time mainstream science rejects alternative viewpoints. In fact, the assessment should be expressed as a scientific paper, so it can be subject to review, critique and rebuttal.
Capitulation
It’s very important that scientists be sincere, and admit when their theories have failed, not continually beat a dead horse when ideas lead nowhere. In this case, there should also be a formal, written justification for why theories are still pursued, despite their failings, with this justification also subject to review and critique.
Find the Villain
Whoever limits you in a false dichotomy is the villain.
Research Not Revolution
You as a scientist aren’t going to invent a transporter beam or something. It’s only one in a million or more that does any true innovation, and most of those few are suppressed or ignored, so concentrate on research, which is much easier and more fruitful. There are endless things that can be improved.
Were you aware that there’s no specific systematic method or theory to tailor the creation of metal alloys for a specific purpose? So, when you want to create something with certain properties, you have to resort to trial and error. There’s a grand opportunity for some research. Coming up with small ideas for research can lead to large advancements.
Yet again, it’s essential to look at the mindset. So many of these guys aren’t in it for the science, not really. It’s all, “How can I get a Nobel prize? How can I get famous? I wanna be another Stephen Hawking!” Content yourself with working on the minor, seemingly inconsequential, things, which is most likely to lead to success, since you don’t have a lot of competition when everyone else is pursuing grandiose (and puerile) dreams and schemes.
Bad Theories & Non-Theories
Regarding the silly stuff, it is often powerful to look at bad ideas and theories, as a reminder to look at the opposite, for that sometimes will be the truth. Hullo! Or to look for the good parts, and proceed based on those accurate aspects of a given theory.
So being “wrong” can be valuable. If the theory is altogether wrong, there is a good aspect, as it tells you a fruitless line of research to eliminate.
Mingling
Different branches of science need to mingle, sharing information and findings. Biology, chemistry, of course mathematics and other sciences all can contribute to physics and vice-versa. Its somewhat shocking that they generally don’t.
Scientists in one field should ask those in another field what their ongoing issues, problems, unresolved problems, paradoxes are and see if they’ve any insights they can provide from their fields! (And a generalist branch of science should be developed to similarly take advantage.)
No Infinities
There are no infinities in our physical universe.
Not All the Randoms
Not all the possible “randoms” will show up in our physical universe. (As an example, we saw how someone won’t keep rolling the same number on a die indefinitely.)
No Order from Chaos
Order doesn’t arise from randomness or chaos without (some ordered) external influence. Systems are systems for a reason, and tend to proceed by doing things that keep them that same system, as we see in any negative feedback loop.
Ignoring Very Low Probabilities
Due to restrictions imposed by a limited, physical, universe, something with extremely large odds/probability against, like trillions to one against, doesn’t happen “rarely,” but effectively not at all.
You Can’t Force a Solution
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. As a scientist, you shouldn’t specifically “look for something” as verification of some idea, but do research and analyze the 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.
Tangibility
Rule of thumb is, if it can’t provide tangible benefit, into the trash it goes!
Independence from Source
If an idea/theory is consistent with reality, it is valid, it doesn’t matter who proposes the theory. Which is to say, you can’t discredit scientific ideas with ad hom and similar attacks.
Active Opposition
In a reversal from current convention, the scientific community should be discrediting and negating/nullifying more theories than those they support. (And if they aren’t, they’re fraudsters.)
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.
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 publicly discarded and, work be done to patch it or, to devise a new one. This shouldn’t be perceived as shameful, but admirable. So, there should be accolades for those who invalidate theories. Those are the scientists we should admire.
Defining Terms & Vetting for Fallacies
We need to look at all our terms, used in composing a theory, stuff like “random processes,” “infinite time,” to pin down exact meanings and implications. Also, we must closely examine support for theories that exploit logical fallacies (as with Evolution, with its use of “The Long Ago Fallacy,” and the “Million-Billion Years Fallacy”), when considering if our theories make any sense.
Peer Review Idiotic
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.
No Arbitrary Restrictions
No taboos. All questions need to be asked, and answered, all solutions/answers need to be considered, with allowances made to deal with malicious disruptors.
Cleaning House
All the fake 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 pet theories and notions.
Fraud Checks
Can a supposed confirmation of a theory be faked, and how, and why? What would be the benefits of faking it? If there is a benefit, you know some slimeball is going to do 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
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.
We Don’t Know
“We don’t know” is one of the most powerful rules and tools. “We might be wrong,” like how the Standard Model of Physics seems to be wrong, is also powerful. The procedure is to “black box” the unknown/uncertain for later study. Often, the solution will become apparent later, or, someone else, perhaps in another field, will discover the answer. “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.
Court Rules
Court rules are a guideline. For example, in court, if a witness tells one lie, all the rest of that witness’s testimony is discredited and can be disregarded.
To “convict” in a criminal case, requires preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The same can be said for when you’re going to get enthusiastic about some theory and start blowing fat stacks of cash on it. There needs to be compelling evidence, not guesswork, before proceeding.
No “Benefit of the Doubt”
There is no reason, in giving “the benefit of the doubt” to anyone when big claims are made in science. Like with the obscene theft that is “black hole” boondoggle, where the only “black hole” is the endless pit all the tax money is going into to justify this absurdity.
Easier to Invalidate
It’s easier to discredit/nullify a theory than “prove” it. (So if they aren’t doing that with a lot of theories, the “scientists” are suspect.)
Facing the Facts
Nowadays, the enlightened individual has to accept that most everything is a lie, and that must include most theories.
Where there are no contrarians with equal voice, speaking out against theories it shows that the whole endeavor is controlled, top to bottom. This is a powerful rule to know.
We must also face the sad truth that there are numerous, seemingly endless, evil goons and freaks out there with vicious agendas.
And so, this YouTube video’s title needs attention:
CERN Insider Speaks Out: “Something Is Wrong with Reality”
CERN is the scam particle accelerator, and we know these devices are all BS now. The farce idea that it is somehow mega-useful makes it a manipulative tool against the gullible public, to scare, confuse and demean.
Modern day voodoo is something to be forever wary of. As we’ve discussed, there’s something wrong with humanity, not reality, and the intrinsic superstitious nature, the gullibility, is dangerous to us all.
No Fudge Factors
if there’s a “fudge factor,” or the theory fails in some way, it’s back to the drawing board, one of the rules/guidelines for when to discard a theory. Another is, If more anomalies, patches, kludges and mysteries start to pile up than verifications and new insights, your model/theory is a bust. Fudge factors are fine in engineering when they become a sort of rule to get the job done, but shouldn’t be tolerated in the pure sciences.
To repeat our earlier insight, it’s in the examination of the suspicious areas, the anomalies and inconsistencies, the exceptions, and our willingness to admit when we are wrong and change our perspective, that the discoveries and breakthroughs are made.
Look at tornadoes, for which the explanations are pathetic.
The four theories of tornado formation
Despite all the available knowledge and technology, we’re not entirely sure why they occur
- Manitoba Co-operator
Immediate red flag. How can there be four distinct theories? If the “theories” aren’t explaining anything, they can’t be called scientific theories, but mere speculation. There can’t be four distinct theories in any case, for our rules would have eliminated the duds, leaving, at most, one theory. This alone calls into question everyone involved, and mainstream science in general. The fact that, apparently, they never consider electrical effects in any of their theories points to a cover-up, and just plain bad science.
But fertile grounds for investigation and a chance for someone to really make a contribution to science by figuring out the tornado puzzle.
A Model Is a Model Is a Model
The foolishness of modern science can be seen when we consider an automobile designer, who will do clay models to test out a proposal for a new car. It’s the best way to get a feel for style and proportion, appeal, the way the light plays off the surfaces.
The model is not the real car.
We generally don’t see people in the automobile industry get whacked out and start screaming in rage and cursing everyone around them when they can’t open the door of the clay model, sit inside, start the engine, and drive away.
At the infantile level of belief and behavior of modern mainstream science, that’s exactly what’s going on, in their narcissistic attachment to “their” models and theories.
A model is only a staging point for further development in car manufacturing, for further advancement in the sciences.
But if you have a dud, you scrap it and start over, part of the sense of having just a model.
But you’ve learned something from that attempt, and should have the institutional memory to know you don’t go back to your failures and start touting them again!
Which gives rise to another rule: All failures must be cataloged and archived, and available for public scrutiny.
Pretty Much Stuck
If you want to be a professional scientist, it appears that you almost have to be psychotic, or have that instilled. In mainstream science, they are forced to follow the status quo, or else funding is cut, and the scientist is made a laughing stock.
Takeaway, though, is they want to hobble science. One of the reasons is the obvious: they want continued profits and control, and every advancement is a threat to that monopoly.
Of course pride plays a role, and it looks like the “pros” are filtered and selected for overweening ego as well. They simply cannot tolerate even the whisper of being proven wrong. So you’ll see such a vicious backlash towards anything that challenges their status quo.
Vetting Theories
A theory has to reveal something new about reality, or explain an old puzzle, and this is an iron-clad rule. And they can’t just say it explains something, like they do with Relativity theory.
Fixed budgets must be established before testing any theories. For example, that farce with the muons should never have been allowed. But all of this has to be public, with easy access to the details, with a stated purpose, and most importantly, a set stop date if the original mission fails.
As far as the rule of falsifiability, (a theory must be falsifiable), that requirement must be satisfied with a real world test, not hypotheticals.
Using the Rules in a Practical Sense
If you’re stuck with a problem, go backwards. Examine the principles you’re working under. You might roll back incrementally in small or large chunks, but obviously the best bet is to roll back to where there is confusion, a fudge factor, a “paradox.” That will inevitably be a problem area, though there may be other problems as well. Sadly, with present day science, in some cases we have to roll back to the very first foundational principles, or beyond, to simple principles of logic.
Go back and review the definition of terms, seeking terms that are problematic (“random processes,” “spooky interactions,” “warped space,” “infinite time,” “quantum chromodynamics”), which are all pure and stinking garbage.
Working within an institutionally corrupt construct is difficult, and it’s troubling that it’s not just bad science piled on bad science, as shown in the reference links above, but they also resort to outright lies. Foucault pendulums don’t actually work, for example, but, even recently, someone was touting that as “proof” of Earth’s rotation. (Note that these preposterous devices are motorized to keep them moving).
Some sources say they’ve been able to measure attraction between two heavy masses in the lab (to confirm Newton’s Law of Gravitation), others contraindicate that, saying they’ve suspended very two heavy weights to measure torsion between them, and were unsuccessful.
Also troubling is the sweeping under the rug of divergent and non-standard data. That instantly discredits their theories and experiments and such researchers should be drummed out of the scientific community. However, those places where fudging is done gives the honest investigator that starting point to carry on with proper, scientific research. For example, the wild variance in the measurement of “G,” the gravitational constant, gives a strong indication there is something wrong with our theories of gravitation (not just that, but remember the pendulums that don’t hang as expected in deep mine shafts, and other anomalies).
Very powerful then, is the rule that a theory has to reveal something new about the world, about reality.
Remember, “a new theory is tenable only if it cleanly resolves some existing scientific puzzle, in a new way, that forces us to discard some old idea that is now consequently untrue.” This is one of our most powerful rules, and really encapsulates a lot of the ideas of this series. Keep your attention on that part, “discard some old idea (theory),” since that’s an acid test.
There are endless possibilities for bad theories, and only a few good ones, so when you’re doing your rollback, keep moving until you get to a theory that achieved that requirement. Can’t find one? Then you have to design a new theory.
It’s an imperative that scientists understand their foibles, and the foibles of mankind, and act on that knowledge! The bane of modern science is complication to the point where no one can understand what the hell he or she is talking about, (as an example, “quantum chromodynamics,” which they actually tout as a field of research). We don’t seem to understand that this is a fatal flaw, and people can fall into this form of insanity and proudly tout their “advanced research,” while accomplishing nothing. Examine everything to assess if it is tainted by pride, greed/the money motivation, over-complication, fear, over-enthusiasm/fanaticism...
Don’t forget this hyper-important one: the Sunk Cost Fallacy of thinking that you’ve spent so much time, money and effort, you have to keep going (keep wasting time, money and effort on a lost cause). Recall we’ve identified a human quirk where we unconsciously recognize that some alternative is going to be very time-consuming, and we intuitively shrink from it. Well of course, scientists will have that reaction and be very reluctant to pursue a new line of research under new principles. It seems “wasteful,” or that they’ve “wasted valuable time.” Or, they feel they’ll be punished or considered incompetents, when of course the incompetents are the ones who continue in their pursuit of fruitless endeavors, after they’re shown as fruitless!
Something comes to mind about the mainstream approach to science, and the contrast with some of the science we’ve already accomplished, on this site. In My Biggest Surprises, we discussed rainbow formation, and discredited the official explanation effortlessly, demonstrating the strategy to tackle research projects. We took a methodical look at possibilities, physical properties, like that of lensing, and included an examination of as many examples from the real world as possible. This included peculiarities and anomalies that seemed at odds with our hypothesis.
Contrast our approach with the slapdash, prematurely formalized, confusing, mathematics-heavy approach scientific papers take. In mainstream explanations, it’s all portentously “gifted” to us, like manna from heaven, as the great scientists deign to provide their vastly inferiors.
The use of convoluted diagrams, illustrations and mathematics to conceal a lack of grasp on reality is something other scientists have commented on previously. This is typically revealed when they never relate their constructions back to the real world, which us provides a rule of thumb for assessing the validity of a theory.
So there you have it. We could continue with more rules and debunking, but you have the tools now. It’s time now for you to consider and perhaps expand on these ideas, and to confirm and use them for yourself. Also, to get the full value, it would be profitable to go back to the beginning of this series and re-read, also taking a look at the linked references, to settle the ideas in your mind.
Comments