The Methodology Of Science

[analog]

The collective intelligence of mankind and its development throughout the ages, since our emergence upon Earth, is equivalent to the development of the intelligence of a single modern individual within the collective whole of mankind, as established from their emergence into life at birth. Upon arrival, the child finds itself engulfed in a world of mystery and magic, with little understanding of the functions of those things it holds witness to. It gathers knowledge throughout its life, whereby allowing it to function at increasingly more complex resolutions as the boundaries of its range of interactions goes from merely eating, drinking and sleeping as an infant; to playing with toys as a child; to manipulating its environment with its own hands to construct those things which it plays with as an adult.

Mankind’s collective intelligence is no different. From the early years of life on this planet we have grown from our infancy of being completely dependent upon the most unsophisticated elements of our environment for survival, as we could do little more than eat, drink and sleep at the mercy of all things; to our ability to take hold of the previously formed items surrounding us, such as the stones used by early mankind to smash, cut and kill their prey, which is comparable to the developing mind of a child merely playing with his toys in the sand; then further developing to push our boundaries of interactions by means of our concurring fire, shaping the elements, manipulating electricity, etc., all in an effort to further the depth and resolution at which our hands mold, shape, manipulate, and take hold of our world.

Our children are ever present reminders of our past, as they hold witness to our development as a species by merely representing the development of an individual. The difference between the intellect of the child of early man, and the adult was very little, as both were found to be engulfed in a world of magic and mystery, at the mercy of many more environmental factors than it had concurred. Our children are now born with perhaps a genetic predisposition to an increased intellect, but still knowing nothing more than the child of our earliest of ancestors. The sophistication of our elementary school students is far greater than that of the most intelligent adult cave man, as high school students are increasingly tackling subject matter that used to be reserved for those who furthered their education by way of college. Granted, if the world’s economy were to fail, our ability to readapt to primitive life would definitely cause the death of many, due to the lack of practice most modern people have at such fundamental things as growing their own food or killing animals for a meal, amongst many other things. Nevertheless, it isn’t our ability to grasp such seemingly simple concepts which would be the problem, as the mental connections needed to allow the understanding of such would have been well established more often at the age of a child; the problem would more likely come by way of our inexperience in such matters. The average modern individual can grasp the entirety of the collective knowledge of prehistoric man and their methods for survival far easier than an individual from such times could grasp anything about our current society. Our bodies may have grown weaker if a contest were to be held of subjecting us to the elements, but the computational power of our minds are far more advanced. From an evolutionary perspective, such primitive things as our threshold for pain has been found inferior to our capacity for knowledge.

Upon its arrival into this world, what does the modern individual actually know though? Our minds dictate our realities to us, whereby many geniuses have been found to have attributes they assumed were common among others, not knowing they were a genius at all. We experience life by way of our senses as processed by our own minds, which determines our individual reality. If not for our ability to communicate, we would know nothing about how others see and experience the world at all. A common requirement for insanity is that one must not realize they are insane, otherwise they are not, which means the acts by which you would be accused of being insane must appear normal to you whereby you don’t question its relevance, importance, or appropriateness. In a sense, they too must have attributes they assumed were common among others, not knowing they were crazy at all. Such connections of genius and insanity have been inferred by such statements as; “There’s a thin line between genius and insanity.” At some sophisticated levels, only by their works can we often distinguish the two, whereby the concepts of a genius though hard to comprehend may be found to have some truth and relevance, thus finding support among many, but the concepts of the insane may be found to have no foundation in reality, thus finding only condemnation. This would lead us to our methods of judging such things.

continued in next post

[analog]

continued from above

I would suggest that in the context of interpreting reality, we are all equally insane. Due to our connection to this world (a.k.a. brains) also being our instrument by which we understand it and declare truths about it, and the ability for that instrument to create varying realities with no requirement that they be built upon truth, we have no way of verifying to ourselves that our thoughts and beliefs are either true nor false. The advanced mind must often approach its own intellect, with some objective means of establishing its own intelligence and the quality, truth and importance thereof, whereby we must devise a method which would allow us to test ourselves; thus confirming to some degree our genius and or insanity.

Due to my understanding of such things from an early age, I never knew whether I was crazy, confused or just curious. My imagination formulated many questions as a child, many of which were of the most complex nature as those we discuss here, which my intellect began to answer as I got older. I was raised religiously, whereby the void of understanding which was once filled with personified and emotional Gods and Devils as an answer to many fundamental questions (when I was a small child, as taught to me by my elders and as many still adhere to) also found itself under the microscope. I realized the reciprocal to such things was established in an understanding of science, which allowed me to visualize a much more mechanical physical interacting world; rather than one of mere magic and mystery. Both aspects of such became the whole of my understanding in relation to answering many fundamental questions, and as one increased (science), the other (religion) decreased equivalently and reciprocally. I come from a small town and it wasn’t long until I found that most of those people I knew didn’t ask themselves such questions, and if they did, they either didn’t expect themselves to ever answer them, as I must have done, or they merely answered by attributing those things they didn’t understand to a deity of their choosing. Thus, I realized the importance of surrounding myself by a higher level of thinkers, whereby comparing my thoughts to the established great minds of science, and those who study such methodologies. This was my means of testing and evaluating my own intelligence, whereby I found comfort with who I was, having no more fears that I might just be insane and didn’t realize it, which would have allowed me to legitimately be insane…lol.

This was the experience of one individual, and I say all this because as implied at the beginning, the collective intellect of mankind is no different in relation to such things as defining the reality that we should all believe in. Once we realize that we, with our wandering minds, are the variable in the equation of understanding existence, then where do we go to compare ourselves whereby establishing our genius and or insanity. We have no higher intellectual group to surround ourselves with; thus some method must be devised which establishes a means of confirmation of truth, as the collective intellect of the metaphorical adulthood of mankind begins to answer the questions formulated by the imaginative minds of our past collective childhood. It is the tools we’ve built, the measurements we've taken, the experiments we’ve devised, and the observations we’ve made that dictate to us, what we should and should not believe, whereby reality is still dictated to us as individuals through our own minds, but with the added confidence that can only come by a proper and thorough investigation, yielding verifiable data, which leads to the collective opinion of more minds than that of merely our own, whereby our collective sanity can be established and judged as a whole. In terms of collective intelligence, science is the rational part of the social collective mind trying to establish truths while being confronted by the more irrational and compulsive ideologies such as religion, whereby once again our collective evolving intelligence can be compared to the inner workings of the process of formulating intelligence by the individual. Our current inability to answer all of the questions of our curious minds still leaves some room for a seeming magical and mysterious world in the minds of many, but rather than filling that void with Gods, Devils, and deities, we can more appropriately place our faith in the ideology that a logical, physical, and beautifully interacting realm is still yet to be discovered, and hopefully someday the collective intellect of mankind will reach its full adulthood in terms of visualizing, observing, interacting, and believing in such a world.

For those who would insist or imply (as some here do) that such beliefs hinder the development of the collective intellect of mankind by dismissing the concepts of so called “free thinkers”, then they obviously don’t understand the parameters needed to distinguish between genius and insanity; parameters established by the methodology we’ve come to know as science, whereby opinion isn’t established by the voice and beliefs of one (such as a Pope dictating a God’s will upon the masses), but rather by the investigation and conclusion of many. Just as in our court systems here in the U.S. where we are innocent until proven guilty, so too does my chosen methodology declare everyone equally insane, until proven genius by a proper trial overseen by a jury of their peers, whereby their supportive evidence is properly evaluated in a court of truth. It is by your works that you shall be known, and I choose to stand behind the method that has proven, and continues to prove that it works. Most of my current scientific interpretations would possibly also be dismissed by current mainstream science, but due to my beliefs, I’m perfectly fine with that, because I shouldn’t be a hypocrite, and if they have any real value then it’s inevitable that someday they will be found to have truth to them; if not, then I don’t want them influencing anyone anyways.

Regards to all ,

Tim

[austintorn@aol.com]

Good stuff, analog, about the magic and mystery declared as truth. This is one of my latest reminders, too, in my observations of what is "made up", which appear a lot since I can hardly keep up with the various claims of "Gospel" truth; however, I have gotten through to some, but I know that it may take a while, since humans really want to have some Intent in nature and that these desires often override any scientific thinking. It's difficult, I know, for the mind not to know something since that is what it always tries to do as its function.

[Graybeard]

I have to agree with Austin .... This is an excellent essay.

The Scientific methodology is a way of objectively testing your ideas for correctness.

The Father of this methodology was a guy called Abu Ali al-hasan ibn al-hasan ibn al-Haytham or much more simply Alhacen (born 965 in Basra, Persia)

His list of contributions to the world, and to science is enormous ... and if he had been born in Europe, today we would consider him another Galileo. He made only one mistake, and for that they tried to cut his head off, so he feigned insanity ... as all scientists do when threatened with religious persecution ... rotflmao

His method was basically

1.. Ask a question
2.. Do the research
3.. Construct a Hypothesis
4.. Test the hypothesis by experiment
5.. Analyse the data
6.. Repeat steps 4 & 5
7.. Draw a conclusion
8.. Communicate the conclusion


This is what Tim has to say:

..
so too does my chosen methodology declare everyone equally insane, until proven genius by a proper trial overseen by a jury of their peers, whereby their supportive evidence is properly evaluated in a court of truth.

This is what Alhasan has to say:

Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency.

Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.

Tim, your a genius and you just didn't know it ... lol.

And if anyone needs needs to condense this into a simple rule: Be a Devil's Advocate, even to, and especially to, your own ideas.

cool bananas ... greg

[analog]

Hello Austin and Greg,

I figured I would just start a thread and contribute material to it from time to time. I've been in a writing mood lately for some reason and sometimes I'll just sit down and start with a subject and see what comes out. If others choose to comment, then great, but if not, then I'll just use it as a place to post some ideas and give others a chance to read in quiet. I hope you'll feel free to do the same here by open discussion of previous posts or posting independent thoughts of your own. I enjoy seeing how others view things.

We've also got a lot of our scientific beliefs scattered throughout varying threads, whereby the few of us who chat everyday recall our path throughout the forum and have a good idea of each other's views, but the casual reader probably just catches bits and peices of our views. So, I also thought this would be a good place and heading to display more of a collection of the thoughts of a few of us addressing this subject directly in one place.

later,

Tim

[analog]

The scientific methodology is the means by which we evaluate what we know from what we think we know, whereby establishing the narrow band of useful knowledge from the infinite and diverse world full of useless fantasies and mere imaginations. This is the means by which technologies advance and civilizations and their economies thrive. One such apparent intersection where we can witness the far reaching implications of science and its importance to varying aspects of life is the connection inferred by the continued success of Moore’s law, whereby such predictions have been made, that as scientific research and development reaches the limits to which we can condense our computing power to ever smaller scales due to approaching the physical restrictions imposed by the atomic realm, and the observed “law” begins to fail, world economies will suffer dramatically due to the dependence we’ve created in the dynamics of such simple things as the physical dimensions of computers, cell phones, and many other electronic devices whose physical overall size is determined by their internal circuitry and our ability to keep condensing the space it takes to process information.

Whether we like it or not, the modern world that most of us wake up in everyday and have become so dependent upon is mostly built on the backs of those who implement the one and only methodology we’ve established to cut through the infinite world of what ifs, maybes, I thinks, I believes, etc, to get to the heart of the objective truth of when, where, why, how, and to what extent. In my honest opinion, science is the greatest achievement of mankind, due to its entire existence addressing the fundamental problem of establishing relevance in a world that doesn’t offer up its secrets at our birth, but rather only through our effort; without which, we couldn’t declare that we actually know anything, but with such a methodology, the power of our predictive abilities is also increasing similar to the exponential concepts that have made Moore’s law such a powerful force in our daily lives.

Reality is more so designed to occupy our thoughts with daily activities, emotions, dreams, etc, whereby creating the illusion that hides the minds of so many from visualizing the absolute minimal functions required to maintain such a universe that has seen fit to bring us all forth. Many never question or understand the physics behind existence, as such would seem to not be a requirement for the prosperity of a solitary individual as seen with the many uncaring souls eating, drinking and being merry, but as suggested above, due to the dynamics of our species, the advancement and or sustainment of the group as a whole is increasingly dependent upon not only our ability to exhibit the emotional bonds that hold us together and make us stronger, but more so our ability to establish fact from fiction, whereby uncovering the requirements it takes for not only us, but also those further structures we bring into this world (just as our universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet brought us forth through the process of universal evolution and emergence) to function.

Without question, everything we do here, and the further structures we form, all further the system as a whole, whereby science can then be also understood, at a deeper more fundamental level, as playing a major role in the efficiency by which our works are done, as it directs an instrument which has such power that it is much more likely to imagine all of the impossibilities, before it stumbles upon the possibilities if it weren’t for an established means of efficient exploration, whereby insects, like us, have changed the face of an entire planet. It will only be when we can fully understand the impacts of our actions, not only in terms of those opinions dictated to us by our emotions and those feelings which are beneficial to society which would cause us to perceive our role as a damaging one, but more importantly by our acquired knowledge of how the world really works whereby we may realize the functions which our form was really providing. The true mark of an intelligent species and the greatest intellectual level they can achieve will be when it can differentiate between the path preferred by the social sciences which allow it to understand its development in terms of fear, faith, love, hate, etc, which would cause it to view its existence as being the only structure within the universe with the ability to harm the system that brought it forth, and the absolute physical sciences of the path it has taken, which would allow it to view its existence in more appropriate terms of absolute necessity. In my honest opinion, our true collective genius will be achieved when we can visualize an entire universal system where even the most shameful acts we committed as judged by our hearts, find equal purpose and meaning as those acts of which we are most proud, as revealed by our minds. Thus, science isn’t only about exploring the world around us; it’s also and more importantly about finding ourselves within it.

regards to all,

Tim

[austintorn@aol.com]

Another great post, analog. I am not as good as you are in stating these benefits of science, but I feel it overall, as I'm sure many ToeQuestors do. It goes against natural selection a bit to look at what is underneath the higher, normal forms that we are trained to look at and deal with in everyday life.

Some of the new ipods actually got a bit larger, as I guess they felt too flimsy or no longer fit the hand as well.

Perhaps one day computers will be of the quantum type, exploring every path at once instead of serially, which would be the ultimate speed which never again would be "slow" for any application ever.

As for humankind realizing things, there is always a vanguard that is hundreds, maybe thousands of years ahead in their insight sometimes… such as now no one really thinks that physical illnesses are caused by anything but germs, viruses, and bacteria, but it took many many centuries for some to accept this. It was easier and even somewhat natural for some to assign physical illnesses to evil spirits, as still is often done for mental illnesses whether major or minor.

[analog]

Science often plays the role of furthering our understanding, by means of the discoveries it reveals through the processes that define it as a methodology, as new insights are often achieved with little or no foreknowledge of their existence, but as discussed before, it also takes the role of verifying the level of truth to our understanding that originates within our minds. Genius and insanity are merely the extreme opposing ends of the spectrum of truth, as genius is a title often reserved for quantum leaps in our understanding, while insanity is more descriptive of understanding with no foundation in reality. Most of our knowledge, however, lies somewhere in-between and is more of a gradual progression through much effort.

We’ve discussed our methodology whereby truth is verified, but there are also similar methodologies whereby truth is discovered. These methodologies pertain to how we think, as there is a knowledge to gaining knowledge; an understanding of how to understand; an insight into searching for insights. Some geniuses have applied such tactics in their search for truth with great success, as their new insights were often quantum leaps in our current level of understanding of certain aspects of our world.

When I was young, my father bought us a pool (a.k.a. billiard) table. Through time I spent many hours playing the game and was fairly good for a child of my age. I played in many local tournaments through the years; winning some and loosing others. I learned the dynamics of how to play in terms of: english (i.e. imposed spin placed upon the cue ball, due to the method it is struck with the cue, whereby the resulting shot is affected and the further motions of the cue ball have a level of predictability following the collision/shot), force/stroke (i.e. level of intensity at which the cue ball is struck whereby determining the force of the collision/shot), and angle (i.e. trajectory of impact of the cue ball with the object ball (degree of cut), or the side rail as with a kick shot, and further trajectory of the object ball with the side rail in bank shots, whereby establishing the needed trajectory to pocket the object ball by any means necessary, where the spin imposed by the applied english becomes an important factor).

I spent a lot of time practicing my angles, stroke, spin, etc., and combined with my sharp eye, which assisted in my aiming (even with long shots down the table with ‘a lot of green’ as they say), it wasn’t long before I could make very difficult shots with ease. There wasn’t many positions I could be left at on the table that I couldn’t make something happen; even with a cluttered table with few options. I prided myself on this ability, but it wasn’t until I began to watch professionals on the television that I learned that many of the shots I was making were low percentage shots, which more often lead to a loss of control of the cue ball even if the object ball is pocketed. The genius of the game (which I learned from my studies) wasn’t in my ability to make complicated shots, which more often led to further complicated shots due to the needed force which was often applied to account for the distances and thin angles of the shot; the genius of the game was in the control of the cue ball, whereby there were no complicated shots and shooting distances remained a minimal, as a keen eye took back seat to the position I left myself in after the shot; more often only wanting a slight angle on the next shot which made the cue easier to control than a straight in which left less options due to the dynamics of the shot. Applying this logic with an ability to mentally keep several shots ahead of the game, which allowed for a shot strategy of the sequence in which to play, my game greatly improved as I exploited the fact that anyone could make the easy shots; thus if all my shots were left easy due to my knowledge of control, then my ability to do the seemingly impossible found itself more often out of service, except for when I found myself shooting behind a bad leave from the other player.

Is the process by which we think much different? Is it not our ability to simplify the hard to comprehend concepts that define our skill level in the mental game of billiards we play? Anyone can understand the simple; thus it’s our ability to learn the techniques (i.e. english, angle, stroke, etc, of thought) required to leave ourselves with simple conceptual shots to make with minimal distances between us and our objective whereby avoiding the force required to make quantum leaps that often leaves us out of control and in bad position on our next intellectual attempt, that establishes our level of genius within the game. Such great minds as Einstein, Galileo, etc., applied such logic while formulating such concepts as the Equivalence Principle, which became one of the fundamental background concepts of General Relativity, whereby interactive symmetry was exploited between the effects of a gravitational field and the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference, which allowed a deeper insight into a more complex concept by merely investigating a much simpler scenario which better leant itself to mental and physical experimentation.

I’m far from a genius, but I often use similar logic to investigate such things as my own thoughts and the processes of the mind, as implied in my earlier posts. In a very loose analogy, we perhaps can better understand the complexities of our own internal mental interactions, by merely observing the way information is externally processed in our current society as a whole. Do we not use similar tactics as the methods discussed by Greybeard (i.e. 1-8 ) within the privacy of our own thoughts as they sort fact from fiction in our efforts to learn? Perhaps, the scientific methodology emerged in society due to its fundamental position within us all, as it would seem to be an integral part to the development of all rational minds. The varying ideologies of the current members of our society could be associated to the inner dynamics of our own thoughts as the personal quest for truth within one mind, as begun at birth, is paralleled by the public quest for truth within our collective minds, as begun with our emergence and evolution here. What else would we further construct as a whole if not a model of the system by which we internally operate ourselves as some regions of the brain which have more creative and unfounded ideologies (filling any voids of understanding with often imagined concepts), as when we are children, struggle against the more analytical regions which require observation, measure, experiment, and most importantly…proof, as we grow older; just the same as some regions (groups) of society struggle against the ideologies of others in an effort to merely know as civilization ages from its intellectual infancy to its technological maturity, due to our scientific methodology that advances us forward?

Later,

Tim

[austintorn@aol.com]

All of pool that Tim says is so true,
For my father bought me a table, too.
Being in the right spot at the right time
Is one’s good fortune created on the dime.

After homework was all done, we’d make the run,
In billiards playing banks and carom fun.
We’d have to hug the girls to teach them how
Then even demonstrated “kissing”, wow!

After school, we too played some pool
in the smoky den, where gambling fools
Bet their lunch money time and time again,
Where too some girls mixed among the men.

I won an Army eight-ball contest,
Winning a carton of useless cigarettes,
So I gave them away, for the play’s the prize,
Keeping me here and away from paradise.

I haven’t played much in thirty years,
Nor have I drunk even that many beers,
And some long shots I still had to make,
But the short easy steps were best to take.

I turned to tennis, the theme much the same,
Though the bounce was but upon the ground:
Don’t look up too soon from the knowing aim
And follow through—works too for other games.

Never played much golf, but did sometimes,
Driving was all right, but nothing really fine,
But upon the putting green, my eye was right,
Sinking putts like billiard balls, left and right.

(and in mini-golf, being billiards and golf combined)

[labelwench]

Hello Analog,

Some very comprehensive writing.

Excellent metaphors and highly accurate description of the strategy underlying the game of billiards.

Labelwench