Critiques of scientific method - The cognitive paradox fallacies

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Anyone who states a mere speculation as truth and fact is dishonest.

I wouldn't take a quantum leap to lump all science into this category, for that is the realm of religion.

What happens is known; things that don't aren't.

Dogma is unchangeable, by its definition. Science ever refines its answers. Newton's stuff worked. Einstein's worked better under extreme condition. Making things up doesn't work at all.

Revisting this post:

Before modern science era, geocentrism rules, the elites rank themselve as man of science, they have technologies and inventions that could work wonders and marvelled by most. They claim the knowledge of the universe and their inventions dominated

Nicolaus Copernicus alleged that their foundation for science proved with mathematical principles were wrong, there were foundational crisis and hence paradox was inevitable.

Copernicus did lumped all science of that era into the fallacious category, was that a realm of religion cooked up by his baseless imagination?

At the begining stage, heliocentrism could not resolve some phenomena such as retrograde motion, but the wrong epicycle theory based on geocentrism could paradoxically worked. As such the correct model for universe was debunked as nonsensical and dismissed for hundreds of year.

In all possibilities if Newton's parents did not became hippies and Newton did not became the scientist he was, we could still be in the geocentricism era, of course technologies would have improved since then to show the geocentric science is more correct. No?

How do we know we know?

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Yes, science has an excellent understanding of reality. We take stuff from out there, manipulate it out there, build devices out there, and they work out there. All kinds of confirmation right and left.

In epistemic theories of truth for the TOE of physics, the above argument suffers a formal logical fallacy; it is therefore untenable.

This is a formal fallacy on affirming the consequent.

A formal fallacy could lead to myth.

Although science usually leads to technology, this is no so for all case.

Edison when asked about the electricity principles behind his inventions, he honestly admited he don't know. Not many inverters are like him. A technological success does not confirm the science it based on was absolutely right.

Even in large scale analysis, such as with evolution, we have triple confirmation, an extra double blessing double blessing indeed.

This is a necessary process, but its results are not necessary absolute; three people at three places based on the same wrong theory could all confirm a paradoxical observation independently.

Other, more obscure things are yet under investigation. Information is coming in all over the place.

Indeed. Yet we still fundamentally rely on the four centuries old model that postulates a static Sun to predict Solar System events. And brush aside the anomalies to maintain the science for it works.

If the equation for a universal law of physics cannot explain a reality with its mathematical construct, it is not the reality was incorrect.

As for unrepeatable claims, such as cold fusion, they are thrown out of the window and thus can't yet make it into the body of scientific knowledge.

There were many dismissed claims, such as BEC, poor Bose was not even allowed to published his paper, but was recently proven 70 years later. Yet it was merely regarded as a novelty state of matter not in the field of thermodynamics mainstream; how lame?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Confirmations were everywhere hatched, since scientific laws must ever match and predict the facts of what it mimics, for example, of the quantum mechanic. Although QM’s basis seems counter-intuitive, it always works out just perfectly, for we employ and depend on it, in every way, on tech products based on it, every day. Science ever goes on to astronomical heights.

The first supernova since 1572 appeared in some small galaxies nearby, a few, called the Magellanic Clouds, too… Though its radiation began a while back, we saw it alight upon us in the ‘now’—those immense quantities of energy of a mighty star-stuff maelstrom. A Chilean astronomical technician, some bloke, stepped outside, perhaps to have a smoke, and, being observant, spotted it’s yoke! Ah, he, a mere human standing around out under the dark starry sky, aground, detected it, upon this lucky time, for the large telescopes only take in the shine of the sky in small sections at a time. He went in and told of such unexpected, that a large burst of never-detected neutrinos was now to be expected.

The astrophysicists called their colleagues, “C’mon, you all, answer, please”, those deep beneath the Earth’s surface, in the United States, Japan, and Europe, and then said, “Look in your tanks, in revelry; you have already made a great discovery.” They were right on the dime, this time; each of the observatories had detected the signs of a few tens of neutrinos at about the same time. Consider the magnitude of this achievement, for they had tested all of what physics meant!

They had predicted the events that go on in a star’s death throes—by using theories from nearly every part of physics: special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, atomic physics, and elementary particles. If any of these theories had in error flailed, the prediction of the neutrinos would have failed. Thus, the laws of nature that are known to us on Earth everyday must have the same thrust hundreds of thousands of light years away; and, also, the same back in the day when that star had exploded so, hundreds of thousands of years ago.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

When the ancient Greek physicist Archimedes lift a ship with hundreds of people on it with one hand, he did impressed his king with his epicycle knowledge in a technological marvel. In ancient Greek, the knowledge for epicycle was also used to predict the motion of celestial objects accurately. Did the magnitude of this achievement make the geocentric model correct? It did not.

Technological success cannot confirm the scientific principle it based on for its theory.

The first computer was built with transistor made of cathode ray tube, it worked. When bipolar junction transistors made of silicon came in the picture it then revolutionized the development to what it is today; many inventions came first and then theory was made to explain how it work with self-fulfilling prophecy.

Knowing how to make it work is one thing, how it actually work is another thing, and also how you think it work is another story.

The supernova event as a metaphor supported with all the deductive scientific theories did point to conclude nature was capable of the big bang event. But the foundation of Big Bang suffers a formal fallacy with its ambiguous posits, was therefore a baloney that can be proven with circular logic.

The extremely small, dense and hot ball was now observed in a timeline at 13.7 billion years ago to be extremely big, sparse and cooled is a paradox as a result of its foundational crisis.

All those confirmations could be everywhere hatched to come to the same conclusion was because they were all based on the same foundational crisis.

Confirmations were everywhere hatched, since scientific laws must ever match and predict the facts of what it mimics, for example, of the quantum mechanic. Although QM’s basis seems counter-intuitive, it always works out just perfectly, for we employ and depend on it, in every way, on tech products based on it, every day. Science ever goes on to astronomical heights.

The first supernova since 1572 appeared in some small galaxies nearby, a few, called the Magellanic Clouds, too… Though its radiation began a while back, we saw it alight upon us in the ‘now’—those immense quantities of energy of a mighty star-stuff maelstrom. A Chilean astronomical technician, some bloke, stepped outside, perhaps to have a smoke, and, being observant, spotted it’s yoke! Ah, he, a mere human standing around out under the dark starry sky, aground, detected it, upon this lucky time, for the large telescopes only take in the shine of the sky in small sections at a time. He went in and told of such unexpected, that a large burst of never-detected neutrinos was now to be expected.

The astrophysicists called their colleagues, “C’mon, you all, answer, please”, those deep beneath the Earth’s surface, in the United States, Japan, and Europe, and then said, “Look in your tanks, in revelry; you have already made a great discovery.” They were right on the dime, this time; each of the observatories had detected the signs of a few tens of neutrinos at about the same time. Consider the magnitude of this achievement, for they had tested all of what physics meant!

They had predicted the events that go on in a star’s death throes—by using theories from nearly every part of physics: special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, atomic physics, and elementary particles. If any of these theories had in error flailed, the prediction of the neutrinos would have failed. Thus, the laws of nature that are known to us on Earth everyday must have the same thrust hundreds of thousands of light years away; and, also, the same back in the day when that star had exploded so, hundreds of thousands of years ago.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi vincent.

Thanks for the the great thread Vincent!

Unfortunately, it is only relative to the free thinker, and blasphemy to the restricted thinker. As I have said before to you my friend, you must be content with building a theory that will only be recognized in the future when a new bread of free thinkers over come the restricted thinkers that rule the world right now. As I have also said, there is a common sense movement alive and growing in the USA right now, and hopefully in the next few decades they will defeat the ideology of Liberal/Atheists, and bring about the age of common sense.

One must realize that main stream science is controlled by an atheist cult, that has control at the heart of its motivation. There is absolutely no way to break through this ideology, it can only be replaced. Only by a new movement of common sense people coming together under one banner of Freedom, can free thinking once again dominate science. One must see the modern Liberal/Atheist movement for what it is, and that it is a Faith Based Belief System that uses all the same tactics and mannerisms that the other two Faith Based Belief Systems use.

Common sense and Freedom must be the rally cry of this new movement, and it is people like you Vincent, a true scientist, that this new movement will look to for answers to the mysteries of Reality. I know it is hard and frustrating Vincent, but you must find like minds more then trying to convince the un-convincable. The un-convincibles are lost within their restricted minds and not any amount of evidence will un-restrict them. If you look at what you have posted Vincent in this thread, you will see that it was only new free thinkers that advanced science, and almost never the entrenched.

I personally thank you Vincent for the awakening you have given me with your threory. The awakening you have given me Vincent, is that there is only one thing that is Real, and Real is in Motion. We call the observed Actions of this Motion, Reality.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi vincent.

Thanks for the the great thread Vincent!

Unfortunately, it is only relative to the free thinker, and blasphemy to the restricted thinker. As I have said before to you my friend, you must be content with building a theory that will only be recognized in the future when a new bread of free thinkers over come the restricted thinkers that rule the world right now. As I have also said, there is a common sense movement alive and growing in the USA right now, and hopefully in the next few decades they will defeat the ideology of Liberal/Atheists, and bring about the age of common sense.

One must realize that main stream science is controlled by an atheist cult, that has control at the heart of its motivation. There is absolutely no way to break through this ideology, it can only be replaced. Only by a new movement of common sense people coming together under one banner of Freedom, can free thinking once again dominate science. One must see the modern Liberal/Atheist movement for what it is, and that it is a Faith Based Belief System that uses all the same tactics and mannerisms that the other two Faith Based Belief Systems use.

Thanks for the heads up.

I was merely testing the ground to see if I can bring forth a TOE of philosophy for UVS without jeopardizing its TOE of physics. I believed that this forum would be less daunting than those others out there. I wanted to gauge the overall resistance level and access how far can I push before I roll out those even more critical issues that could really upheaval.

You are probably right I would not be able to convince any of those people who have deep-rooted beliefs in the mainstream physics. And an un-heard of revolutionary concept has no antecedents that could support it, therefore the obstacles would be almost impossible to overcome like you had mentioned.

Common sense and Freedom must be the rally cry of this new movement, and it is people like you Vincent, a true scientist, that this new movement will look to for answers to the mysteries of Reality. I know it is hard and frustrating Vincent, but you must find like minds more then trying to convince the un-convincable. The un-convincibles are lost within their restricted minds and not any amount of evidence will un-restrict them. If you look at what you have posted Vincent in this thread, you will see that it was only new free thinkers that advanced science, and almost never the entrenched.

The free thinkers that advanced science in the past were indeed few and far, and you did mentioned this to other member some time back when I was very new in the TOEQuest forum.

I personally thank you Vincent for the awakening you have given me with your threory. The awakening you have given me Vincent, is that there is only one thing that is Real, and Real is in Motion. We call the observed Actions of this Motion, Reality.

It is my honour and I thanks you for being awaken to that and this makes my work worthwhile.