Some Necessary Basics

1.1 Introduction

I was originally trained as an abstract mathematician. Except for an undergraduate minor in physics and some graduate work in education, all of my formal training has been in the science of abstract mathematics and what is an applied area called mathematical logic. If one wishes to measure career achievement by publications and discoveries, then I can also be classified as a very successful scientist.

In September 1978, I made a startling scientific discovery - a discovery that directed my interests into the area of mathematical modeling. Unfortunately, at the time of this discovery all of my documentation was written in a highly technical language, and I was the only individual who could decipher its contents. Although I teach and do research at an undergraduate institution with an exceptionally high academic rating, the lack of graduate students or colleagues versed in the deeper aspects of mathematical logic tends to leave my discoveries isolated from the major avenues of scientific communication and development. In the beginning, the burden of communication was entirely mine. Not only that, in my ignorance, I attempted to apply this discovery to an important philosophical area first, without adequate preparation, and had lost sight of its many additional implications. For many years I, and then others, have struggled to reduce the complexities of these discoveries to such a point that I now believe that you can be told the truth.

I have published fifteen scientific papers and four monograms applying the results of these discoveries to various areas. The scientists who have read these papers and books hold a diversity of opinions. Even though many members of one group have praised my endeavors and no one has shown that any of the results are incorrect, there has been a concerted effort by others to either ignore these findings or discredit their discoverer. I often believe I've been transported to the dark ages of scientific discovery where all who contradicted the scientific norm of those times were persecuted, threatened with economic disaster, scholarly ridicule or death if they continued in their efforts to publicize the truth. Although I have been threatened with each of these - literally - I've so far not succumb to any of them. Why has this pervasive atmosphere returned?

Today, there has arisen a large research establishment, as well as an enormous publication industry, that thrives upon implied falsehoods or half-truths. These scientists labor within each discipline and leave the impression with the public, which often pays for their research through taxes, that their findings are facts of science when in reality they are, and always will remain, scientific fiction. Some individuals in this group are very charismatic and convey great authority. After all, if they are awarded a Nobel or some other prize for their efforts, then how can their scientific achievements be otherwise then absolutely true? Their claimed discoveries are then followed by publicizing efforts. Popular books are written in the language of the layman to "explain" these so-called truths. These books are also given awards of one sort or another, so it's definitely assumed that these books must be stating the truth. Millions of dollars are spent on the writing of school books to instill into the youth of this world these so-called facts. Weekly and monthly pulp magazines, and scientific journals exist for the sole purpose of expanding upon these "research" findings.

Your acceptance of such discoveries is often based upon the authority syndrome. If individuals are classified as authorities, even if such authority is a sham, then do you question their pronouncements? Is it possible that the millions of dollars spent on scientific education by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Public Television and Radio, the commercial broadcasters, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Education Association and other such organizations is actually fostering false scientific conclusions? Are not these organizations perceived of as the bastions of scholarly authority? Recall the well-know propaganda scheme. When so-called authorities repeat the same statement often enough in newspapers, magazines, on television, in all of the communication media, where they may have buried a disclaimer in some obscure textbook of which you have no knowledge, then such a statement will take on the mask of truth.

Besides the career associated enhancements, there is a second and often no less important motivation behind much scientific investigation. There is considerable evidence - evidence that you can easily obtain - that many unverified but accepted scientific statements exist to support a personal philosophy. These statements are purposely selected so as to uphold the validity of certain philosophic pronouncements that are not part of the scientific investigation and, thereby, such statements tend to force a rejection of competing philosophies. Thus, if these scientific statements are accepted by you, should you or should you not accept a personal philosophy that by implication is contradicted by "science"? Indeed, did you know that some scientists and scientific educational organizations are actually attempting to enslave your mind, to take away your very freedom of thought and, thus, create a subjugated populous that worships their "science" as the ultimate source of human adoration?

In this book, I'll explain exactly how scientific methods can now be used to prove that any statement as to how life began on Earth, how the Earth was formed, how the universe was formed and many other such pronouncements has no scientific value. You can, however, accept such statements and even investigate their deeper meanings in more detail. But your acceptance must be based upon criteria exterior to the scientific method. I'll give you examples of how you are being forced to accept such "scientific" statements and explain how this would also force you, in many cases, to alter your personal philosophy. I'll train you to recognize when various scientific statements have no truth value; when they're presented to you in an attempt to control your mind, your freedom of choice and alter your personal philosophy. I'll show you how to control the effects of such insidious practices.

Obviously, a great deal is at stake when a discovery is made that is perceived of as a threat to the livelihood or personal philosophy of so many. I believe that any perceived threat that my disclosures present to the scientific community is in error; although, when the truth is eventually understood, the public may not be as supportive as it has been previously - especially with its tax monies. I'm convinced that such "scientific" work will continue to be supported but only by those who share a common belief-system. The difference is that such work will be looked upon as a new type of art form or philosophy or, shall we say, "metaphysics" - work that's interesting and logical but, as Faraday wrote in 1852, work that: "Should ever be held as doubtful and liable to error and change . . . ."[8]

After many years of refining these new discoveries, it's now possible to describe them in a language understandable by the vast majority. You need, however, to learn a few simple concepts, some new terminology and the like. I can't explain how your freedom of thought is being endangered and how your money is being wasted without some form of communication with you. It's very important for you to concentrate upon what follows, re-read portions of this book as many times as necessary, and consult the glossary for terms you may have forgotten. I intend to take you step-by-step through the discovery process itself using, whenever possible, an everyday language. Over the past few years, certain previously specialized activities have become common place experiences. Using these new common experiences, I can remove the fancy scientific terminology that often excludes the general public from participating in scientific discussions and, thereby, give you concrete everyday examples that will guide your comprehension. Further, I'll put away my thesaurus.

Consider what follows to be a great adventure which isn't in any manner dangerous to you, even though it may be to this author. Your participation, if you wish, can remain passive or anonymous in character. You deserve these facts, however. It's my obligation to present them to you for your consideration.

Let's take an excursion into the realm of scientific communication and discuss what these new discoveries imply about this important activity. As we proceed, you'll notice that this book is composed of two often intermixed yet distinct parts. During our journey, you'll often encounter startling scientific descriptions that give new insights into how our universe may have come into being, how it develops and changes, as well as exactly what you or I can understand about such processes.

1.2 The Least Elements

I have searched diligently to uncover the rules (i.e. canons) of the scientific method. The scientific method is the title given to an assumed fixed set of rules that all scientists are supposed to follow in their inquires. John S. Mill [31] extensively discussed these assumed common rules in the 1850's. If you were to check his writings, you'll find out that the rules he presented do not match up with the rules many scientists use today in their theoretical deliberations. Instead, throughout the various disciplines that are classified as scientific, I've found different collects of statements that describe discipline dependent rules.

There are even different rules for how experiments are to be set up in a laboratory (i.e. rules for experimental inquiry), what instruments to read (i.e. data collection) and, most certainly, distinct ways of stating what the instrument readings mean (i.e. interpretations of the data). There are many philosophers who study, do research and publish in a discipline called the philosophy of science. These philosophers investigate such things as the rules of the scientific method. Indeed, I've even published a little in this area [20]. However, these scholars are often in fundamental disagreement as to what are the appropriate general rules and procedures for an acceptable scientific method. Moreover, most working scientists don't learn their scientific methods from the philosophers of science; but, rather, they learn their methods by "sitting at the feet of the master," so to speak. Whatever their instructors, mentors and colleagues do, they repeat - that is if they wish to be granted a diploma, be published or receive a research grant.

If you are a college student and you develop a new method of scientific inquiry, it's very doubtful you'd be allowed to apply it within the college's laboratory setting. After all, you're there to "learn" what's considered the "correct" procedures. Evidence indicates that if you are about to complete your research for your doctorate, and you make a discovery that contradicts the number one theory within your science and your discovery has significant philosophical implications, then your graduation is in great jeopardy. Many qualified scientists have told me of the following scenario. They complete their correct theoretical research in their area of expertise and develop a promising "new approach." They then prepare and submit a journal paper for publication explaining their new approach. An editor or what is called a "referee" examines their results and rejects their paper either without stating any reasons for rejection or a vague statement such as: "Your paper is not appropriate for the readers of our journal." Since I'm a referee, I know some of the exact rules used for such rejection. Papers are often rejected, though the theory they present is correct logically, since the readers of this particular journal are specialists in a competing theory and don't wish to spend any additional effort understanding this "new approach." Further, most referees don't wish to take time to investigate a new theory unless its implied philosophical implications conform to their personal philosophy.

Where can these scientists publish their findings? They might find some obscure journal that specializes in "new ideas" or one that accepts papers the intent of which is to contradict certain philosophies. But the scientists that read these journals are often far removed from the main body of a well-known discipline. They are small in number and not familiar to those who control the mass communication media. Indeed, without any evidence, such scientists are often characterized as ignorant and inept by those who wish to destroy your freedom of thought. Since this "new approach" is forced into obscurity, the customary methods used to obtain research grants for further investigation become closed. These "new approach" investigators can't cite the large main stream publications in which their research papers have appeared or, by reference, indicate the "big names" of the scientific community who have worked in this area. They can't use the accepted techniques to impress the research fund granting organizations with the importance of this "new approach." Funding organizations utilize the same referees as do the scientific journals - referees who have previously rejected the publication of this "new approach." Further, passing favorably upon "new approach" funding would decrease financial support for other philosophically, not scientifically, favored theories. Obviously, for these and other reasons, research funds would not be granted for "new approach" investigations.

What affect does all of this have upon you? In almost all cases, you will be deprived of any of the simplified descriptions of this scientific "new approach" as they might appear in you favorite newspapers or magazines. Your freedom of choice has been completely removed. You can't have freedom of choice when you are presented with but one choice from what is, in reality, many possibilities.

Beyond the dictionary definition for a science, it's interesting to note that there is no commonly accepted definition for the term "science" itself. Have you seen the newspaper or magazine articles that state that a group of physicists from a large university, call them group (A), has accused a group of physicists at a small Midwest college, call them group (B), of not being "scientific"? The group (A) physicists actually state publicly that the group (B) physicists, "are stupid and should not be allowed to teach our young men and women." Such accusations have even occurred in our courts of law. Group (A) physicists claim that those in group (B) haven't followed all of the rules of group (A)'s scientific method. In the newspapers, the apparent authority of those from group (A) drowns out groups (B)'s reply. The truth of the matter is that group (B) does indeed follow all of groups (A)'s rules. What you don't know is that group (B) has not accepted (A)'s specific interpretation of data. Later, you'll be shown exactly what it means to interpret data and that a different interpretation of data is not a violation of the scientific method. You'll know exactly why group (A) objects, often violently, to group (B)'s conclusions.

Because of the difficulty in finding an acceptable definition of what is a science, let's take what appears to be the least controversial portion of such a dictionary definition and leave it at that. My dictionary type definition states that:

Science, "at the least," is composed of systematized and reasoned descriptions.
By-the-way, one term in this definition has been altered. The usual term "knowledge" has been replaced by the less innocuous term "descriptions" since a "description" need not mean this illusive thing we call "fact."

You might assume that the little phrase "at the least" has an insignificant bearing upon these research findings. This is definitely not the case. Some years ago the Institute for Mathematics and Philosophy (I. M. P.) offered a prize of some $50,000 to any individual or group that could locate any error in either the research methods or results obtained by this author. Scathing accusations were made that I or other members of the institute had concocted these findings by purposely beginning with the results we wished to establish. Then, by backtracking, we selected a collection of seeming innocent assumptions that we knew must lead to these results. Of course, the so-called scientists that made this absurd accusation were apparently unaware that the process they condemned is the major scientific method used in arguing for a specific hypothesis. Furthermore, as originally construed, the actual research results were unknown. As an example, the original procedures were not unlike a chemistry student mixing known simple compounds together without having any knowledge of whether or not such compounds would combine to produce a more complex structure. Of course, after trying these research methods then my intuition did suggest that certain avenues would be more productive than others and that I might be able to establish certain hypotheses.

I point out that records indicate that these accusing critics only know of the research findings and, in actuality, have little knowledge of how they were obtained for they have never acquired any of the required mathematical material to substantiate their claims. It seems that their criticism is so vehement that, in their unguarded statements, they have plainly indicated that their rejection is based entirely upon biased personal philosophies. Recently, however, the mathematical methods have been accepted as sound scientific procedures. [17]

The fundamental tools used in this research project are the most simplistic available. These tools are common to all disciplines that are considered scientific in character. As far as can be determined, certain of these basic tools are common to all scholarly disciplines. No such discipline, whether classified as scientific or not, can exist without using them to some extent. My first goal is to introduce you to these basic tools and explore how scientists use them in the pursuit of knowledge. If I don't specifically write that a basic tool is a "scientific tool," then you can assume that it's used by all scholarly disciplines.

1.3 A Common Feature

Is there a common feature associated with my basic definition of a science that's so obvious that it may have been over looked? Having systematized and reasoned descriptions is somewhat worthless if such descriptions can't be communicated to others. "Obviously," it's assumed that such descriptions will be communicated, somehow or other, to other individuals working within a particular discipline. The ability to communicate ideas is one of the crowning achievements of the human mind and should not be underestimated. In September 1978, I was investigating this common feature with a view towards creating a new mathematical approach for the science of psychology, an approach that would not need numbers to predict human behavior. Let's consider some of the more basic aspects of this common feature - basic aspects that apply to all disciplines, in general.

In order to transmit information, oral communication is translated into written symbolism. Such communication is comprised of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, books, and libraries of written expressions. Along with these written expressions are the common rules - the rules of grammar - that guide us in combining such expressions into collections so that they have meaning to a particular object with which you wish to communicate. Notice that I just used the word "object" since, today, you do tend to communicate with, what is still classified as, nonhuman objects. You may have been taught to use a special language to communicate with a computer or an automatic teller machine. You discover quickly the trouble that occurs if these special languages are not used. Such experiences have certainly increased our understanding of what exact communication means.

Clearly, I haven't yet exhausted all of the symbolic means we employ to communicate. There are diagrams, figures, and drawings that one might classify as symbols for something or other. But then what would you do with the great visual communicators that are photographs, motion pictures, television, television tape and the like? First, since television pictures can be stored on television tape, only such tape needs to be considered. Would you consider photographs, motion pictures, TV tapes as expressible in a written form? A discipline does just that. You certainly have experienced while reading a book such statements as: "Notice that in photograph (A). . . ." With this you would turn to the photograph called '(A)'. The '(A)' is a symbol that represents the photograph. Can a photograph be represented by a specific string of symbols and not just by a letter such as (A)?

Modern computer technology is used to produce an exact string of symbols that will reproduce, with great clarity, any photograph, TV tape, or sound. Today, information is "digitized." For example, rather than a TV tape, the time may come when you have a TV microchip. Each small fluorescent region on a TV screen is given a coded location within a computer program. What electron beam turns on or off, the intensity of the beam and the like is encoded in a series of binary digits. The computer software then decodes this information and the beam sweeps out a glowing picture on your TV tube. At the next sweep, a different decoded series of digits yields a slightly different picture. And, after many hundreds of these sweeps, the human brain coupled with the eye's persistence of vision yields a faithful mental motion picture. Have you ever put a small cartridge into a computer terminal and played one of the thousands of TV games? That cartridge is one of these TV microchips. Yes, the time has come.

Did you know that when you make a telephone call that the major telephone communication networks digitize the sounds and then faithfully reassemble the numerical codes into a reproduction of what the listener believes is "your voice"? Record companies digitize music in order to improve upon the reproduction quality. Schematics for the construction of equipment can be faithfully described in words and phrases if a fine enough map type grid is used. Thus, the complete computer software expressed in a computer language, the digitized inputs along with schematics of how to build the equipment to encode and decode digitized information, taken together, can be considered as an enormous symbol string the exact content of which will be what you perceive on "the tube," hear from you CD player, or other such devices.

Much of what science considers to be perception may be replaced by a long exact string of symbols (i.e. symbol strings). This leads us to what is truly the common feature shared by all sciences.

The common feature is communication by means of strings of symbols of one sort or another.
Members of a specific discipline create what is termed as a technical dictionary that contains strings of symbols that are accepted by its members. For the present discussion, you don't need to consider this dictionary as containing any basic meanings for the individual strings of symbols. What's required is a relatively fixed set of rules for combining different symbol strings into longer more complex collections that all members of a discipline can use. The technical symbol dictionary and all the accepted combinations dictated by these rules forms what is termed a discipline or technical language. However, for communication to be successful, a discipline language is worthless unless it also conveys content, the next necessary basic.

1.4 Content

There are some very bold scientific groups that specifically state that their conclusions will contradict your personal philosophy. But, in most cases, they are very careful to avoid a direct attack upon you. They allow you to come to such a conclusion. The method that's used is based upon the idea of "content." It is not so much what is written or said by certain groups that attacks your personal beliefs directly, but it is an indirect attack based upon destroying the "content" of such beliefs. In order to properly understand this concept, a few illustrations are in order.

Bob uses one of those TV cartridges to play a TV game. He begins the game and the first level of action appears on his monitor. He runs through the first challenging level and the images present various impressions upon his brain. His hand moves over the controllers pushing this or that button. He controls space ships and military forces and slowly works his way through a maze of dangerous situations. He's played this game hundreds of times; but, for some reason, he can't seem to reach the next level of competition. He knows from the instruction booklet that there are ten levels. But what are they like? Then this twelve year old child, his daughter, takes over the controls and quickly proceeds to level three.

In section 1.3, the idea that the cartridge could be considered as an enormous string of symbols was discussed. That portion of this symbol string that pertains to all the actions of level one of this TV game has impressed many images upon Bob's mind. (I will use the term mind from now on instead of the term brain and not discuss the differences that exist between the two concepts.) Indeed,

all of the effects that that string of symbols has upon Bob's mind is the content of that string of symbols at the moment Bob played the game and, at present, the content of the TV cartridge itself.
Well, Bob is now confronted with additional motivation. He tries the game one more time. For reasons he cannot completely explain, he must have pushed the correct button at the correct moment for suddenly he finds himself at level two. He plays for a few moments at level two. Then his space ship is shot down, and the game ends in defeat. Through this experience, Bob has now added additional content to the TV cartridge.

Obviously, the cartridge doesn't have as much content for Bob as it has for his daughter, but Bob has been able to increase his cartridge content through his additional experiences. Bob, being excited about his achievement, goes to telephone his colleague Joe and discusses his accomplishment. When Joe asks Bob how he was able to get to level two, Bob begins to describe, in words, some of what he believes to be the content of the cartridge at level one. However, he can't explain exactly how he was able to arrive at level two. Well, Joe has been playing this game for a long time. Joe knows how to get to level two and explains to Bob that when he arrived at space platform X he simply did the correct move and moved around platform X rather than going over it. This is what put him into level two. From Bob's viewpoint, Joe's description has added more to the cartridge's content.

You say you don't play TV games. Well, let's consider another scenario. You pick up a small piece of paper left behind by some unknown individual. On it you find the symbol string '2 '. Now this you understand. You play the card game "Bridge." This means that the individual who left this piece of paper must have written down that he had bid two hearts. This must be the content of '2.' But you picked up this paper in your doctor's office, an office of cardiologists. Now what's the content of 2 ? What's the content of the symbol string 'I my dog'? In these three cases, the content of the same symbol is different; and you could probably describe the content by other expressions so that all three cases could be differentiated from one another.

Is it always possible to describe in other symbol strings the content of a particular string of symbols? Suppose that you saw a set of five parallel lines drawn on a sheet of paper and few other symbols. They looked something like and a lot of other interesting "musical notes" were adjoined to these. The individual who placed these symbols in their various positions was W. A. Mozart. I wonder what the content was to Mozart? I don't believe that anyone could describe in words taken from any language all but a small portion of the content of one of Mozart's musical compositions. By-the-way, this is in stark contrast with the modern philosophy called scientism. Scientism includes the belief that science can explain all things in terms of a scientific and humanly comprehensible imagery.

Are there symbols that have no content for the vast majority of mankind? Let's consider the one symbol ''. Except for how you might describe the symbol itself, a black box of a certain size, does this symbol have any content for you? Probably not, although to some mathematicians it does have content. It's sometimes used to indicate the end of a proof of a mathematical theorem. Yes, the content of a particular set of symbols may be described as all of the effects it has upon an individual's mind, but the simplicity of this definition stops at the point where you analyze its properties. Content has many diverse characteristics that often lead to the difficulties humans experience in communicating ideas. Content is exquisitely related to human experience, and it's particularly significant for what is called a description.

Individuals experience the results of mental impressions, whether such impressions are internally or externally generated. A description is a combination of symbol strings that when considered by an individual evokes mental impressions. First, an individual's mental impressions lead to the formation of a description. Secondly, a description is intended to evoke within the same individual, and others, approximately the same mental impressions which originally determined the description.
Why is a description only an approximate reproduction of the original mental impressions? As a child, I had a great deal of difficulty communicating orally. I was very frustrated for I didn't have a large enough vocabulary to communicate my ideas. This difficulty in communicating mental impressions continues to plague any scientist who discovers a "truly" new concept. The new concept requires new terms. And, when these new terms are created, they need to be defined by descriptions using previous dictionary terms. The combinations of these old dictionary terms must not occur in previous definitions or the term wouldn't have a content different from all the other technical terms. Unfortunately, even if I'm careful in term definitions, my experience has been that a description using these new terms never seems to convey all of the content I intend. This becomes more obvious when I ask other scientists to re-describe the content of my description in their own words, so to speak. Their partial descriptions often fall far short of what I perceive to be the true content of the new term.

Of course, this difficulty in communicating mental impressions is not peculiar to scientific communication. It plagues mankind every moment of every day. Have you ever said to someone: "I, really, love you." or more likely "I, really, dislike you." Sometimes the response of the other person indicates that the content you intended is not the same as the content understood. You then say: "Well, I didn't mean it that way, I mean. . . ." Moreover, as you'll discover shortly, in certain scientific descriptions terms are purposely selected in order to convey to you a content which is, at the least, partially false.

The technical languages used by the various scientific disciplines also employ simple terms to which you are exposed in your everyday reading. Consider the two following hypothetical news stories carried in a local newspaper.

Scientists Discover New Planet

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - Scientists at
the California Institute of Technology
have discovered a new planet at a
distance of 1,000,000 light years from
earth. . . .

Scientists Discover Cure

BALTIMORE, Md. (AP) Scientists at the
Johns Hopkins Hospital have discovered
a cure for Smith's disease. . . .

To you, what is the content of the symbol strings "Scientists" and "discovered" as they appear in article I and II? What the term "scientists" means is relative to your experiences. Are they like Herr. Dr. Frankenstein or more like your family doctor? The usual mental image of a scientist is an individual who, at the least, deals with results obtained by means of repeated laboratory experiments. The scientists in article II actually do this. Although additional procedures are usually followed, basically, these Hopkins scientists have a compound that they've injected into 10,000 people with Smith's disease. Smith's disease was diagnosed by matching each patient with a description for the symptoms. After two days, each and every patient showed no signs of any of the symptoms. At the time article II was written, none of these patients had developed any signs of Smith's disease. Thus, under the definition of what this Hopkins group considers to be a cure, it was decided to announce these findings along with the proper statistical analysis in a medical journal. After this, the Associated Press science writers formulated what appears in article II.

The article II scientists are called laboratory scientists and follow certain rules for their scientific method. The content of the word "discovered" is the entire process these scientists most go through before they can announce that the compound that cures Smith's disease has been literally found and exists in their test tubes. This group of scientists use their five senses to measure whether or not someone has Smith's disease, and they all must agree before the patient is admitted to the study group. They use their five senses to measure that there is a compound in the syringe prior to injection and that all other factors remained fixed. Thus to these scientists, who measure reality relative to their five senses, Smith's disease exists in reality, the compound exists in reality, and it's an empirically verified fact or truth that this compound cures Smith's disease. Is this the same type of science practiced by those mentioned in article I?

The content of the terms "Scientists" and "discovered" is not the same in article I as in article II. Indeed, it's due to this fact that I'm writing this book and attempting to explain to you some of the deep ramifications associated with these differences. The mathematical processes that have led to what is called the theory of ultralogics and their application to scientific communication imply that the Associated Press article I, in order to be more correct in content, should have been written as follows:

Scientists Speculate About New Planet
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) Scientists at
the California Institute of Technology have
shown that data interpreted in their T-
theory of star behavior indicates that a
T-theory planet might exist at a distance of
1,000,000 light years from earth. However,
this does not imply that such a planet exists
in objective reality. . . .

Now III could be shortened somewhat and still convey the correct idea by use of the terms "might" and "theoretically." However, one would need to know what the term "theoretically" signifies. Then in the second paragraph of the article the correct additional information would be stated.

Scientists Speculate About New Planet
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) Scientists at
the California Institute of Technology have
shown that theoretically a planet might exist
1,000,000 light years from earth.

I have my doubts that you'd ever see an article such as III actually published in any newspaper if the science writers, to be correct and not mislead the public, were required to write as in example III. Notice that the general public would need to know the meaning of such terms and phases as "speculate, data interpreted, T-theory," and "reality." It's also a fact that there have been (and there still are) actual national laws and regulations that prevent an article such as III from being reproduced. For 60 years, at the least, national laws prevented millions of people from reading statements such as III. In the foreword to the 1960 edition of the book K. Marx and F. Engels on Religion [32] as translated by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U., specific guide lines are given as to the style in which popular explanations of the achievements of astronomy, biology and other sciences must be written. Article III, due to certain perceived philosophical implications, does not satisfy these guide lines. Articles I and II do satisfy them. It's interesting to note that portions of this foreword were removed in the 1975 revision.

No, I'm not accusing the writers of popular accounts of scientific endeavors - the science writers - of following the instructions of the Institute for Marxism-Leninism. I'm accusing them of either ignoring the true facts or, in many cases, of writing purposely in a style that fosters certain hidden philosophies and which has mind control as a direct effect. Oh yes, I can prove what I say. But it's better that you prove it for yourself. Look in your favorite television program guide. What is the category for programs such as Nova or Nature and many similar ones? The subject is science. Look at the categories of some other programs. Many are called science fiction or speculation and, sometimes, even fantasy. Look at the categories TV Guide gives for certain movies. Movies about outer space, alien life forms, UFOs, and similar topics are categorized as science fiction and, hence, are, at the least, "science." Or they are categorized as speculation, something that is, at the least, possible. But what is the category given for a movie about angels? The category is fantasy. How many times do Nova type programs begin with the melodious voice of the narrator who states: " Five million years ago the sun . . . . " when absolute statements such as this have no scientific validity? Do you change to another program while saying to yourself: "What garbage"? Could you ever conceive of Nova carrying a subject category of speculation, although much of what Nova presents is, indeed, speculation or science fiction?

Consider John, a thirteen year old boy, who returns from school very excited by a special science project he has been given. He literally runs to his family's favorite reference, the 1990 "World Almanac and Book of Facts." This book sales millions of copies and claims to be "The leading authority since 1886." On page 491, he finds a line drawing entitled, "Paleontology: The History of Life." Here's where he's going to find the correct information to present to his class.

Along the bottom of a horizontal line is a list of dates where certain events are indicated by tick marks. Near the tick mark that indicates 4.5 billion years ago, is the label "Earth, solar system in present form." Near to 4.25 billion years ago, the label states "Origin of life." In small print is written "All dates are approximate, and are subject to change based upon new fossil finds or dating techniques; but the sequence of events is generally accepted." What is the content of this comment to this thirteen year old? What is the content to you? The words have actually been selected in a special why to convey a special content. "Approximate" surely means somewhere in the billions, maybe not 4.5 or 4.25, but certainly not far from these numbers. And, as the disclaimer implies, scientists should be able to supply any needed corrections. John, using these dates, presents his talk to his classmates, receiving one of the best science grades he has ever obtained.

Over the weekend, John happens upon one of those 30 minute tabloid styled TV programs featuring the "unusual." One of the interviews was with an old strangely dressed mystic, who using a philosophical explanation not accepted by the scientific community states that, "Life began on Earth no more than 10,000 years ago." The only authority he has for his beliefs is a collection of old writings. No fossils, no radioactive dating equipment, no scientific method.

When John returns to school on Monday, he asks his science teacher about this contradictory statement he heard. His teacher explains that what the mystic said is just an old myth that no intelligent person would believe. The teacher claims that the true facts can only come through the scientific method.

Well, I wonder if John will ever know the truth? If he reads this book, he will. He'll know that the almanac is incorrect in its presentation. Simply stated, he'll learn that the scientific method can be used to show that World Almanac dates have no truth value whatsoever. This means that today's accepted scientific methods can't determine whether these dates are true, approximately true, almost true, probably true, false, approximately false, or the like. I wonder what John's grade would have been if he had told his teacher this, or if he had repeated to his class what his science teacher said is only a myth?

Actually, there is a very insidious process being used by those who write these almanac and article I type statements. Here is another example that will show you exactly what is going on. You have an appointment with your physician. He/she runs a series of tests and then states, "I don't want to alarm you but you have Grave's Disease. Don't worry, its curable." You then seek a second opinion from another physician and sure enough you're again told that you have Grave's Disease. Now these two physicians are licensed and the state has certified that they are "authorities." You believe what they have said. Was it necessary for your physicians to tell you of your condition in the following manner? "I don't want to alarm you but you have Grave's Disease. What I've just said is true in reality. Don't worry, it's curable." Wouldn't it be strange if they had added the sentence "What I've just said is true in reality" to their statements? Aren't we to assume that what was said is true in reality?

In the above illustration, it is very significant and important that terms such as "might" "maybe" or "possibly" have not been employed.
What has been done is that your physicians have spoken to you in what I call a positive language. A language that carries with it additional unstated content - that what is being communicated is also true in reality. Our minds have become so accustomed to adding this additional content to such statements that authorities never seem to state it explicitly, we assume it. But there's a great difference between a statement such as "You have Grave's Disease" and the concept of what is "true in reality." Linguistically, they are not immediately related. If in reality you do, indeed, have Grave's Disease, then you are scientifically a concrete model for this statement. The statement is "true" about you.

Articles such as I and the almanac description are stated using the same type of positive language as is used in your doctor's office and elsewhere. The additional hidden content that the use of such a language conveys to your mind is that what is being stated is true in reality, when, in actuality, you can't assign any truth value to many statements of this type.

Employing positive statements is the major method used to force you to believe in a nontruth.

Some of the most influential individuals and organizations use such positive statements in their scientific descriptions for processes that they claim have produced our universe and human life as well as other such speculations. In chapter 3, I'll give a few additional and specific examples of the incorrect use of positive statements. There are four very significant FACTS that are basic to a rational scientific method and you should know them.

FACT 1. If there is more than one scientific theory or model into which scientific data fit, then the use of positive statements such as in article I is forbidden by the scientific method. In this case, only statements such as in III are correct.

In the major portion of this book, it's established that the data that leads to a statement such as I does indeed have more than one scientific model into which the data fit.

FACT 2. Statements such as found in I have content. In most cases, this content overlaps the content of your personal belief-system. There are two and only two possibilities. Either the content of a statement such as I is consistent with the content of your personal belief-system or it's inconsistent.
The next fact is established in the next chapter.
FACT 3. If a statement such as I is inconsistent with your personal belief-system and you accept statement I as a true scientific result, then you must change your personal belief-system.

FACT 4. Relative to statements such as I and the data used to obtain it, the scientific community has known for many years [at the least since 1982] that there is more than one model into which the data fit.

Consequently, there are but two possibilities for employing in I the linguistic technique of the positive statement. Either those individuals or organizations that use I are ignorant of facts 1, 2, 3, 4, or they know facts 1, 2, 3, 4 and are purposely using positive statements to force an individual to accept such a statement as scientific truth, and thereby forcing many individuals to alter their personal belief-system. I point out that the article that begins with I is filled with positive statements and many such statements are inconsistent with specific personal belief-systems.

Here's a list of some of the organizations or individuals that use positive statements incorrectly. I'll let you decide whether the expertise that resides within them implies that they're simply ignorant of the facts 1, 2, 3, 4. [I mention that I've personally warned many of the following organizations that they're using a forbidden linguistic technique. My warnings have been ignored totally.] Almost every newspaper science writer, many local television and radio station science reporters and numerous scientific based television programs; CBS, NBS and ABC News, National Public Radio and Television, Warner Communications, Time-Life, The Ted Turner organizations (i.e. CNN, TNT, TBS) numerous magazines of the Omni, Discovery or Scientific American type, textbook publishers, The National Educational Association, The National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The National Geographic Society, The Smithsonian Institution, and almost every science museum in the world. I include in this list certain specific TV series that are found in numerous libraries and schools: Nova, Nature and National Geographic programs, Sagan's Cosmos and David Attenborough's series.

Did you know that there are large organizations that place major emphases upon the removal of correct statements such as III from textbooks that our children might read? Need I mention in this context the ACLU. There are even state legislatures, such as California, that pass regulations that effectively do the same thing and courts that effectively uphold such regulations. Science, according to these organizations, must be popularized in a style that fits one and only one philosophical mold. Article III fits into many philosophical molds. Since just one of these molds, the supernatural God mold, is objected to vehemently, these organizations fight desperately to prevent you from being exposed to the content in III. They'll use almost any tactic to force you to read only statements such as I. One such powerful organization is the American Humanist Association with headquarters in Amherst, New York. What is acceptable to them is spelled out in many of their publications. For example, you might try reading some of the comments in the book edited by Paul Kurtz [29].

The belief in the truth of an article such as III does not require you, under any circumstances, to select one philosophy over another. What it does do is to give you a choice.

It may not appear to you, at first thought, that accepting article III as factual or simply rejecting I is particularly significant. Is it really critical, the difference between articles I and III? You might ask: "Does it really matter to me, personally?" As indicated by fact 3, the difference between articles I and III is most profound, and this is attested to by the additional fact that there exist so many organizations and individuals that are trying to force you to accept I and to prevent you from reading III.

I'm not what you call a "light weight" scientist. Thus far, over the past 19 years of active scientific publication, more than 56 non-coauthored publications have appeared under my name. This is five to ten times the usual number published by active mathematicians in the same time period. During one year, I published six articles in pure mathematics. I'm aware that some book reviewers will criticize highly the remarks I continue to make with respect to one of their favorite subjects - theoretical science. My experience indicates that my chances for further publication in main stream scientific journals will be "slim or none." And, I can assure you, that any publication rejections I receive in the future for my scientific disclosures will not be based upon their merit. Now, the ultimate goal of any scientific discipline is to differentiate between fact and fiction. Thus, even with my uncertain scientific future, I must continue to present enough information so that, on your own, you can make an intelligent choice. The next chapter is critical to your understanding of the relationship between scientific descriptions and the human mind.

{A remark for those who are interested in technical stuff. Although, all those "scientific theories" that purport to explain occurrences in the far-past have no scientific truth value, certain common rules of the scientific method can be applied. However, the common rules for theory acceptance are concocted by the scientific community and have technically no relation to reality since they are based upon human comprehension. Indeed, these rules can't be proved to be true, you simply accept them or reject them. But, when comparing theories, these rules state that if a theory explains past events or human experiences, and predicts other events as they are observed today within our local environment, then that theory is as good as or even better then other theories. Indeed, the rules state that if a particular theory increases our ability to understand the workings of the natural realm in which we live, then such a theory is the preferred theory.}

Chapter 2 or return to contents page.
n general talks on evolution, Mr. Leaky did not miss this opportunity to proselytize the social, religious and political implications of evolutionism and mans bestial origin. The cast of apes considered to be ancestral to man will continue to change, as it has in the past, but that is not important to evolutionism as long as the central "dogma" and its profound implications remains - man is a beast.

Last Revised: July 19, 1996