I wish that I could immediately detail the insidious methods used by scientific organizations and individuals to enslave your mind, destroy your personal philosophy and eliminate your freedom of choice in scientific matters. I could use my authority as a scientist and educator and simply state that my conclusions are true and you should believe them without further investigation. This, however, would make me no better than those who make contrary claims.
What I need to do is to give you enough training so that you can determine the truthfulness of my conclusions for yourself. So that when reading popular accounts of supposed scientific achievements, you can immediately decipher the code language and determine whether such achievements are truly meaningful or are they designed solely to foster a philosophy to which you do not care to subscribe. It's for these reasons that I believe it's necessary to survey certain technical concepts. I'm doing this for your benefit. I'll try to make this as painless as possible. Let's start with a description of an experiment.
A hypothetical laboratory scientist named Thor sets up an experiment. Thor takes a sheet of cardboard with a hole in it through which passes a metal wire. On this sheet, near to the wire, Thor sprinkles a small amount of iron filings. Tapping the cardboard, nothing unusual happens to these filings, they just sit there. Thor leaves the filings on the sheet and repeats his experiment, but only while a current from a single dry cell battery passes through the wire. Now, as he vibrates the cardboard slightly, the filings seem to form into concentrate circles. He turns off the current in the wire and the filings remain in this new pattern.
He fixes little compasses to the cardboard and they all point toward magnetic north. Once again he turns on the current and the compasses near to the wire turn sharply into a circular pattern while those further out drift more slowly into an approximately circular pattern. He then sets up tension balances in an attempt to measure the force that has mysteriously turned his compasses. He measures the distances from the wire and marks down the various force measurements at different positions on the cardboard. Finally, he repeats the experiment, but this time he uses two dry cell batteries.
Following this experiment, Thor makes a table of the measured forces produced by the one battery current and the distances from the wire. Then he makes a table of the measured forces and the distances from the wire for the two battery current. After hundreds of repeated experiments, and many days of reflection, Thor claims to have discovered a relationship between the forces measured, the distance measured and even the number of dry cell batteries used. He writes a paper describing the experimental set up, his numerical measures and his guessed at relationship between these measures. He then presents his paper before at a gathering of follow scientists. At this meeting Thor states without hesitation that the current from the batteries is the cause of the described effect (i.e. the curved paths of the iron filings or the change in the direction of the compasses needles.) [Historical note. Oersted appears to have been the first to describe the magnetic effects apparently produced by a current.]
Following Thor's presentation, he's questioned at great length as to the precautions he took to ensure that the current is the cause and the compass movements or iron filing patterns is the effect. Thor explains how he shielded his apparatus from all known outside influences. But, in particular, he threw the electric switch to the batteries 100 times and each time he did this the compass needles moved and formed the approximately circular paths. Then when the current was stopped the needles returned to their previous positions. After a long discussion Thor stated: (A) "I just can't think of any other possible reason for the effect than the current through the wire." His colleagues agreed that it was "obvious" or "self-evident" or even "logical," from the switch throwing aspect of his experiment, that the current passing through the wire, whatever it may be, is the cause for the effect. Moreover, many members of his audience knew that they could perform the same experiment, they could personally examine the assumed cause directly and, from their scholarly achievements, they would conclude, without further thought, that the current is the cause. The scientists congratulated Thor for he had discovered a "Law of Nature.''
Of course, what I've just described uses sentences from a specific discipline language to which most of us have been exposed. And I'm assuming that this description is not meaningless to you but has significant content. Indeed, you may have actually repeated an experiment somewhat similar to that of Thor's. Then again, you may simply assume that someone somewhere is repeating such an experiment to determine whether or not the exact effect continues to occur and the same relation between the measured quantities that Thor discovered, many years ago, still holds true today.
Let's begin an analysis of the mental processes Thor, his colleagues and all scientists use. The above discipline language description for an experiment is an operational description. It tells the story as it happened, or should I say, as it's perceived by human or machine senses. Thor makes measurements, and by a set of tables, demonstrates a relation between such measurements. Nothing more significant seems to be going on. This operational approach was the very fabric of the scientific method until the late 19th century.
However, this operational approach does require one to accept a statement such as (A), a statement about the ability of human beings to describe or to logically deduce "other possibilities." Further, these scientists appear to use a mental process that immediately convinces each of them that the current [the assumed cause] produces the compass and iron filing movements [the assumed effects]. What is done is that certain written statements are simply accepted by one group of scientists and within these statements certain other statements are accepted as identifying the cause while others are accepted as identifying the effects. Of course, all of these word forms have content which is relative to an individual's experience, belief-system or even his personal associates. Let's call this mental process a self-evident mental process. Now in particular, a specific self-evident mental process that states that a certain described part of an experiment is the cause, while other described parts are the effects, is called the cause and effect pattern of human thought.
Within science, there are thousands of such self-evident cause and effect statements; and I can't write them all down for you. However, I can abbreviate the general mental process. This mental process corresponds to the concept of a "cause " somehow or other "producing" the "effects," where the symbols strings that describe the "cause" and those that describe the "effects" are supposed to correspond to actual physical events. In pattern form, simply consider a "cause and effect" pattern of thinking as
Thus, if I give you an accepted cause, written as a string of symbols, and an assumed effect, written as a string of symbols, you could substitute these strings of symbols into the (CE) pattern and it should have meaning to you and the scientific community.
Before proceeding, let's discuss something that may not appear obvious to you. In the case of Thor's experiments, he corresponds the descriptions to, what are for him, real events happening outside of his brain, in the outside world - events that he can personally perceive.
The concept of "produces" takes on a dual meaning. (i) From a symbol string or language point of view, you have one set of symbols, called the cause, followed by the word "produces," then followed immediately by another set of symbols, the effect(s).
(ii) From the physical point of view, you have one real physical phenomenon, somehow or other, physically yielding another physical phenomenon.
These dual characteristics associated with scientific communication are very significant. On the one hand, you have strings of symbols related by the string of symbols "produces." For a particular laboratory experiment, you also have real phenomena that are denoted by strings of symbols and that are related in that it is assumed that you can't have one without the other taking place.
It appears that the human mind has a peculiar property. In everyday experiences, and probably due to our intuitive sense of time, our mind seems more comfortable with a "flowing" cause and effect concept. In the Thor type of experiment, this leads to questions dealing with causes and their effects over distances. For the Thor experiment, this is the idea of forces acting-at-a-distance. One can easily look at the concentrate circles made by the iron filings and believe that something - some force - has drawn them into this pattern. Further, viewing the compasses one might believe that some force is holding them in such a way to form approximately circular patterns.
When a scientific language is constructed, you can use it to ask questions. When questions are asked about some experiment and there doesn't seem to be terms or combination of terms from the language that can answer these questions, then what does a scientist do? Scientists can simply leave the question unanswered, as I will demonstrate to you, or they can invent new terms that correspond to new ideas - ideas that may calm some troubled minds.
Experiments such as those conducted by Thor were conducted by Faraday. Rather than simply accepting a stated cause and effect statement, Faraday needed to adjoin an additional concept to this type of experiment - a concept which might make one aspect of this experiment more comprehensible to his mind although this added concept need not be true in reality. Faraday asked a question. How does the electric wire communicate with the iron filings? Indeed, even without the iron filings or compasses, is there something "flowing" from the wire when the current is applied?
In his 1852 paper, "On the Physical Character of the Lines of Magnetic Force," Faraday discusses methods that, he claims, can be used to establish the existence of something that is invisible to human perception and that is flowing from the cause and produces the effects. These methods can be found beginning on page 403 at the journal section number 3246. First, Faraday discusses a problem with respect to gravity.
"There is one question in relation to gravity, which, if we could ascertain or touch it, would greatly enlighten us. It is, whether gravitation requires time. If it did, it would show undeniably that a physical agency existed in the course of the line of force."
What Faraday did is to create another self-evident type statement. It isn't based upon any experiment, but it's accepted as a basic principle that leads to a "Law of Nature." The general principle is as follows:
(1) If there is a time delay between the application of the cause and the produced effect, then there undeniably exists, in reality, a physical something that propagates or passes from the cause in order to produce the effect.The basic reason that (1) is accepted by many scientists working in this subject area is the belief that they can't describe or imagine or conceive of any other possibility and that they should be able to answer such questions. More significant is the word "undeniably" as used by Faraday and in (1). How could anyone argue against such a statement if it is "undeniable." If you wanted to be accepted by the scientific community or not be considered as mentally defective, it might be unwise to argue against either Faraday's pronouncement or the general principle (1).
However, not all scientists believe that statement (1) applies to all phenomenon. Indeed, it isn't accepted by those scientists that believe in the model called simultaneous far-action or what is also called action-at-a-distance. To action-at-a-distance scientists, the time delay need not indicate that there is anything "between" or anything that passes from the cause and produces the effect in the current-iron filings experiment. Simply because an experiment might upset our comprehension or question answering ability is not significant to this group. They simply do not accept the so-called self-evident statement (1) for certain experimental scenarios. To action-at-a-distance scientists such as Newton, Ampere, Neumann, a cause simultaneously (i.e. instantaneously) produces an effect even across vast distances and no other more fundamental considerations would need to be given to this basic Law of Nature. If there is a time delay, then this aspect is explained as either a part of the cause or a part of the effect. I mention that, today, there are still scientists that accept, partially or wholly, the philosophy of action-at-a-distance effects and that the concept of action-at-a-distance predicts more accurately some of the effects produced by electric currents. Simply because they do not accept principle (1) are they any less scientific in their endeavors? Also no experiment has convincingly shown that there is a time delay in gravitational effects although the General Theory Relativity claims that such a delay does hold.
In his 1852 paper, Faraday mentions many "self-evident" assumptions that are accepted by his colleagues for the exact reasons that (1) is accepted. Here's one more example.
(2) If a shield of some sort can be erected between the cause and what would be the accepted effect so that the cause no longer yields the effect, then there exists, in reality, a physical something that propagates or passes from the cause in order to produce the effect.Once again action-at-a-distance scientists do not accept (2) as self-evident but state that the only correct statement is that the experiment has been altered and that natural law precludes the effect from occurring.
Faraday's method of actually pointing out that a statement is to be accepted as self-evident is distinctly different from how such statements are forced upon us today. What might happen in a undergraduate physics laboratory? For a Thor type experiment, the instructor places a sheet of material between the wire and the compasses, throws the switch and the compasses don't move. He removes the sheet and throws the switch and the compasses move. He says, "You see. There must be something passing from the wire to the compasses." He is your instructor. He knows best. Further, he has used the word "must" and you are forced to agree with him without further thought although there are other unmentioned "self-evident" possibilities. When I took such an undergraduate physics course, I was not informed that such statements are not accepted by all of the scientific community.
When Einstein first considered the concept of the photon, it was an imaginary entity used to model energy transfer. But now we are told that this entity exists in reality. Indeed, what has happened is that all action-at-a-distance concepts have been replaced by the majority of scientists with the contact concept and the flowing cause and effect. Why? Because it's more pleasing to human comprehension, I suppose. An object (E) "emits" a photon and after passing through space the photon touches or comes near to an object (F) and is "absorbed" by (F). Since contact appears to be more pleasing to human comprehension, then that must be how nature does it. The behavior of nature must follow pleasing scientific imagery, must it not? But, don't ask the following question. "Please explain to me in detail how object (E) emits the photon and how does object (F) absorb it?" You'll either be told not to ask such a question, or that emission and absorption are basic fundamental laws of nature and should not be further analyzed. But which is the fundamental law of nature, action-at-a-distance, or contact and emission-absorption?
Is there a possible reason why, for certain very fundamental physical behaviors, the human mind accepts a set of such Faraday inspired or physics instructor required self-evident statements as true in reality without much argument? I do have an explanation for such mental behavior. The mind appears to compare the given cause and the given event, that is claimed to be related by some immaterial invisible "stuff," with human experience associated with similar causes and similar effects that are connected by material and mentally conceivable objects. We can "see" the bat strike a ball. The ball strike and knock down the pitcher. The ball is the material stuff that has connected the cause and the effect. Thus, I believe, for certain fundamental causes and effects we tend to force upon the invisible world, that can't be perceived, the same general patterns from the world we can perceive. A principle has been forced upon a portion of nature. This philosophy implies that nature must follow patterns that are comprehensible by the human mind.
Then there is the small to large and growth-over-time concepts. The philosophy of reductionism claims that all things are composed of "small" invisible things. These "small" invisible things are combined together, or grow, into "large" things that may or may not be visible. Although scientists have not directly observed how all of the material objects in the universe are formed, they do observe such growth within our local environment. Thus scientists once again use everyday observations to force upon the invisible world this growth from "small things" concept. Reductionists claim that they will eventually demonstrate that there is a fundamental collection of these invisible things from which all entities within our universe are formed. Please don't ask the following question. "Are you sure that object (E) is a fundamental building block of our universe? Isn't it possible that (E) is actually composed of entities that are more fundamental?" You see there are theories or models that use the language of these fundamental entities and scientists are able to predict for specific experimental scenarios how perceivable meters and counters will behave under the assumption that these fundamental entities exist in reality and behave as stated. Isn't it self-evident that these invisible objects must exist in reality? You'll learn later that the answer to this question is NO since there are other models using a different language that predict the exact same behavior and do not require these fundamental entitles to exist in reality [21-23].
By the why, in contrast to the idea of abrupt or sudden appearance of biological life, the self-evident growth-over-time concept is the driving force behind evolution. In the following Oparin quotation, please observe his use of the word "only" and the phrase "must have."
"Engels shows that a consistent materialistic philosophy can follow only a single path in the attempt to solve the problem of the origin of life. Life has neither arisen spontaneously nor has it existed eternally. It must have, therefore, resulted from a long evolution of matter, its origin merely one step in the course of its historical development." [41, p. 33.]
The Engels idea is taken to mean that life started as some one small "thing" from which everything else grew. Of course, should we trust this Engels' philosophy since we now know how many have rejected the Marx-Engels political philosophy? Then, relative to the sudden appearance of life, there is another claimed self-evident statement by the eminent scientist Harlow Shapley. He claims that it's "obvious" that the notion of sudden appearance of biological life is "irrational"[42, Foreword]. I'll be kind and suppose that Shapley means irrational scientifically. But, if you're a scientist, could you reject Shapley's statement?
It's interesting to note that self-evident statements accepted by thousands may be shown later to be false. As an example, simply consider what Aristotle wrote, apparently about 350 BC, relative to velocities, where such words as "obviously" indicate a self-evident statement.
"Obviously, four horses move a carriage with a velocity four times larger than one horse." I have mentioned the rejection of certain self-evident statements by the action-at-a-distance scientists, but did you know that other scientists such as Simhony , Essen , and many others, do not accept some of the self-evident energy statements required to interpret Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity? And if you investigate the matter more fully, you'll discover that Einstein's Special Theory is often not accepted because of its philosophical implications. Your acceptance of certain "obvious" self-evident statements will allow you, at least, to associate with a scientific group. But such statements can be contrary to your personal philosophy.
Now from our illustration, we have are two distinct groups of scientists that accept different collections of self-evident statements. The action-at-a-distance scientists actually use the same cause and effects statements as does the Thor group. But they differ in their acceptance of other so-called auxiliary self-evident statements. There is, however, a third group of scientists that do not even accept all of the same cause and effect statements. This third group associates another cause, they call subparticles, with the effects in Thor's experiment, a cause that instantaneously produces the effects. These three groups of scientists create things called theories and use common scientific thought processes to predict the effects that should be observed in many laboratory experiments.
Now each of the above three groups of scientists do have other aspects of their craft in common. Each group uses the exact same rules for laboratory experimentation. They set up their experiments and verification procedures in the exact same way. They use the exact same machines to gather data - numbers on scales, positions of pointers on gages, photographs and the like. Each group even expresses the data in the exact same written manner. And more startling is the fact that for each group all of the laboratory verified predictions are the same. This tells us that there is no scientific way to tell which group of scientists is correct in their selection of self-evident statements.
Basic to these groups is the method used to predict. How do they do this and is this method the same in all cases? It's important that you know something about this common scientific method so that you can judge for yourself whether or not a group of individuals is indeed "scientific" in their deliberations.
Various questions came to Faraday's mind. Is it proper for scientists to speculate upon (i.e. guess at) the real existence of something that cannot be perceived by human senses? Is there another "scientific" means that can be used to determine that something invisible exists? Does it make sense to describe in accepted scientific terminology the properties of something that may be emanating from Thor's wire and moving forth even without the presence of the iron filings or compasses? Does Faraday consider such guesses as scientific? So as not to deprive you of the facts, I quote from the very paper where Faraday introduced such a speculation.
In a note as part of the first paragraph of his 1852 paper, Faraday writes:
"The following paper contains so much of a speculative and hypothetical nature, that I have thought it more fitting for the pages of the Philosophical Magazine than those of the Philosophical Transactions."As to the significance of his guesses, Faraday states in the body of the paper itself:
". . . It is not to be supposed for a moment that speculations of this kind are useless, or necessarily hurtful, in natural philosophy. They should ever be held as doubtful, and liable to error and to change; but they are wonderful aids in the hands of the experimentalist and mathematician; . . . .Faraday emphases, by illustration, this new philosophy of science as it is applied to such concepts as the emission or undulation of light. He further writes:
"Such considerations form my excuse for entering now and then upon speculations; but though I value them highly when cautiously advanced, I consider it as an essential character of a sound mind to hold them in doubt; scarcely giving them the character of opinions, but esteeming them merely as probabilities and possibilities, and making a very broad distinction between them and the fact and laws of nature."In the above quotations, I've added the underlines to bring out a few forgotten aspects of Faraday's speculations.
Faraday didn't consider such speculations as scientific so he didn't discuss then in a scientific journal. But what happened at few years latter? In 1864, Maxwell raised the status of speculation to a scientific process when he published his paper on a possible electromagnetic field in the Royal Society Transations . In the first part of this paper, Maxwell listed a set of properties that he claimed should hold for an invisible medium - a substance - that would fill all of space, including all material objects. This medium would be the stuff that transferred the effects of a current to other material objects and it would do this throughout all of the universe. Thus the current in Thor's experiment would effect the medium, the medium effect would move throughout space and become a cause for the iron filing and compass effects. One should not ask any question about the "stuff" of which the medium might be composed. Just accept that it exists and has the indicated properties.
One of the great difficulties in imagining such a medium is in the list of properties that you choose. You can be very general in describing the properties or you could be more specific and think of the medium as you would a body of water. Although Maxwell knew that if he was specific in his description, one might predict other medium properties that would contradict other accepted laboratory results, he continued throughout his "scientific" papers to assume that this stuff exists.
How does this process of speculation and theory construction work? Does the process actually establish the existence of invisible things? Are there nonobvious hidden concepts that must also be assumed? Recall the cause and effect (CE) pattern. As with the Maxwell illustration, what was an effect can also be considered a cause of another effect, and you can have millions of self-evident cause and effect statements that can be strung together in a chain so that the first cause in the chain leads to the last effect listed in the chain. But what is actually being done to arrive at this last "effect" is related entirely to how the human mind functions and an assumed relation between these mental processes and natural processes exterior to the mind.
There are certain laws and procedures that come down to us from Aristotle and others as to how we should put strings of symbols together and arrive at another string of symbols. These are called the laws of human logic. These laws correspond to our everyday experiences where strings of symbols are used to describe those natural events that are perceived by our five senses. These logical laws are also those accepted by the majority of humanity as the proper way "to think" since these logical laws are used to communicate and even construct the material things we use in everyday life. If we can't perceive a natural event, we simply assume that the same logical laws hold. However, the laws of human logic are more general in character and can be applied to any string of symbols not just a string that appears to describe a natural event. It is the pen and paper process - a game to some - of writing down strings of symbols and combining them together by use of certain accepted laws of human logic that yields a scientific theory.
Let's discuss one of the simplest accepted patterns for human thought as applied to strings of symbols. Since this law of logic applies to any string of symbols, I probably shouldn't write done a specific string of symbols to illustrate this pattern of human thought. This pattern will work for whatever string you choose. So, to simplify matters, let the bold face symbols X, Y, and Z denote any written statements (i.e. any written string of symbols). Now consider a new string of symbols which is expressed explicitly as follows:
where the concept of "implies" is intuitively obtained by considering its properties as expressed by the laws of human logic. The idea of intuitively understanding a new explicitly expressed string of symbols should not be new to you if you ever had a class in high school geometry. After all, to what does a straight line correspond? It is anything to which the properties stated in a geometry text for a "line" can be associated.
Now one of the most basic properties for "implies" is illustrated by the following set of directions. Write down a set of statements:
The laws of human logic now allow you to write down the statement
(You can sort of erase the Y.)
In order to apply this "implies" pattern to a chain of cause and effect statements, simply replace the word "produces" with the symbol string "implies." It is the idea of corresponding a logical pattern to physical processes that produces a physical theory.
A physical theory begins with a string of symbols called an hypothesis that is written in terms taken from a specific scientific language. If the hypothesis relates things that are invisible to human perception or things that might have happened in the past or may happen in the future, indeed, physical things that can't be directly demonstrated using the laws of laboratory experimentation, then the hypothesis is speculation. An example of such an hypothesis is that there exists a Maxwell type medium with all its defining properties. Suppose that I abbreviate the actual set of symbols for such an hypothesis by the bold letter H.
Theoretical scientists using a common set of logical laws now take H, apply hundreds of self-evident statements, many other accepted logical conclusions obtained from other hypotheses and these laws of logic and arrive at a deduced conclusion called a prediction. Let's abbreviate the symbol string that describes a prediction by the bold letter P. This gives the following logical speculation pattern denoted by (S).
Can one now substitute for the expression "implies logically" in (S) the physical idea of "produces"? Scientists assume that you can make such a substitution, especially if a laboratory experiment can be set up to verify that statement P holds true within your laboratory. Does this application of human logic prove that statement H holds true? The scientific community with its use of the positive language technique would lead you to believe that the answer to this last question is yes. In reality, it's a fundamental property of basic human logic that statement H can't be shown to hold true using this process unless certain highly dubious assumptions also hold true.
The theoretical deductions applied by Maxwell and those of the great theoretical scientists of today must be based upon certain vital processes and assumptions - assumptions that can't be proved, but must be accepted. Some of the assumptions are:
(1) All of the descriptions used in the (S) process must come from the same discipline language. For the logical processes to be applied, all of the terms that appear in H and the P's must be part of this discipline language.
(2) Only certain human deductive processes are to be applied and no other logical patterns must enter into the deduction.
(3) To accept that a statement such as H holds in reality you would need to assume that
(i) there is no other possible scientific H type description from which the prediction P can be deduced,
(ii) there is no other scientific language in which to write such an H type description and from which the P can be deduced,
(iii) nature only follows patterns that are similar to those produced by human thought (i.e. implies logically= produces),
(iv) everything that exists in reality is describable in a human language and
(v) all scientists accept the same self-evident statements.
In 1852, few scientists would advocate acceptance of any of the five positions stated in (3). This is way Faraday presented his speculations in a philosophy journal rather than a scientific journal.
An important reminder. You must take great care when reading anything based upon an (S) type sequence. The term "physical" and the other terms used in such discussions in the early years of scientific speculation did not include the concept of real existence. A physical description is a description that uses a special language called a "physical language." Whether or not such entities exist in reality is another question requiring addition analysis. In most modern scientific writing, the distinction between these two concepts appears to be purposely omitted - an omission which often leads one to believe that existence is always being affirmed.
The speculation process (S) illustrated in the last section was not a significant scientific procedure until recent times. Today, a major portion of what is termed as research is the activity of producing millions of pages of speculative descriptions. You need a few more facts about such endeavors so that you can safeguard yourself from the often devastating effects of such speculation.
Consider the following illustration. Suppose that you have a very special gigantic computer - the logic computer. This machine is programmed to accept statements from a discipline language that are written in accordance with a specific and strict set of linguistic rules. The logic computer program then takes these very formal statements and applies the accepted rules of human (logical) deduction to them. Of course, these rules for human deduction are also described in a discipline language.
Now, you input into your logic computer some hypotheses, hundreds of self-evident statements and the like and watch the output being typed from your printer. Since you have given your logic computer one or more H type statements, the total output that the machine can possibly print is called a theory. A theory is written in the same discipline language as that of the inputted statements. Technically, a theory is the set of written statements themselves and nothing more. Then, depending upon what statements you have originally used, the theory is given a name.
Of course, the (S) type pattern relies upon the hypothetical or supposed or assumed or conjectural statements (the H statements) from which the theory is deduced. Only certain theory associated experiments can be conducted within a laboratory setting. These are those associated with the predictions P being written by your logic computer. Based upon what a scientific discipline considers to be truth, the required rules of laboratory verification and what you perceive as reality, you set up these experiments and verify that these predictions are physically true within your laboratory setting. Since you have used an (S) type pattern, then scientists say that the original hypothetical H statement has been indirectly verified.
"Indirect" is an interesting term that scientists have used over the years, and it's one way they use to distort the truth and control your ability to think. Just forget to put the "in" before "directly" or, more usually, forget the term "indirectly" completely, and you would logically deduce something not true. The newspaper article I certainly omits this term; for, I suppose, the editor assumed that you're not intelligent enough to understand its use.
Take, as an explicit example, the microscopic world of the various theories called Quantum Theories. Now, I'm not going to bore you with a lot of quotes from hundreds of individuals that all say the same thing. In all cases, one is sufficient.
". . . properties of the ultimate elements are only to be inferred indirectly from observations of gross matter." [39, p. 23]
After stating this fact, Temple never states it again; and it is forgotten not only by the science writers but by the experimenters as well.
Today, science has an ultimate subatomic object called a string. I can conceive of a string. However, I can't personally perceive of its existence. It is, to me, speculation. Is the new concept of the physical string THE ultimate subatomic object? Or is the subparticle or infant THE ultimate object? In any case, to me, such terms are pure speculation, in spite of the fact that I concocted two of them. Those individuals who have spent their entire professional lives creating the theory of quarks may believe that they exist in reality. Although they can have no direct knowledge that quarks exist in reality and, indeed, quarks could just be an imaginary construction that helps with quantum book keeping, if quarks did not exist in reality and subparticles are selected as the ultimate object, then the mountains of paper work on quark theory would be worthless to the scientific community. Of course, it wouldn't worthless to those that created quark theory since they were paid very well to produce it.
In section 2.2 of this chapter, I discussed three groups of scientists. Suppose that each of these groups uses the same allowed logical processes, the same laboratory verification processes and each creates its own theory. Further suppose that each theory satisfies various technical aspects for theory writing. The Thor group predicts 101 results that are verified in the laboratory. The action-at-a-distance group predicts 110 results that are verified in the laboratory. The subparticle group predicts 1000 results that are verified. Prior to the modern attempts that tend to force you to accept certain theories, most scientists would have selected the third theory as the best possibility among the three for it predicts more verified results. But what if all three of these theories not only predict the same number of verified results today but continue to predict the exact same number of verified results, now which one would your select?
Is it not self-evident that, in the above case, the theory selection process would depend upon circumstances exterior to the scientific method, say political, economical or philosophical circumstances? If you only had these three theories from which to choose, then, under assumption (3) extended to three hypotheses, you do have a definite probably that one or the other is the correct theory. A one-third chance for success is a very good chance, is it not?
But the news media, most of our scientific organizations and our educational system are preventing many individuals from having any choice at all. As if the incorrect use of positive statements is not enough of a tactic, there is yet another very insidious one.
The news media, most scientific organizations and most of our educators do not inform you that other scientifically acceptable theories exist - theories that predict the same results.They is a situation, however, where you would have no mathematical chance of selecting a correct theory. In this situation, all selected theories would yield no ultimate scientific truth, all selected theories would be scientifically worthless. This does not mean that a selected theory would be worthless philosophically. But you can't use the magic word "science" to uphold your choice.
It seems that I have a piece of knowledge that you don't have as yet. Indeed, shortly, you'll be shown that if you include in your theory an assumed hypothesis H that claims that something has occurred in the far past or that something will occur in the far future, then there is always another possibility. In other words, statements from section 2.3 such as 3(i) that there is no other possible scientific H description or 3(ii) that there is no other scientific language in which to write such an H type description so that the logic computer will give the exact same laboratory verified prediction P, are false. If there is always another possibility that determines the exact same indirectly verified consequences, then what is the "truth" ? Let me repeat what I've written above in a slightly different manner.
Not stating truthfully the existence of other hypotheses or the reasons you are being "forced" to accept, due to the lack of information, one hypothesis over another is a second method being used to control your mind.
The previous sections provide a prototype or illustration of some of the most foundational aspects of how human ability enters into the scientific method. You have descriptions with sufficient content that they allow a group of scientists to agree that something is self-evident, at least to them. Then there is the acceptance of what is a cause and what is an effect, simply because one might not be able to think of any other possibility, though some other possibility could exist. Science functions on what is claimed to be self-evident facts which require no verification of any form. The (CE) and the (S) mental processes appear to be indispensable. What one selects as causes and effects (CE) or as hypotheses H may be controversial, at times, and not appreciated by others; but such selections should not be viewed as unscientific. What might occur is that the two scientific groups can't mix together their (CE) and H statements and apply certain reasoning processes. I'll consider these conditions and outcomes later. But, for the moment, let's continue with what appears to be a general underlying attribute of the scientific method.
From Nobel prize winner Louis deBroglie, we have the statement:
". . . the structure of the material universe has something in common with the laws that govern the workings of the human mind." [4, p. 143]Then from the viewpoint not of a scientist but a philosopher, C. S. Lewis writes:
". . . that events in the remotest parts of space appear to obey the laws of rational thought . . . . According to it what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is anything else we know." What one can gather from these quotations is actually very obvious from our previous discussion. Science describes those behavioral aspects of Nature that are comprehensible to the human mind. Scientists use human mental processes and languages to investigate how those portions of Nature, that we perceive, change in time (i.e. how Nature develops or evolves). They try to find relations between measured quantities; and investigate a vast array of other processes that are attributed to "Nature." (I use from this moment on the capital N to distinguish the content of this term from its other uses.)
Thus the behavior of certain Natural mechanisms is being mirrored or "modeled" by the patterns of human mental processes.This is what makes it possible for scientists to predict, using human mental processes, the outcomes of experiments or the approximate future course of certain events. This also leads to a much bigger philosophical question which impinges upon the mind controlling influences deliberately fostered by various scientists and their associates.
Noble prize winning Max Planck wrote in 1932:
"Nature does not allow herself to be exhaustively expressed in human thought." Consequently, to Planck, the modeling of Nature by human thought is only partial and not complete. He claims that mankind can only comprehend and describe a portion of the true attributes of Nature. On the other hand, consider what happened on Public Television on April 17, 1983, at 8 P. M., and at many other times, when Carl Sagan introduced his description of how our universe functions. As to the "Cosmos" series Sagan says that this is:
Apparently, using the great strength of the authority syndrome, Sagan instructs you to reject Planck's philosophy which limits human mental abilities and accept, without question, our ability to know "all there is, or ever was, or ever will be." Whatever your position may be relative to this Sagan described philosophy, such philosophy is one characteristic of those who wish to control your mind and restrict your freedom of choice. Very shortly now, I'll be able to explain exactly how my fundamental research results prove that the "all there is, or ever was, or ever will be" philosophy, a philosophy that forms a significant portion of the concept of scientism is a lie. Please notice that such a "Cosmos" philosophy accepts, from the previous section 2.3, statements 3(iii) "Nature only follows patterns that are similar to those produced by human thought," and 3(iv) "everything that exists in reality is describable in a human language."
If you're interested in the concept of alien life forms, if, and I repeat that, if such things exist, then the philosophy of human Nature has an interesting side light. Assume that such creatures were able to comprehend Natural behavior and use their knowledge of such behavior to communicate with mankind. Since human mental concepts and descriptive techniques could, under assumptions 3(iii) and 3(iv), be used as a complete model for Natural behavior, these creatures' mental abilities would necessarily parallel those of mankind. They would not, in this case, be as alien to us as one might believe.
Of course, I have speculated upon the existence of such creatures and this speculation brings us to the final section of this chapter. You just have this one more section to read and reflect upon before I can present some of those "startling " findings that definitely show how your mind is being controlled.
When I was a child and someone called me a nasty name, my mother would say: "Bobby, sticks and stones will break your bones; but names will never hurt you." My mother meant well. However, this unfortunate myth isn't true. My experience has shown that some of the most difficult hurts to cure are the psychological hurts caused by the use of the spoken or written word. Notwithstanding this, there is another method used for thousands of years that doesn't reveal a nasty intent; but it will just as easily destroy you both mentally and physically. Scholars couldn't completely describe why this method could be so devastating to your well-being until within the past 100 years. In this last section of this chapter, I'll describe this method explicitly and demonstrate some of its destructive results.
Let's return to the logic computer. You input into your computer two descriptions, two strings of symbols, that I denote by D and E and that deal with automobile traffic control. These need not be hypotheses; they can be any descriptions. The computer follows its program and prints out the following two statements.
When the traffic light is red you do not bring your car to a stop. When the traffic light is red you bring your car to a stop.From your hospital bed, you argue with the investigating police officer that your logic computer wrote that you didn't need to stop. You also tell the officer that your computer indicated you were to stop and you simply chose the first printed statement. The officer refers you to a computer repair establishment (a mental institution?) for further evaluation. It's believed that your computer has an internal electronic problem that badly needs correction. However, the computer passes all of the diagnostic tests; and when you use some other set of statements, the output is not as strange.
Logicians now know that the problem is with the combination of the two descriptions D and E. The two statements in the printout are said to form a contradiction. When this occurs, the combination of the D and E is often said to be inconsistent. To the human mind, the human logic computer, such contradictory statements are worthless, usually; but, more certainly, they are dangerous to your mental well-being. They say opposite things. You can't do one without disobeying the other. You are caught in a quandary. You don't know which one to choose. Your mind will start to object and rebel. If you continue to use inconsistent statements such as D and E, then your mind is capable of logically producing any statement using the language it understands, no matter how destructive such a statement may be to you and others. In order to save yourself, you are forced to reject, at least, one of the descriptions D or E.
If a contradiction does not occur immediately, this isn't an indication that your description is consistent. Even in some of the most simplistic cases, there appears to be no test that can be applied to a description, prior to its being inserted into the logic computer, that will determine beforehand whether or not the description is consistent. You must just wait around to see if a contradiction appears on the printout. This is one of the significant ways used to control your mind and limit your freedom of choice. Either a combined description yields a contradiction or some authority simply claims that what you have done is irrational.
How has modern science used this inconsistency process to force you to reject a personal philosophy? Suppose that you have a three-ring binder filled with 122 page dissertation for your Ph.D. degree in physics. This dissertation develops a new theory and yields numerous predictions. Well, guess what happens? Your mentor, your dissertation advisor, reads your predictions and claims that for some reason you have made errors, that there must be an inconsistency in your hypotheses. For this reason, he claims that the predictions could never be verified by laboratory experimentation. Now your mentor can't find your errors but he "knows" that they are there some place.
You spend two months checking every calculation and can find no errors. The logical patterns are to you perfectly rational, you can comprehend them all. But you will not get your Ph. D. until your mentor states by signing the cover page to your dissertation that your work appears to be correct. Then you discuss the matter over coffee at your mentors home. Suddenly you realize that the actual hypotheses you have used have a content that overlaps with yours and your mentor's personal philosophy. These hypotheses actually contradict the content of your mentor's mind-set but they do not contradict yours. Your mentor can't possibly comprehend what you have accomplished due to his closed mind.
Now what do you do? You've been in graduate school for what seems to be a lifetime. On the other hand, you were taught your personal philosophies, those that are inconsistent with those of your mentor, by your kindly, loving mother. Would she lie to you? You must now make a profound choice to either not get your Ph. D. or alter your research to conform to the personal philosophy of your mentor. Of course, this is only an illustration, it couldn't occur in the scholarly world, could it?
In the next chapter, I'll give you a few examples where by clever omissions and linguistic techniques many of you are actually being forced to accept certain scientific theories that will contradict the content of your personal philosophy, although noncontradictory theories exist. Indeed, the so-called scientific theories that you're being forced to accept will later be shown to have no scientific truth value.