Welcome to another Still in the Storm Substack post. Today, I want to clear up a few things about science. Many of you are probably aware of what I’m about to say, but I think repetition is good. After all, we do not have the leisure of resting on our laurels for even one second.
Great post, Mike. I began telling my friends and students just what you said here back in early 2020. When you hear someone say “the science is settled,” run the other way. That person intends to do you harm. Not only that, but Satan uses twisted language like that to enslave us. I’d very much like you to look at my publication “Health in the Name.”
Excellent post - and it's always important to remind ourselves about what science is - and what it isn't.
Let's get a couple of minor quibbles out of the way first.
No, 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. If you're working with addition modulo 3, for example, then 2 + 2 = 1. However, (and this is a very important however), 2 + 2 **always** equals 4 when we're talking about this plus symbol + meaning 'standard' addition (with 2 and 4 and = having the usual meanings). Just as it **always** equals 1 when we're talking about this plus symbol meaning addition modulo 3. Once you've specified the meanings of **each** symbol and operation there's no room for manoeuvre.
The issue with the 'woke' drivel when it comes to maths is that they imply there's a kind of subjectivity - when there's none at all.
Secondly, I would suggest that science IS the only way of knowing about our physical world - which as, you rightly point out, does not mean that things like poetry, spirituality, philosophy etc are worthless. Our lives are much more than the sum of all the physical interactions going on between the atoms and molecules that make us up.
There's no such thing as an "indigenous" way of knowing about the properties of an electron, for example. There's no philosophical structure that will change the amount of charge it has, or the force it exerts on another electron.
Although I have more or less retired these days, my previous career was as a theoretical physicist, and it's from within physics we get the oft-quoted "examples" of things like Newton vs relativity, or Newton vs Quantum Mechanics etc. In my view it is incorrect to suggest that Newton (the old 'classical' picture) got it wrong. What we actually see is more of a refinement - how the old classical view sits within a much larger framework.
In some respects science CAN be settled - but it's in a negative, rather than positive, sense. We know, for example, that the Galilean transformation is not fully correct (it's a good approximation when dealing with the mechanics of objects travelling much slower than light). We know this because it can predict the wrong results for experiments. There's never going to be a time, from now on, where the Galilean transformation becomes the correct one (in all cases) - because it just doesn't predict the right results. The science IS 'settled' on that score.
Similarly in quantum mechanics, we have Bell's result which tells us that NO locally realistic theory of physics can reproduce all of the results of quantum mechanics. So if there's an experiment we can do which verifies this quantum result (and there are such experiments) we can say with certainty that the results of these experiments CANNOT be explained by a locally realistic theory. Once again, the science is settled on that.
Science, or rather the scientific method, is all about one very simple idea : if your theory doesn't work, change the theory
Most of the time we're not faced with this - most experiments are not 'falsification' experiments where the very tenets of current scientific thinking are being challenged. They tend to be things like "the theory predicts that this new antenna design will work better than the old one - let's build it and see". Sometimes, very rarely, in the course of that kind of experiment you're going to throw up an interesting result that can't be explained - and then you have to go back to the theory and see if it needs tinkering with. Usually it will be a case that there's some variable or effect you've neglected.
It's exceedingly rare that we're faced with a situation where everything has to be fundamentally re-written (or shown to be part of a larger theory like classical theories were shown to be part of larger theories like relativity or quantum mechanics).
Physics, however, is something of a special case. There's a limited set of laws whose consequences can be properly worked out, at least in principle. This convenient 'simplicity' does not carry over to things like biology or medical science - the systems one is dealing with there are hugely, hugely, more complex than those we typically examine in physics. We might use a bit of physics to understand how some protein folds, for example, but this protein in the body sits within an extraordinarily complex system full of all sorts of interactions and feedback mechanisms.
We don't even properly know what consciousness is, for example, but doctors are utterly convinced (or project that confidence) that some specific drug will be good for us - and yet at the same time recognise that there's a relationship between our state of mind (which we do not understand) and our health. It's one thing to be certain about the charge on an electron - quite another to be certain about the effects of a particular drug or vaccine.
It's always good to question - even the basics - because that process IS science; it's implicit in the scientific method. Theories (ideas) are challenged by the 'questions' posed by experiments. In broad terms, Popper's way of viewing this is the right one, I think. We can reject bad ideas (by experiment) - so we can 'settle' on that rejection, but we can never say that the ideas which pass an experimental test are "correct". Merely that they have, so far, passed all the experimental tests they've been subjected to.
There are those who attach themselves to a particular set of beliefs, and then attach their status to the status of those beliefs. Their ego then demands that they defend those beliefs by every and any means they can, as its very survival depends upon it. And when faith in a higher Power has been usurped by these ego driven beliefs, there is no room for faith in something greater than ourselves, and that is a very dangerous place to go. Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, the list goes on.
«The new monarchy must increasingly rely on the advice of monks till in the end the kings become merely the cardinals' puppets.»
When you think of it, [organized] religion itself followed a similar trajectory to some extent – from search for truth, to consensus-making ecumenical councils, to political puppeteering.
Spirituality is important with science it helps us to evaluate the information being processed. I have a sister who is into scientism and I have been feeding her nuggets I'm not sure I can get through to her and am not really going to harp on it, no matter how much I love her I cannot change the programming she has been subjected to, but on a good note she does look into the information I give to her. I think you are spot on with your evaluation of science keep it going.
Spot on. Even ignoring the spiritual dimension (which you know I don’t do), science demands some level of skepticism and supporting data. As my old high school chemistry teacher used to say, “When the data doesn’t fit with your theory, your theory is wrong.” If science was just settled, Newtonian physics would be enough and Einstein would have died a patent clerk, not a Nobel laureate.
Science is another name for questions and genuine inquiry
However if left in other hands and not our own, we default to other’s knowledge
Just like politics, everyone must re-engage with science
Science is our responsibility
So much settled science is NOT - instead it’s sitting upon unquestioned assumptions and peer protected theories
Indoctrinated in our schooled daze
Put your science on, pull at the foundational threads and find the established frauds
It’s time science came back to the kitchen table
For instance
Water is not H2O
This fundamental change in knowing has retarded science and medicine
Just need to think
How does two dry gases produce a liquid that puts out a fire that both the gases would fan. Suggest reading 100 reasons water is not H2O by Peter Peterson on smashwords. Free eBook.
Water is key to understand where we live, what we breathe, how we thrive.
I’ve written an article
We breathe air not oxygen
And I explain the origin of oxygen toxicity.
Oxygen is prescribed primarily for the terminally ill not for breathlessness
Palliative care is not kind
Air is measured by its moisture or humidity
Oxygen is measured by it dryness Eg medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Lung alveoli requires air to reach 100% humidity
Can you see the mismatch?
Oxygen has been used to cull in plain sight.
Premi babies are especially vulnerable to the dryness of oxygen- when exposed in 100% oxygen tents their eyes dried up -blinded
Our lungs are a wet system
Blood is a wet system
Hydration is blood’s function
Nothing to do with dry gases
We need common sense and common science to return to everyone with an interest in life improvement
Knowledge lost will be recovered once folk see that deceptions need to be ferreted out.
Great post, Mike. I began telling my friends and students just what you said here back in early 2020. When you hear someone say “the science is settled,” run the other way. That person intends to do you harm. Not only that, but Satan uses twisted language like that to enslave us. I’d very much like you to look at my publication “Health in the Name.”
Simply and succinctly said!
Excellent post - and it's always important to remind ourselves about what science is - and what it isn't.
Let's get a couple of minor quibbles out of the way first.
No, 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. If you're working with addition modulo 3, for example, then 2 + 2 = 1. However, (and this is a very important however), 2 + 2 **always** equals 4 when we're talking about this plus symbol + meaning 'standard' addition (with 2 and 4 and = having the usual meanings). Just as it **always** equals 1 when we're talking about this plus symbol meaning addition modulo 3. Once you've specified the meanings of **each** symbol and operation there's no room for manoeuvre.
The issue with the 'woke' drivel when it comes to maths is that they imply there's a kind of subjectivity - when there's none at all.
Secondly, I would suggest that science IS the only way of knowing about our physical world - which as, you rightly point out, does not mean that things like poetry, spirituality, philosophy etc are worthless. Our lives are much more than the sum of all the physical interactions going on between the atoms and molecules that make us up.
There's no such thing as an "indigenous" way of knowing about the properties of an electron, for example. There's no philosophical structure that will change the amount of charge it has, or the force it exerts on another electron.
Although I have more or less retired these days, my previous career was as a theoretical physicist, and it's from within physics we get the oft-quoted "examples" of things like Newton vs relativity, or Newton vs Quantum Mechanics etc. In my view it is incorrect to suggest that Newton (the old 'classical' picture) got it wrong. What we actually see is more of a refinement - how the old classical view sits within a much larger framework.
In some respects science CAN be settled - but it's in a negative, rather than positive, sense. We know, for example, that the Galilean transformation is not fully correct (it's a good approximation when dealing with the mechanics of objects travelling much slower than light). We know this because it can predict the wrong results for experiments. There's never going to be a time, from now on, where the Galilean transformation becomes the correct one (in all cases) - because it just doesn't predict the right results. The science IS 'settled' on that score.
Similarly in quantum mechanics, we have Bell's result which tells us that NO locally realistic theory of physics can reproduce all of the results of quantum mechanics. So if there's an experiment we can do which verifies this quantum result (and there are such experiments) we can say with certainty that the results of these experiments CANNOT be explained by a locally realistic theory. Once again, the science is settled on that.
Science, or rather the scientific method, is all about one very simple idea : if your theory doesn't work, change the theory
Most of the time we're not faced with this - most experiments are not 'falsification' experiments where the very tenets of current scientific thinking are being challenged. They tend to be things like "the theory predicts that this new antenna design will work better than the old one - let's build it and see". Sometimes, very rarely, in the course of that kind of experiment you're going to throw up an interesting result that can't be explained - and then you have to go back to the theory and see if it needs tinkering with. Usually it will be a case that there's some variable or effect you've neglected.
It's exceedingly rare that we're faced with a situation where everything has to be fundamentally re-written (or shown to be part of a larger theory like classical theories were shown to be part of larger theories like relativity or quantum mechanics).
Physics, however, is something of a special case. There's a limited set of laws whose consequences can be properly worked out, at least in principle. This convenient 'simplicity' does not carry over to things like biology or medical science - the systems one is dealing with there are hugely, hugely, more complex than those we typically examine in physics. We might use a bit of physics to understand how some protein folds, for example, but this protein in the body sits within an extraordinarily complex system full of all sorts of interactions and feedback mechanisms.
We don't even properly know what consciousness is, for example, but doctors are utterly convinced (or project that confidence) that some specific drug will be good for us - and yet at the same time recognise that there's a relationship between our state of mind (which we do not understand) and our health. It's one thing to be certain about the charge on an electron - quite another to be certain about the effects of a particular drug or vaccine.
It's always good to question - even the basics - because that process IS science; it's implicit in the scientific method. Theories (ideas) are challenged by the 'questions' posed by experiments. In broad terms, Popper's way of viewing this is the right one, I think. We can reject bad ideas (by experiment) - so we can 'settle' on that rejection, but we can never say that the ideas which pass an experimental test are "correct". Merely that they have, so far, passed all the experimental tests they've been subjected to.
Ii would appreciate such a course very much.
There are those who attach themselves to a particular set of beliefs, and then attach their status to the status of those beliefs. Their ego then demands that they defend those beliefs by every and any means they can, as its very survival depends upon it. And when faith in a higher Power has been usurped by these ego driven beliefs, there is no room for faith in something greater than ourselves, and that is a very dangerous place to go. Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, the list goes on.
«The new monarchy must increasingly rely on the advice of monks till in the end the kings become merely the cardinals' puppets.»
When you think of it, [organized] religion itself followed a similar trajectory to some extent – from search for truth, to consensus-making ecumenical councils, to political puppeteering.
I think you'll like this - what coincidental timing!
https://zantafakari.substack.com/p/be-bold-do-science
Spirituality is important with science it helps us to evaluate the information being processed. I have a sister who is into scientism and I have been feeding her nuggets I'm not sure I can get through to her and am not really going to harp on it, no matter how much I love her I cannot change the programming she has been subjected to, but on a good note she does look into the information I give to her. I think you are spot on with your evaluation of science keep it going.
Spot on. Even ignoring the spiritual dimension (which you know I don’t do), science demands some level of skepticism and supporting data. As my old high school chemistry teacher used to say, “When the data doesn’t fit with your theory, your theory is wrong.” If science was just settled, Newtonian physics would be enough and Einstein would have died a patent clerk, not a Nobel laureate.
https://simplechristianity.substack.com
Science is another name for questions and genuine inquiry
However if left in other hands and not our own, we default to other’s knowledge
Just like politics, everyone must re-engage with science
Science is our responsibility
So much settled science is NOT - instead it’s sitting upon unquestioned assumptions and peer protected theories
Indoctrinated in our schooled daze
Put your science on, pull at the foundational threads and find the established frauds
It’s time science came back to the kitchen table
For instance
Water is not H2O
This fundamental change in knowing has retarded science and medicine
Just need to think
How does two dry gases produce a liquid that puts out a fire that both the gases would fan. Suggest reading 100 reasons water is not H2O by Peter Peterson on smashwords. Free eBook.
Water is key to understand where we live, what we breathe, how we thrive.
I’ve written an article
We breathe air not oxygen
And I explain the origin of oxygen toxicity.
Oxygen is prescribed primarily for the terminally ill not for breathlessness
Palliative care is not kind
Air is measured by its moisture or humidity
Oxygen is measured by it dryness Eg medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Lung alveoli requires air to reach 100% humidity
Can you see the mismatch?
Oxygen has been used to cull in plain sight.
Premi babies are especially vulnerable to the dryness of oxygen- when exposed in 100% oxygen tents their eyes dried up -blinded
Our lungs are a wet system
Blood is a wet system
Hydration is blood’s function
Nothing to do with dry gases
We need common sense and common science to return to everyone with an interest in life improvement
Knowledge lost will be recovered once folk see that deceptions need to be ferreted out.
Bullseye 🎯 Unfortunately many spiritually bankrupt individuals have replaced faith in something higher than us with science.