Scientists as a class have long sat protected in their
ivory chambers, exempt from dishonesty. Science, among all other
fields, has been regarded as the ultimate meeting ground for seekers and
dispensers of truth. - Singh, Thoudam Damodara, Life Comes From Life,
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Los Angeles, CA 90034, 1981,.p. XII
Science Intellectual Responsibility
Superstition and Myth versus Intellectual Responsibility
A starting point is to note that Western science can be seen as a
religious attempt to eliminate unproductive and debilitating superstition,
or at least move away from it. Although it has fostered its own special type
of myth, it is a noble attempt because at its heart the scientific method is
to think within the proper epistemological and metaphysical principles do
the necessary reality checks to determine the truth.
Wikipedia - Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality–that one
event causes another without any natural process linking the two events...
The Free Dictionary: 1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not
logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance
of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
2b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
1. an irrational belief in or notion of the ominous significance of a
particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, etc.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.
Merriam-Webster: 1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the
unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a
people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically
involving supernatural beings or events.
2. a widely held but false belief or idea.
Merriam-Webster: a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that
serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice,
belief, or natural phenomenon
I will start with a quote:
“The men who are not interested in philosophy need it the most urgently;
they are most helplessly in its power.”
So, I read the Prologue, Much Ado about Nothing. As the little
German soldier in the Laugh In skits would say upon peering
over the mound and viewing some silly aspect of our world, “Veddy
intereshting, but schtoopid!”
The author’s overall stance is the usual one of the arrogance of
ignorance. He is having a lot of fun with the game of science and I’m sure
that he will receive significant acclaim, but he is carrying along most of
the usual cargo of fanciful falsities, and the direction he is enamored with
is one of making things more complex and remote from our experience. Instead
of simplifying and making things more elegant, he is making concepts more
muddled, confused and extreme with his pathetic misuse of word meanings.
I say “arrogant” because he is just another “scientist” who does not have
a foundation in timeless epistemological and metaphysical principles. But
who needs that? Certainly not Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Newton or guys like
Manual Morales et al, for whom philosophy is disconnected and/or irrelevant.
As some of us realize, any “science” is based on an underlying metaphysics,
regardless of whether the metaphysics is valid or not, and regardless of
whether one is oblivious of it.
This is a most astounding and troubling condition in that there is
probably not a single university in the world that endeavors to lay a good
metaphysical foundation for science before the science material is taught.
This is tantamount to loading the bread, ripe tomatoes, strawberries and
pears in the bottom of a large grocery bag and then throwing on top cans of
beans and soup, bottles of juice, and jars of pickles, and then taking it
all on a long and bumpy ride. What you wind up with is a soggy mess that
must be thrown out. Our university students are “loaded up” sans philosophy
with the prevailing knowledge with the implication that it is valid and
time-tested. The question can be asked whether there IS any university that
is even aware of either the metaphysics or the issue.
“Science” stumbles along making many observations, doing many
experiments, and collecting many findings and then tries to make sense of
these without the restraining guidelines of a good metaphysical foundation.
And we are buried in more and more papers, journals, books and now videos
that are full of needlessly confused and misguided material. No wonder it
has turned into a political game!
Some of the foundational principles or axioms are:
1. Everything must have contrast and distinction in order to be
apprehensible either by the mind or senses.
2. There is no such thing as nothing, in that it is JUST a mental
construct or reference POINT–with no substance, aspects or features–to
give contrast to something or anything.
3. Any mental or mathematical construct is JUST and only that, and should
never be confused with reality.
4. Space, the infinite extension of the Cartesian coordinate system, is
JUST and only a mental construct that stands in distinction to volume.
5. Infinity is a mental construct equivalent to zero, stands in
distinction to finite, and can never be applied to the material universe.
6. Time is what we call an event or the series of sequential events, and
duration refers to a specific set of sequential events.
7. Sequence is inviolate, and can never be reversed or altered
8. Spiritual–intangible, non-material–realities can never be reified into
physical realities which can be manipulated or changed physically.
9. A specific quality should never be applied to everything, else the
meaning of that quality is lost. Example: If everything is conscious, then
consciousness loses any meaning.
If the scientists and theoreticians were grounded in these principles,
science would never have gone down the road of quantum mysticism,
relativity, no aether, spooky action at a distance, hidden variables, curved
space-time, time slowing down, etc., ad nauseam.
In his Prologue he even suggests that space-time is almost a
living thing. I quote, “In fact, space and time can themselves behave...” I
think he winds up violating all of the above principles in his giving license to
“SCIENTISM” to continue to be deplorably intellectually irresponsible,
license to continue to gull the public and get more and more funding from
the government and ignorant donors.