Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

Intelligent, reasonable men of good will SHOULD be able to agree on things that matter.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Reading Sequence, and Article Synopses

Miscellaneous Articles

Advice on Intoxication
Ancient Explosion Reports
Ancient Scholastics
Annals of Addiction
Some Atheist Questions
Can We Agree on these?
Constructive Criticism
Critical Issues
Critique of A New Earth
Dead Broke Dads
Faith in Biblical Codes
John the Baptist
The Brothers Karamazov
How the World Will End
Importance of Catastrophism
Importance of Discussion
Kahlil Gibran on Law
Euhemerism & Catastrophe
EU/Catastrophe & Philosophy
Thoughts on Meditation
Model for Visions & Dreams
Telepathic Ability
Some Pertinent Parables
Personal Experience
Perspective on Myth
Questions Better than Answers
The Road to Saturn Thesis
Sacred Writings
Sex Bias in Medicine Practice
Spiritual versus Material
Symbolism of Human Body
Tobacco Corruption in AMA
Toxic Metals & Criminality
Unity Agreement Outline
The Velikovsky Debate
Unity Church Letter
Some Conclusions
The Velikovsky Affair Journals
What is a Prophet?
Video-lecture links

"It has scared the living daylights out of the common man and has caused the outstanding members of that sacred cult, the Scientist, to develop the screaming meamies and to yell imprecations, and call down a curse on Dr. Velikovsky, whose crime seems to [be] unorthodoxy, an unfettered mind, brilliance, and the ability not only to read but to write." - Houston Press reviewer Carl Victor Little in regard to Worlds in Collision

Thoughts on the Scientific Method
by Amirthanayagam David
Updated: 02/14/2020

"Question: How does it discredit or in any other way redound on the scientific method, that nobody actually uses it? Or that people generally have other sources of conviction?

It seems straightforward to me: "In no way at all."

"The ‘scientific method’ is a reinvented wheel, the boring part of what ancient mathematicians called ‘induction’ (Greek ἐπαγωγή). Descartes was in this, and little else, their true follower. In his Method, he calls the step ‘enumeration’. In my own work it leads to the generation of descriptive law. (I once lectured at Thunderbolts about the confusion between descriptive and prescriptive law, in the growth of what we are calling here ‘scientism’.) One addresses a problematic phenomenon by laying out all the things one knows about it, from every likely or even conceivable angle. This is the non-boring part, the part where imaginatively innovative minds are rewarded immediately. Faraday played around in his lab to induce patterns in the behavior of electrified and magnetized things, which we have inherited as laws. I imagine the SAFIRE engineers are also playing. But the reward grows, in an obvious way, when the frame of their solution can be shown to be..., also the frame of the phenomenon in question. The demonstration begins by taking up these things one knows about the phenomenon, and framing them as hypotheses, which, in a Latinate rendition, are ‘suppositions’. One follows their necessary consequences, until one comes to a thing that must be true and is in one’s power to test by experiment. A yes or no answer in the experimentum crucis validates the supposition, which in turn makes possible the observed phenomenon.

"Newton did very well not to frame any hypotheses about that force of his, the one capable of instantaneous action at a distance. Claudius Ptolemy, that other great mathematician, also did not frame any hypotheses about a system of the planets.

"As others have said, the multiplication of anomalies ought to lead to considering alternate descriptive suppositions. In the case of astrophysics, the anomalies are not mere perturbations in an orbit, or an error in the calculated trajectory of Elon Musk’s car, boosted from within the Van Allen belts to an orbit overshooting Mars; usually they are actual direct contradictions of the framed suppositions. This result should be the absurdity that actually refutes the supposition, which in these cases is simply and directly that the gravitational force solely determines the phenomenon. This is why I paid attention to that object recently discussed with an amazing gamma-ray burst profile. I wondered in that case if the object, anomalous not just in terms of conventional theory but in terms of the other objects in our sky, was also anomalous in the Electric Universe.

"The genius of Velikovsky and Thornhill’s predictions is that they are framed in the quantifiable diction of modern planetary science. (If it is true that numbers do not prove their predictions, the shrill mainstream critique masks the fact that in most cases they do in fact disprove the prevailing suppositions about the phenomenon or event.) It seems to me to throw out the baby with the bath water, if by casting aspersions on scientific method you negate the value of the EU predictions. The moon is hollow as a bell, and its surface has been melted within human memory, while recording an impossible remnant magnetism. The Apollo missions confirmed these things. I think your own animus has really to do with the hypocrisy of the EU’s mainstream critics and with scientism. That such people demand a standard that they are themselves unfamiliar with, does not diminish EU researchers’ holding themselves to what is, after all, merely the method of careful reasoning–or what people here like to call ‘critical thinking’...

"I wish we could be tolerant of Scientism, the one religion we are allowed to discuss on Intersect*. We all practice it, when we use a phrase like, ‘the only one of its kind known to Science’; who is that Science character? Or when we speak in the way that I have spoken, as long as I can remember: ‘they’ve found out how to predict earthquakes from sheep’s bladders,’ or ‘they’ve discovered the G-spot.’ If we follow up on the referent of that ‘they’, we come immediately to the mysteries of knowledge and of being, as surely as when we follow up on the ‘you’, the referent of the second person, the ever-present confessor in St.. Augustine’s Confessions. It convinces the writer that he is a known thing, albeit not to himself." - AP David

Owing to its preference for totalistic explanation, scientism transforms
science into an ideology, which is of course a betrayal of experimental
and empirical spirit....We are becoming ignorant of ignorance.
- Leon Wieseltier

What AP David  is calling "scientism" is at most a very mild form of it, and is not what we are implicating, rejecting, and railing against on this site. See:  Scientism.htm

* A discussion forum on the internet

Home   Site Sections   Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions   Survey