| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| The scientific method demands a statement of the facts |
1.0 A statement of the facts is not a fact
In addition to the exhibits and the definitions, a hypothesis consists of a statement of the facts also known as
the assumptions. A statement of the facts is necessary because it constitutes the foundation of a scientific
theory. The purpose of the assumptions is to paint the initial scene for the juror. A statement of the facts may
either describe an object or tell the jury what happened. It addresses how as opposed to why questions,
specifically, how an event occurred.
Unfortunately, the establishment routinely confuses the assumptions with the facts. This has a lot to do with
why the mathematicians end up testing assumptions. In order to distinguish between the two, it is necessary
to get to the bottom of the word fact.
Defining the word fact is not an easy task because, like with the word hypothesis, the scholars have
developed inconsistent notions. Contemporary definitions embody a mixture of objects, evidence, opinions,
and occurrences. We find examples of such contradictory notions in ordinary dictionaries. A fact could be:
- • something demonstrated to exist or to have existed
• a real occurrence or event
• something believed to be true or real
• events determined by evidence
Unfortunately, these definitions are inadequate for use in a scientific setting. A fact cannot simultaneously be
an object (something) as well as an occurrence (an event). One is static and the other is dynamic. More
importantly, a fact cannot simultaneously be objective and subjective. Objective facts are to evidence what
subjective facts are to assumptions. We need to resolve these discrepancies before we can use the word fact
consistently in a discussion.
In order to get a feel for the gulf that separates a fact from a statement of the facts it is helpful to become
acquainted with the term Universal Movie. Imagine that you could take a photograph of the entire Universe
from afar. Now visualize a movie comprised of such photographs for every location of every atom and every
object. I’ll refer to this concept as the Universal Movie. The characters of the Universal Movie are all the atoms
in existence. Every frame in a cosmic filmstrip is comprised of every object, every atom in the Universe. Each
atom is separated from all the others by a gap. In each field of view or cross-section of time, a given atom or
object only has location. The Universal Movie does not consist of events (i.e., motion) as in Mathematical
Physics. The Universal Movie consists of shapes. That’s what appears on every frame of the film. Without
them, the screen would be blank and the director would have nothing to show. The semblance of motion and
time is provided by the incessant flowing of frames containing these shapes. Each atom changes its location
from frame to frame with respect to the rest. The reason sentient beings perceive motion is that they store in
memory previous frames of the movie.
Under this proposal, a fact consists of a particular film clip of the Universal Movie without cuts or edits. Put in
other words, a fact is every minute detail that actually happened irrespective of observers. A fact consists of
an uninterrupted sequence of locations of every atom in the Universe.
A statement of the facts, on the other hand, is like any contemporary movie. It consists of select film clips cut
from the Universal Movie and spliced together. We don’t usually see a 4-hour boring strip of film where a man
wakes, takes a shower, dresses, drinks his coffee, walks to his car, drives to work, and works all day. Most of
this material is edited out because it is irrelevant to the main point the director is attempting to communicate.
Whereas a fact is an uninterrupted strip of the original film, a statement of the facts only contains select
frames (Fig. 1). The purpose of a statement of the facts is to prepare the groundwork for a scientific theory. A
statement of the facts may also include a description of key parts of a physical object that the prosecutor
believes is necessary for the jury to keep specifically in mind in order to understand his theory.
Testimony consists of a concise summary, bits and pieces, here and there of the Universal Movie. By
definition, if the film clips the witness provides match exactly the corresponding frames in the Universal
Movie, we call it the truth. Otherwise, it is known as a lie. In Physics, whether a testimony is truthful or a lie is
an objective matter. It has only to do with the locations of atoms and objects and not with what people think
happened. If the Earth is actually spherical and someone earnestly testifies that it is flat, this testimony is a lie
irrespective of whether the jury is aware of it or not. A scientific lie has nothing to do with intentions, but with
whether it matches what actually happened or is.
Presentation of scientific evidence is circumscribed to the Exhibits (or evidentiary) phase and differs from
legal evidence in that testimonials are not included. Scientific evidence consists solely of genuine strips of
film of the Universal Movie, for example, a bone found in a layer of earth. Statements of the facts are ideally
based on evidence and ideally objective. For example, a description tends to be objective because it consists
of a listing of static and dynamic attributes. The witness is describing an object or a scene. This is objectivity
is what has value in a statement of the facts. An explanation, on the other hand, is always subjective. The
witness is providing a particular version of the events. However, an explanation could be about a mechanical
process (i.e., how, causation) or it could involve a subjective opinion of the reason behind an occurrence
(i.e., why, intention). Testimonials that purport to answer why questions are not a part of Science. Science is
objective. Researchers often mistake these different types of explanations and use the word why (e.g., why
something happened) in situations where they are actually ‘explaining’ how something occurred. Testimony
given at the theory stage is a statement of authority. Its purpose is not to produce a fact, but to unduly sway
the jury through authority by presenting a statement of the facts as a theory or conclusion. A testimony given
at theory has a political agenda. In Fig. 1, I represent evidence with filled frames.A
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Last modified 02/21/08
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
- 2.0 A relativist is a person who confuses facts with the statement of the facts
Most of the irrational conclusions of relativity and quantum originate in the bad habit relativists have of
treating science like law. They attempt to prove a theory the way they would prove a legal case. However,
Science differs significantly from law, most notably in that scientific evidence does not include testimony. The
declarations of a witness are inadmissible in a scientific dispute. Scientific evidence is a collection of frames
of the Universal Film that are genuine, scattered fragments of the real or true facts. A fossil found in a layer of
rock is evidence, an authentic piece of the Universal Movie, a remnant of a true fact. A fossil comprises but a
few priceless frames in the humongous cosmic video. The interpretation of the fossil (or of the circumstances
in which the fossil was found), on the other hand, is a statement of the facts: an opinion presented in the form
of an assumption. The jury is expected to accept this assumption at face value, meaning that it is not in
contention. What will be in contention is the theory that follows and which is based on the assumption. This
doesn’t make the statement of the facts a fact or convert it to truth. Fact and truth constitute what actually
happened irrespective of knowledge or testimony. A statement of the facts is what the prosecutor is asking
you to assume happened. A statement of the facts is what a prosecutor formulates. An assumption is what
the jury concedes. A statement of the facts is to assumption what a definition is to meaning. The prosecutor is
converting a theory into a hypothesis that serves as a stepping stone for yet another theory.
For example, in law, a knife and the fingerprints on a knife constitute evidence. It happens that, as a matter of
fact, the fingerprints on the knife match Johnny’s. However, whether Johnny touched the knife is a statement
of the facts. In law, such a factual statement is a synonym of evidence and of a true fact because it follows
from reasoning. We bear down on the issue from our experience. It is next to impossible that Johnny can
improvise a twin brother or that someone made the prints artificially. The criterion in criminal cases is ‘beyond
a reasonable doubt,’ and in civil cases, ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ Such alibis as ‘twin’ and ‘artificial’
would have trouble passing either legal test or convincing the jury. (And then again we send innocent people
to the chair.)
In Science, however, alibis are immaterial. We must consider all the possibilities because we don’t know what
Mother Nature has in store for us. From a conceptual point of view, a statement of fact is not the same thing as
evidence or as fact. A statement made by a witness is not equivalent to the frame of the universal movie in
which the action occurred. In Science, it is not the same for the bottle to be on the table as for the prosecutor
to say that the bottle is on the table. One is a fact, the other a statement of the facts. By equating facts with
assumptions in their papers (always in past tense), relativists are cheating on the scientific method.
For instance, in his seminal ‘positron’ paper, Anderson treated the particles he mentions in his statement of
the facts as a genuine fact simply because the fingerprints of these critters were all over the place:
- “ On August 2, 1932, during the course of photographing cosmic-ray tracks produced
in a vertical Wilson chamber… the tracks shown in Fig. 1 were obtained, which
seemed to be interpretable only on the basis of the existence in this case of a particle” [1]
Anderson was bearing down on the issue from experience. He took for granted that he was observing the
footprints of a particle. [Photographs of tracks? What did he drink on that day?] Anderson converted an
inference – what he believed to be compelling evidence (impacts, tracks) – into a fact: a particle. In other
words, Anderson concluded that Big Foot exists because of the size of the prints, the depth of the toe that
punctured the ground, and the length of the stride, the logic being that if it quacks, walks, and swims like a
duck, it is a duck. [Following his logic, perhaps we should also conclude that crop circles are made by
mischievous extraterrestrials.] It is to note that with this seemingly innocent sleight of hand, Anderson won
the Nobel Prize and misled an entire generation of mathematical physicists.
Anderson’s proposal is easily demolished. What did the particle do? Jump up and down from footprint to
footprint at the speed of thought while turning a sharp corner (Fig. 4)? Anderson has got to be kidding! Are we
staring at a collage? Is he saying that we are gawking at a movie synthesized in one photograph? Anderson
was condecorated for calculating the mass and speed of the positron, the presumed particle in question. If
the marks were not made by a particle, Anderson has to return his medal. Here I look at Anderson's proposal
in more detail and present an alternative model that can also leave ‘positron’ footprints behind. My argument
shows that Anderson’s alleged facts were merely his particular (and incorrect) statement of the facts. Particles
are not facts. Particles are proposals: part of the assumptions. This is the reason we must distinguish in
Science between true facts and statements regarding the facts made by witnesses. Unfortunately, the
establishment today regards Anderson’s testimony as a fact. Every person working at the accelerators
believes that he is contemplating particles.
Indeed, it is when the prosecutors attempt to pass a statement of the facts (an opinion) for a fact that they end
up bullying the jury into accepting the theory as a done deal. This is religion, not Science! Gould [2] and
Rennie [3] fall back on such tactics when they passionately claim that Evolution is a fact. Ironically, Rennie
uses Anderson-like ‘confirmed’ particles to prop up his argument. He resolutely affirms that Evolution is a fact
like subatomic particles are a fact:
- “ All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic
particles directly, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that
the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not
make physicists’ conclusions less certain.” [4]
[No kidding? Perhaps Rennie also believes that ancient pyramids and contempo-
rary crop circles were made by ETs. I prefer to think that the particles Rennie is
so sure of are lies. There is not a single particle in the entire Universe!]
Rennie confuses testimony for evidence. If it is a fact that this object called a particle is responsible for
making the tracks, Rennie and Anderson must simply bring the particle that made the tracks and place it on
the table! It turns out that researchers not only cannot bring the particle to the show and tell, they can’t even
illustrate it! The mechanics have no idea what any of the particles in the Standard Model even looks like.
Rennie and Anderson will probably reply that the particle is invisible and that it is unreasonable to expect
them to know what an invisible particle looks like. But what else could have made the tracks if not a particle?
If this is their answer, it instantly confirms that the infamous particle is simply an assumption. The experts are
inferring the invisible ‘particle’ from yet another assumption: that they are staring at tracks. They are bearing
down on the entire issue from experience (opinion) and not from what is. The mathematicians are introducing
testimony at the hypothesis stage. In other words, they are playing politics: attempting to persuade the jurors
through statements of authority. We have no quarrel if the particle is merely an assumption to understand the
theory. We have a quarrel when the prosecutor converts the particle into a real entity, when it goes from
assumption to fact, from hypothesis to religion. Rennie should know better. If what the particle physicists play
around with every day are particles, why can’t they answer kindergarten-level questions? Is a particle
dimension-less, 2-D, or 3-D? Is it volume-less, structure-less, spherical, cubic, or cylindrical? How is the
particle’s structure related to its behavior? Why does a photon travel at a constant speed? Why is muon fatter
than the electron if both are elementary particles? Why is the elementary particle electron larger than the
mass-less elementary particle photon? Is Anderson’s ‘scratch mark’ a continuous groove or a series of
discrete footprints (Fig. 4)? If a scratch, did Anderson’s particle stop after it piled up a mountain in front of
itself or did it jump over the pile and escape? Who knows! Maybe it’s still at the end of the scratch! The
researchers should check, just in case...
|
| The prosecutor makes statements of the facts |
Fig. 3 |
| The jurors concede assumptions |
Fig. 1 Facts versus Statement of the facts (Assumptions) |
| A: The Universal Movie or facts: a film of what actually happened. Every frame contains every atom in the universe. The atoms change location (i.e., their distances vis-à-vis each other) from frame to frame. A fact is an uninterrupted film clip of the authentic movie. B: Assumptions or Statement of the Facts: a film suggested by evidence (filled frames) and provided by testimony (clear frames). This movie consists of film clips selectively cut from the Universal Movie and spliced together. An assumption is a summary of selected parts of what actually happened and consists of very few frames. By definition only, if the frames of the assumptions match the corresponding frames in the original movie, we will refer to this film clip as the truth. Otherwise, we will call it a lie. In Physics, truths and lies only have to do with the locations of objects and not with subjective thoughts and intentions. |
- Module main page: A relativist believes that a hypothesis is a prediction
Pages in this module:
- 1. What is a hypothesis?
2. A hypothesis demands an exhibit
3. A scientific definition is one that can be used consistently
4. This page: The scientific method demands a statement of the facts
5. A show of hands does not establish a fact
| Just the facts, Bill! Just the facts! |
| But I gave you the facts! OUCH! You want an entire theory! |
Inquisitive Bill
| telling relativists the facts |
Fig. 2 Anderson’s Nobel Particle |
The problem with the ‘confirmed’ particle proposal of Mathematical Physics is that after decades of toying
with accelerators, the mathematicians are still missing the most important element that would allow them to
make the sweeping claim Rennie takes for granted. They are missing the initial scene of the movie – Exhibit A
– the object that underlies their theory. It is this missing crucial frame of their film that compels the
mathematicians to make retroactive assumptions: that they are staring at tracks and that the trace was carved
by a particle. An assumption is not a fact. An assumption is a statement of the facts: the prosecutors’
interpretation of the evidence or of a phenomenon. They could just as well have said that a spirit produced
the tracks and we would have never noticed the difference. The only way that Anderson and Rennie can
introduce evidence in Science is by bringing the actual particle. Otherwise, all they have is a statement of the
facts: an assumption. And if they cannot even illustrate their particle, for example, to explain how its
architecture is related to its behavior, then they have bypassed the Exhibits phase altogether. When the
mechanics claim that a positron is a fact, they are doing nothing less than bullying the jury into swallowing
their religion.
Like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of fact and opinion, evidence and theory, and
we must learn not to confuse them. The Darwinists confuse finding bones in a given layer of earth (facts and
evidence) with their interpretation of the finding (theory and proof). A fossil is evidence of a fact (i.e., that
something happened). How long it has been there, why it is there, and whom these remains belong to are
either statements of fact or theories, but never facts. Even assuming that Gould and Rennie prove to everyone
on Earth that a bone is a million years old, this theory will never become a fact. The reason for this is that
theories and facts pertain to different stages of the scientific method. In Science, a juror may vote for a theory,
but not for a fact. A fact differs from a theory in that it is observer-free and belongs to the hypothesis stage. In
Law, a verdict is the fact-finder’s opinion with respect to a fact: a conclusion. In Science, there are no ‘triers-of-
fact’ or verdicts because facts are strictly part of the assumptions. When we say that it is a fact that this cup is
on this table, we are not giving an opinion or asking for a verdict. We are making a statement about a real film
clip of the Universal Film. That this cup is on this table is a fact. That you say that this cup is on the table is a
statement of the facts: an assumption. Both belong to the hypothesis. Why the cup is on the table (meaning
HOW it got there – by what mechanical process) is an issue that belongs to the hypothesis (if you are using it
to formulate an assumption) or to the theoretical stage of the scientific method. You can believe the theory
proposed by the prosecutor. Your vote will not retroactively modify what actually occurred (true fact). If God
sweeps the floor, it won’t alter the fact that it was dirty a minute ago, even in the case where He wipes the
entire incident from everybody’s memory.
yet summarily converted ball hop from footprint What Anderson saw into a fact to footprint? |
A statement of the facts involves two parties: a prosecutor and a juror. Prosecutors make statements of the
facts (Fig. 2). An assumption is what a juror makes (Fig. 3). Assumption means that the juror will take a
statement of the facts at face value. When the prosecutor says, ‘I assume…’ he is his own jury. He is saying
that he will proceed as if his statement of the facts is true.