Adapted for the Internet from:   Why God Doesn't Exist
Why is a conclusion necessary?

    1.0   Conclusions are opinions

    The last phase of a scientific presentation is known as the conclusions or belief. Once the prosecutor has explained objectively
    how or why something happened, he must synthesize what he inferred from his experience. The jury needs to reach a verdict.
    This stage is necessary because others may agree with his theory yet infer something different. If a hypothesis is an assumption
    and a theory is an explanation, a conclusion is an opinion. Here’s an example of each:

    Hypothesis (assumptions)

    Exhibits: Earth, Sun, space

    Definitions: object, motion, space, mass, planet

    Statement of the facts: The Earth goes around the Sun.

    Theory (explanation):

    The Sun’s mass warps the space in its vicinity. Our planet orbits the Sun like a tiny ball orbits the roulette.

    Conclusions (opinions):

    1st opinion: The Earth touches space and we should be able to run an experiment to verify warped space.

    2nd opinion:  Warped space is a mathematical abstraction and is beyond experimentation.

    It is not really theories that generate heated debates. It is the beliefs and conclusions reached by the jurors. Assuming the
    debaters understand the explanation exactly as given, they are likely to arrive at different interpretations about what it entails
    because of their particular predispositions. The prosecutor may have successfully explained and even managed to convince
    the jury that the accused committed the crime, but the jury may decide that the incident qualifies as manslaughter rather than
    murder, and suggest a prison term rather than the gallows. For example, when Planck proposed the theory that energy comes
    in discrete packages, he also suggested that, more than a faithful depiction of reality, it was a convenient yet artificial statistical
    abstraction. [1] [2] It was his followers who later converted the packets into real particles, from theory to hypothesis, and from
    an explanation into objects.

    2.0   Whether a table is an object is not a matter of opinion

    What the prosecutor cannot do in science is theorize or conclude that a table is an object. A table is an object by definition of
    the word object, and these matters are settled at the assumptions stage. Likewise, it doesn’t make sense for the prosecutor to
    conclude that a table exists. A table exists or doesn’t by definition of the word exist and not because the prosecutor proves or
    believes it. In Science it is ludicrous to attempt to predict that a carpenter will work the wood into a table, yet mathematical
    physicists predict the formation of ‘objects’ known as black holes from stars all the time. It is not the purpose of the scientific
    method to prove that such and such is an object or that it exists or that it will form. We don’t infer objects from equations or
    experiments during a scientific presentation. We present objects and describe their behavior with equations.

    3.0   Mistaking conclusions for theories

    The typical problem with many contemporary theories, specifically those dealing with extinction, is that they are not really
    theories. They are one-liner summaries, conclusions presented in the guise of theory. Imagine arriving at the theatre just in time
    to catch the ending. You see the hero die in the arms of his lover while she weeps crocodile tears. So? What do you know about
    the plot? You know the ending, but you have to fill in the blanks on your own.

    This is more or less what happens in Anthropology and Paleontology today. The 'theorist' tells you that Neanderthal became
    extinct because humans annihilated them or crowded them out or contaminated them or intermarried with them. Great! Now
    how did it happen? You'll never find out from the experts. The anthropologists and paleontologists instantly present evidence
    for their conclusions. Their entire dissertation is their particular interpretation of a given bone. The paper is about the 'theorist's'
    interpretation of the evidence and not about how the species withered away.  A genuine theory is supposed to tell you step by
    step how the Neanderthals became extinct. For example, the speaker can present it chronologically, showing what happened
    40,000 years ago then 37,000 then 30,000. This is not what you will hear. You will hear a conclusion followed by an analysis of the
    bones. Neanderthal had smaller cavities or bigger bones, so he didn't develop speech or abstract thought, and this gave him an
    evolutionary handicap. What's this type of train of thought got to do with extinction? A genuine extinction theory is a movie of at
    least the general steps that led to the Neanderthals' demise. You should be able to understand step by step how the mechanism
    or agent worked to destroy this species.

    The mathematical physicists also make this error when they claim that the Universe sprang from absolutely nothing or when
    they theorize that particles appear from the void. The mathematicians never explain the process, specifically how nothing
    suddenly acquires length, width, and height. They jump directly from the hypothesis to the conclusion, bypassing the theory
    altogether. They point to nothing or to energy and instantly conclude with their physical interpretation: Big Bang suddenly
    exists or two particles with different charges exist.

    4.0   Conclusions

    So what does the scientific method I just described have to do with General Relativity?

    GR is a religion because it does not subscribe to this process. Specifically, it has invalid hypotheses. The objects that relativists
    present at the Exhibits Phase of the Hypothesis are concepts, the definitions are proofs, and the statements of the facts are
    opinionated theories that the proponent attempts to pass off as facts. More to the point, GR is a religion because it only offers
    supernatural and irrational objects and physical interpretations. Its adherents first convert abstract concepts into solid objects
    and then magically move them around. This surrealism may be acceptable in Mathematics, but is totally unacceptable in Physics.
    I support these arguments here and show that the mathematicians have been doing this since the days of Euclid.
That was a
great movie,
Yeah. It
lasted almost
a full minute!


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008