Science is Rational

    A scientific definition

    It is wise in Science to define the terms that are going to make or break your theory for else no one will
    understand your explanation. If Science only deals with rational explanations a good place to start is by
    defining what we mean by rational. The dictionary defines this enigmatic word as:

        rational: reasonable; sensible; sound judgment, or good sense.

    The Wikipedia has something along the same lines:

        rational: the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason.
        Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe,
        or of one's actions with one's reasons for action

    These are not definitions. They are synonyms. A synonym is a circular definition: no definition at all! Like
    all other strategic terms of Science (object, exist, location, motion) that we find in common dictionaries,
    rationality remains undefined. The people who wrote the dictionaries had no idea how to define words
    rigorously. Therefore, the definitions of critical words that you find in dictionaries are of no use to Science.
    They belong exclusively to ordinary speech.

    The philosophers have only done worse and muddled the issue entirely. They talk about nonsense that
    has nothing to do with anything. These individuals have spent hundreds of years and today spend hundreds
    of hours debating subjects that are related to rationality only in their mental asylums. For instance, the
    'respectable' Stanford Encyclopedia argues that rationality has something to do with knowledge:

    "To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims.

    1. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing
    propositions in a particular subject area.

    2. the Innate Knowledge thesis asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori,
    independently of experience.

    3. According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts are not gained from
    experience. They are part of our rational nature in such a way that, while sense
    experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to consciousness,
    experience does not provide the concepts or determine the information they contain.

    What does knowledge have to do with rationality?

    Fortunately, we don't even have to answer that question because the philosophers since Plato have
    yet to define the word knowledge. Contemporary philosophers are so lost that you wonder why they even
    warmed a seat in college for 6 years. In the old days, an astrologer who predicted wrong was summarily
    executed. I won't be so cruel as to propose that we do the same with the pitiful philosophers of today, but
    if I were the world's dictator, I would certainly fire all of them and give them meaningful jobs, you know,
    like wiping latrines at the bus stops and train stations. What do we need these retarded individuals for?

    The bottom line is that the mathematicians extrapolate these amusing definitions and notions into the
    scientific arena and then try to convince you that those are the definitions we must abide by because all
    of humanity uses them. They believe that it is a question of democracy, of how many people vote for a
    given definition.

    A scientific definition is objective, stands on its own, and needs no one to agree to it. You either
    challenge the definition and propose an alternative or you keep your mouth shut. A scientific definition
    is simply one that can be used consistently and that doesn't embody a provision for opinions, observers,
    witnesses, or experiments. In Science, we don't prove definitions through experiments (operational /
    functional definitions) like they do in Mathemagix. The mathemagicians invented after-the-fact functional
    and operational definitions because they never learned how to define words objectively (i.e., rationally,
    scientifically). In Science, we define the term before we go to the lab. That way we can make sense of
    what it is that we're trying to 'prove'.

        scientific definition: a limitation placed on the extent or usage of a word

    Applying these criteria to the foregoing definitions of the word rational/rationality, it is clear that we
    must reject all of them.


    The word rational can only be applied in the context of assumptions and theories

    So what does the word 'rational' mean in the alternative?

    Let's first clarify that the word rational only has meaning in Science if we apply it in the context of
    assumptions and theories. It has nothing at all to do with knowledge or how we acquired knowledge.
    (Where in the world did the philosophers ever come up with that?)

    A theory is an explanation. In the context of Physics, the presenter is proposing a mechanism. In order
    to follow his presentation, the theorist must begin by making some assumptions. The audience needs
    to grasp what the key words will mean and what objects will play a role in the explanation. Hopefully,
    the theory follows from the assumptions.

    In this context, rational vaguely means common sense. The problem is that common sense is the least
    common of all senses. What is commonsensical to you is irrational to your neighbor. However, there are
    certain objective criteria which clearly mark the boundary. Here are some examples:

    1. Treating concepts as objects (reification)

    a. "love moves mountains"

    b. transferring energy/information/data; dilating time

    c. moving 'a' mass/accelerating 'a' charge; traveling through/in space

    d. carrying 'a' force/interaction; dilating time sending 'a' signal; waving 'a' wave

    f.  a 0D point 'particle'; singularity swallowing an astronaut

    g. unimaginable 4D space-time

    2. Using inconsistent definitions


    3. The theory is inconsistent with or doesn't follow from the assumptions

    a. Assumptions: "The body was lying on the floor with a knife stuck to her back."
       Theory: "The victim died of a bullet wound to her head."

    b. Assumptions: "What's a point? Well, let me draw some for you. So these are points.
    They're just little tiny dots in space."
    Theory: "They help us describe specific locations in space."

    c. Assumptions: "triangle... a unique plane (i.e. a two-dimensional Euclidean space)..."
    Theory: "This triangle on its sphere..."

    To recap, a rational theory of Physics is one that outlaws reification. This definition instantly outlaws
    all of Mathematical 'physics' invented since the beginning of the 20th century! General Relativity,
    Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Electric Universe are theories based on the movement
    of concepts. None of them are wrong or incorrect (opinion). All of them are irrational (by definition).

Home      

Mathematical Physics      
The Rope Hypothesis    


Nila and Bill      
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist

Bill's papers  or find them @  Academia
.
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   

              Bill's books