The Scientific Method
Bill Gaede


    What is Science in the alternative?

    If this is not what Science is about, then what is Science in the alternative?

    Let's begin by defining the term at the center of our inquiry so that we're all on the same page...

    Science: rational explanations

    (We capitalize the word 'Science' to distinguish it from what the mathemagicians do.)

    In Science, we only explain. We explain objectively and rationally. We do so not to persuade or to shove our  
    religion down somebody's throat. We explain so that the listener UNDERSTANDS our theory. The purpose of
    Science is NOT to convince in order to recruit. The purpose of Science is to explain in order to understand.
    The purpose of Science is to learn a mechanism, to visualize a physical interpretation. What people decide to
    believe after the presentation is over is their personal business and doesn't concern Science. Belief and opinion
    are the hallmarks of religion.

    People who were brainwashed to believe that 'science' is about observing, predicting, running experiments,
    collecting data, presenting evidence, proving and arriving at the Truth, and developing gadgets (technology)
    are bound to be offended by my words and will undoubtedly have lots of questions.

    What do you mean we don't make predictions?

    What is this nonsense you say that we don't do experiments or prove in 'science'?

    How can you possibly make an absurd statement such as that Science has nothing to do with
    Technology?

    Yes! We don't make predictions. We don't do experiments. We don't present evidence or prove or seek the
    Truth because we are not in the business of recruiting. It is the preacher who attempts to impose his view on
    you in order to induct you into his religion. It is the politician who asks you to vote for him and his platform. It
    is the calculating prosecutor who asks the juror to declare his version of the case a fact.

    And developing gadgets is not a branch of Science. In Science, we ONLY explain in order to understand.
    Here's  the synthesis...

            Science: explanations               Religion: opinions, beliefs



    The proof is in the pudding

    Now for the icing on the cake... The new generations of 'physicists' coming out of the universities openly state
    that 'physics' is in a crisis. The new breeds realize that there is something wrong and that 'Mathemagix' is at a
    crossroads. They will either have to come up with ever more ghosts to explain the weird workings of the
    Universe or shift the paradigm completely. Here are a couple of examples that should make you stop and
    think that all is not well in contemporary 'science'.

    ..........Not even wrong ...

    ..........Why a Physics Revolution Might Be on Its Way ...

    ..........Crisis At The Foundations Of Physics ...

    ..........Have physicists made a terrible mistake? ...

    There is clearly a crisis in the discipline that the mathemagicians call 'physics'. The crisis has to do with the
    fact that after 400 years of Newtonian descriptions -- actually, nothing but Mathemagix -- the so-called
    'physicists' are unable to explain the simplest of phenomena. Not a single 'physicist' alive today can explain
    how a magnet attracts another or why (cause, physical interpretation, mechanism) the Moon doesn't drift
    out of the Solar System. They never will because...

    1. The mathemagicians don't believe that such issues are a part of science. The mathemagicians
       dismiss qualitative explanations as 'philosophy' and philosophy is not a part of mathemagical
       'science'. They equate philosophy with opinion. The mathemagicians equate 'science' with
       description. They do so because Math is a descriptive language. Math has no power to explain.

    2. The mathemagicians also have this mantra all of them are supposed to memorize that goes
       something like this...

    "The mind of a cat is to the mind of a human like the mind of a human is to the mind
     of God."

       Thus, a cat is unable to understand things such as math or computers. Likewise, humans
       cannot hope to understand the ways of God and how this Universe works. We can at best
       try to learn eternally, make progress, but never attain full knowledge. Therefore, it is quite
       arrogant of you to think that you can explain the workings of the Universe rationally. "Who
       do you think you are? God?"

       So there is no expectation that we can ever understand how this Universe works because
       no one expects that humans can ever break the code.

    3. The third reason the mathemagicians will never solve problems such as how one magnet attracts
       another is that no one is investigating them. No one is researching this subject that intrigued
       Faraday so much. No one cares any more about magnets because magnets belong to the long
       gone age of Classical Mechanics (19th Century and before). The mathemagicians are now
       beyond such petty topics. They are now into high level, university stuff such as time travel and
       particles of mass.

    4. The fourth reason they won't discover the secret is that the mechanics will never be able to
       explain attraction from a distance with discrete particles. Anyone still proposing particles in the
       21st Century will be steamrolled over by genuine physicists. There is no excuse for holding on to
       irrational explanations merely to salvage the ancient and obsolete Particle Hypothesis at all costs.
       And please do not raise irrelevant and ridiculous arguments such as that computers woudn't work
       if Quantum were wrong or GPS wouldn't work if Relativity were wrong. If this is your reply you will
       be trashed at a rational forum. You should try to come up to speed before embarrassing yourself.

    The physical mechanisms that underlie magnetic, gravitational, light and atomic behavior are the Lion's Paw
    tests of Physics. He who cannot explain these phenomena is not a physicist. It's just that simple. He has no
    excuse because we now have rational physical interpretations for these observations. The inability of
    the mathemagicians to explain how two simple magnets work is a categorical judgment on their version of
    the Scientific Method. Traditional religions already had supernatural explanations for unseen agents and
    phenomena (e.g., parting the seas, walking on water, Ascension). We didn't need Mathemagical 'physics'
    (black hole, many copies of you, time travel, dark matter, particle of mass) to replace the supernatural
    explanations of traditional religions with yet more nonsense.

    The mathemagicians may counter-argue that their theories are consistent with the Math.

    It turns out that the proposals in this site are also consistent with the Math, yet in contrast to those of
    Quantum  Mechanics they are rational explanations. We can make a movie of the mechanisms because
    they are all mediated by objects. The theories of Quantum Mechanics as well as those of General Relativity,
    in contrast, are mediated by concepts (energy, mass, force, time, information...). In Physics, only objects
    can be said to move. It is at the loony asylum where they move concepts! And that's where Mathemagix and
    mathemagicians are at home. The home of a genuine physicist is with the Foundations of Physics.
.

    Science has nothing to do with knowledge

    If you look up the word science in the dictionary or encyclopedia you will find the following definitions:

    "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable
    explanations and predictions about the universe" (Science - Wikipedia)

    "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation
    and experimentation" (Science - dictionary.com)

    These notions of science have been around at least since the days of Newton when researchers began
    to question the wisdom of the Ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians.

    One fatal problem with the foregoing definitions is that no one has ever been able to define the word
    knowledge. No one knows what they mean by know. This becomes patently obvious when we look at
    two popular sources on the subject...

    "The attempt to analyze knowledge has received a considerable amount of attention
    from epistemologists, particularly in the late 20th Century, but no analysis has been
    widely accepted. Some contemporary epistemologists reject the assumption that
    knowledge is susceptible to analysis." (Knowledge - The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    "The definition of knowledge is a matter of ongoing debate among philosophers in the
    field of epistemology. (Knowledge - Wikipedia)

    "Knowledge, being a primitive fact of consciousness, cannot, strictly speaking, be defined...
    The distinction between knowledge and belief is more difficult to draw... both belief and
    knowledge imply certitude, and denote states of mental assurance of the truth." (Knowledge
    - The Catholic Encyclopedia)

    The philosophers have been mucking about for over 2000 years and are still debating whether Plato's
    justified true belief is the appropriate definition. Is that what knowledge is? A form of belief? If so, we
    can easily replace the word knowledge with the word belief in foregoing definitions of science and see
    what science means to the mathematical establishment...

    "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes belief in the form of testable
    explanations and predictions about the universe"

    "systematic belief of the physical or material world gained through observation
    and experimentation"

    Is that what science is? A system of beliefs?

    My recommendation is that we fire all the philosophers that ever lived... beginning with Plato! These
    people have wasted hundreds of years running around in circles. They were never even near the ballpark.
    They never learned how to define words scientifically, which was the first thing they had to master. Of
    course, it is not surprising that the so-called 'physicists' of today have no clue what science is about and
    that they ended up with the supernatural and irrational explanations we find in General Relativity and
    Quantum Mechanics.


    Science is not about describing

    Let's begin with what science is not. Emeritus Professor Donald Simanek was taught and teaches that
    science is about describing...

    .........."Science doesn't explain; science describes."

    So we describe a chair -- 4 legs, 1 seat and 1 backrest -- and we've done science?

    It should not surprise anyone that science was reduced to mere descriptions when you realize that the
    mathematicians were the ones to gain control over the guild. Mathematics is ONLY a descriptive language.
    Math can only describe. Math has no power to explain. It is thus that we have no explanations today for
    simple phenomena such as how a magnet attracts another or why a pen falls to the floor instead of to the
    ceiling.

    The reason we ended up with no rational explanations is that the mathematicians concluded that 'science'
    is about describing... specifically, their experiments... and with equations...


    Science is not about running experiments

    Berkeley University has devised a checklist to determine whether you're doing science:

Home      

Nila and Bill      

Extinction       

Mathematical Physics      
Rope Hypothesis    
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   

    Is this what Science is about? Is it about running an experiment? What if we run an experiment and don't
    understand what caused the results? What if we repeat the experiment a million times and still don't
    understand what caused the results? Is this how we prove theories? By running experiments and presenting
    evidence? To whom? To God? To our peers at the Flat Earth Society? To a court of law? What if the jurors
    are ignorant? What if they have no clue? What if one juror is convinced and another one votes against the
    theory? Is this how they proved God to you? With evidence? Is this how they proved spacetime to you? By
    running an experiment in front of you? Or was it by persuading you that there could not possibly be another
    alternative? Is this how they proved black holes and the existence of 0D particles to you? With expert
    testimony? Did you believe the theory simply because you concluded that all the scholars in the world can't
    be wrong?

    Maybe it's just my impression, but it seems that the people who created this checklist are merely attempting
    to induct you into their religion. What experiment can you carry out to elucidate the architectural nature of an
    invisible entity? What is the purpose of evidence if not to persuade? And what is this talk about 'benefits' if
    not to invent gadgets and devices? The people who created this checklist have not even managed to learn
    that Technology has nothing whatsoever to do with Science.


    Science is not about proving the truth

    More subtly, the Berkeley proselytizers casually introduce terms such as proof and truth. What else can be
    the purpose of these strategic words if not to preempt you from challenging their conclusions? They are telling
    you in your face that the matter has already been settled and you have no choice but to come up to speed on
    what they have already confirmed through experiments. This sleight of hand summarily preempts you from
    raising objections. They are courteously telling you that you are an ignorant peasant. Your job is not to question
    what the scholars have proven. Your job is to memorize their findings so that you don't look like a fool the next
    time you're at a party. When a mathemagician talks about proof and truth he is telling you that it's a done deal.
    You have nothing to argue. All you are allowed to do is go to college, study Math, memorize the answers for
    the test, and, if you are good little lad, "we promise that you'll have a career". You should not ask His Emeritus
    Eminence for an explanation of a phenomenon. You should ask him for his autograph first and then for a job.
    Not even Popper's falsifiability has a chance in such a one-way monologue.

    Is science about presenting evidence and arriving at the truth? Whose truth? Yours or mine? What if you and
    I arrive at different conclusions and opinions? Should we let our peers decide who's right? Is this how
    Relativity and Quantum became Truth?


    What Science is NOT

    So let's quickly run through what Science is NOT...

    In Science we do NOT:


    2. describe                             10. prove


    4. know                                  12. opine







    It is the mathematicians who claim that these are elements of 'science'.

The scientist of the 20th Century:

observation, prediction, experiment,
evidence, proof, recruiting, peer review,
gold medals, authority, censorship
The scientist of the
21st Century:

rational explanation
 

Scientific papers

or @

Academia