Friday, June 2, 2023

Scientific Method


What is the scientific method?

On a daily basis we are flooded with media statements about what “scientists think about …well, basically everything and anything.

The impression is given that if scientists say so, it is undeniable truth.

We have tests of it in years of Covid and day by day this statement of mine is less and less controversial.

I mean most of us, until a certain point believed that explanations given to us by certain groups and individuals were final and even questioning them was backward and certainly unscientific.

But I don’t want to talk about Covid. Maybe sometime in the future.

What I want to talk about is the perception of science and science itself.

Of course, this is my and only my view…unless someone wants to share it.

Let’s start with a basic definition.

I will quote from Wikipedia only at the beginning of the article, but everyone is welcome to visit and read the rest of it.

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.”

Love this definition. Especially the part where it says that our “cognitive assumption can distort how one interprets the observation”.

But what if many and not one is under the spell of cognitive assumption? What if bias is a fundamental byproduct of the world view, and any seemingly contradictory idea is not allowed to penetrate the mind presuming itself as independent and unbiased?

What if scientific observation cannot be objectively interpreted?

What if the peer review system is compromised and those who participate share the world view skewing cognitive powers into cognitive assumptions?

What if people engaged in research, livelihood depend on conforming into narrative?

What if narrative is a self-serving tool to maintain conscience dormant?

What if “science” becomes a “beautiful idea of design without Desinger”?

I will not answer those questions one by one, but instead will present a few examples where Proven scientific observation contradicts so called scientific hypothesis. No number of people or peer review can convince me about something which is proven by using scientific method as impossible.

Let’s start with the entropy.

Again, beginning of the article from Wikipedia:

“Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty. The term and the concept are used in diverse fields, from classical thermodynamics, where it was first recognized, to the microscopic description of nature in statistical physics, and to the principles of information theory. It has found far-ranging applications in chemistry and physics, in biological systems and their relation to life, in cosmology, economics, sociology, weather scienceclimate change, and information systems including the transmission of information in telecommunication.”

Everything made out of matter falls apart. From biological forms to single atoms becoming overtime sub-particles of energy.

That is in closed as well as in open systems.

The only scenario where matter becomes more complex is the process of life and due to the life process.

Once the force of life departs from the organism, entropy begins.

Over time, what was once a living organism becomes simple matter and ultimately energy.

I will not shlep you true equations and mathematics, it is not my level.

There are plenty of mathematicians and physicists explaining the issue. Some of them are capable of doing it for the layman as me, where it could be understood and paralleled with empirical observation.

Entropy is what we observe in life, this is what we observe in the laboratory.

Yet, in the galaxy far far away, we are told, something opposite is happening.

Cosmic dust forms the celestial bodies. Molecules spontaneously congregate to form planets, stars and galaxies.

This is how the world has become.

Can it be observed?

Well, certainly we observe that the world exists. Therefore, if it doesn’t exist in its form forever as it is believed for the last few decades again, there must be force in the universe causing the simple to become complex.

What we observe is only the opposite process. That’s right, that’s where the leap of faith is coming into play.

We observe ‘complex’ falling into ‘simple’, yet we are told to accept the idea that somehow ‘simple’ becomes ‘complex’ by a spontaneous process of unknown source and laws.

Convenient. As long as we can say that design designed itself without Designer.

Any other suggestion is a tabu.

Isn’t tabu a religious term though?

Another example:

“Pasteur was responsible for disproving the doctrine of spontaneous generation. Under the auspices of the French Academy of Sciences, his experiment demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks, nothing ever developed; conversely, in sterilized but open flasks, microorganisms could grow.”(Wikipedia)

In other words – abiogenesis is impossible.

Louis Pasteur – Great mind, great scientist, great in saving lives of millions of people using vaccines and medical inventions without which people were dying in young age from multiple diseases.

It was him who discovered methods to save those lives. It happened by using scientific methods.

One of his great achievements was proving behind any shadow of doubt, that life doesn’t generate spontaneously from inorganic matter.

No peer review is needed for this, by now, axiom. Done. No one with a healthy mind would deny this truth. Not because it is a matter of opinion or belief but precisely it is a proven fact of nature.

Yet it is told to us that in our close galaxy, in fact on our planet, life began precisely in the way disproved by Pasteur’s experiments and science since.

Again, science shows one thing, but “scientific hypothesis” tells us something opposite.

And now a story from my favored anti Darwinian mathematician – David Berlinski. But before the story I will quote from another book – “The Origin of Speeches” by Isaac E. Mozeson:

“Any studies considered anti-Darwinian will guarantee no tenure or employment according to the strict code of Academic Freedom.”

To learn more about “academic freedom” please google “David Berlinski”.

Now the promised story by David Berlinski – from “The Deniable Darwin”

“Postscript: On the Derivation of Ulysses from Don Quixote IMAGINE THIS STORY BEING told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe. His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irish-man James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote." I raise my eyebrows. Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer. "The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo." Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket. "Asyou know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576." I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed. "Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Ho yo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Un-able to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text hut, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Po;- Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the nineteenth century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined." I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your under-standing, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?" "Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."

I love this story written by a mathematician and told by a famous writer.

No one would believe it is true. No scientific method needed or used. Just plain observation and simple analysis. We KNOW that this story CAN NOT be true.

Yet, mathematically speaking, the DNA of Ameba is millions of times more complex than all of those wonderful works of literature, but we are being told that DNA code wrote itself and by serious of mistakes in process of slow transformation become Darwin and his believers.

O woe to me, man of no faith!

I just can’t.

Is not that I need a Designer in the equation of life. Life is screaming His Name and His love!


Now we will talk a little bit about history.

Unlike Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and even Biology, History is as my wife calls it more research than science.

Indeed, the only conclusions based on partial observation which History is, cannot be treated the same way as science per se.

Jewish people are observers of history, preservers of history and significant actors of history.

Our sages received and developed tools of strict preservation of what they received from previous generations. They admit that some of the content was lost in the turbulence of the Jewish history, but this is precisely why in many crucial moments of this history, the Law and its context i.e. history, was preserved in the written form.

Jews used the alphabet earlier than any other nation in the world.

But this again is not what is being said by people who dress themselves in the attires of science.

Comes Gretz and Wellhausen, and with desiring eyes and thirsty ears they are welcomed with every idiocy printed with their names undersigned.

And then, they have thousands of imitators and followers.

Needless to say, most of them possess limited skills in Hebrew language and methodology.

Not to mention ideological bias.

Bias. Why does it all come to bias?

Why in all those subjects there is seemingly one underlying ideology?

Why it seems to be that big part of what is considered to be a science which undeniably enriched humanity as Pasteur himself is responsible for saving and extending lives of millions if not billions of people; why so many scientists spending so much time trying to disprove Jewish history and worldview, or at least weaken it or compromise?

Who decided and when and why, that science must be atheistic?

Like acceptance of the idea of Creation by the Creator would make penicillin or smartphone impossible to be invented.

Science and scientific method were not atheistic from its beginnings in 17th century, it became so only in the second half of 18 century. This historical fact alone shows that exclusion of Creation from “science” has nothing to do with Science. It was ideological bias rather which caused the ongoing war of “science” against Creation.

But why?

I think I found the answer.

I think it is quite obvious, if you are honest to your heart.

And no, I will not conclude this essay with my own conviction which anyhow may be apparent.

I will leave by giving you freedom of your own analysis.

No comments: