Scientific Method

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 B-H

What is the scientific method?

Every day, we are inundated with media statements about what "scientists think" on a vast range of topics. The message often seems to be that if scientists say something, it is an indisputable truth. We've seen this particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At one point, many of us accepted that explanations provided by certain authorities or groups were final. Questioning them was seen as backward, even unscientific. However, I don’t want to delve into the specifics of COVID-19 here—perhaps that’s a discussion for another time. What I aim to explore is the perception of science itself and how we understand its role in our lives.

Of course, this is merely my personal perspective, though I welcome anyone who shares similar views to join the conversation.

To begin, let’s start with a basic definition. I’ll reference Wikipedia briefly at the start, but I encourage you to explore the full article for a more comprehensive understanding.

“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.”

The definition presented is compelling, particularly the notion that our cognitive assumptions can distort our interpretation of observations. However, what if multiple individuals, rather than just one, are ensnared by these cognitive assumptions? What if bias is an inherent byproduct of our worldview, preventing any seemingly contradictory ideas from penetrating our minds, which may mistakenly consider themselves independent and unbiased?

What if scientific observations cannot be interpreted objectively? What if the peer review system is compromised, with participants sharing a common worldview that skews cognitive abilities into assumptions? What if researchers, whose livelihoods depend on conforming to a specific narrative, find themselves trapped in this cycle?

What if narratives serve as self-serving tools that keep our conscience dormant? What if "science" evolves into a "beautiful idea of design without a Designer"?

Rather than addressing each question individually, I will provide examples where proven scientific observations contradict established scientific hypotheses. No consensus or peer review can persuade me to accept something that has been demonstrated through the scientific method as impossible.

Let’s begin with the concept of entropy. To illustrate, I will reference the beginning of an 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 science, climate change, and information systems including the transmission of information in telecommunication.”

Everything made of matter eventually disintegrates, from biological organisms to individual atoms that over time transform into sub-particles of energy. This phenomenon occurs in both closed and open systems. The only instance where matter becomes more complex is through the emergence of life and the processes that sustain it. Once the life force departs from an organism, entropy sets in. Over time, what was once a living entity reverts to simple matter and ultimately energy.

I won't burden you with intricate computations or mathematics, as that is beyond my expertise. Many mathematicians and physicists have tackled this subject, some of whom can explain it in a way that is accessible to laypeople like myself, allowing for understanding through empirical observation.

Entropy is a concept we observe in life and in laboratory settings. Yet, in a galaxy far, far away, we are told that the opposite is occurring. Cosmic dust coalesces to form celestial bodies, with molecules spontaneously gathering to create planets, stars, and galaxies. This is how the universe has come into being.

Can this process be observed? Certainly, we can see that the world exists. Therefore, if it does not persist in its current form indefinitely, as was believed just a few decades ago, there must be a force in the universe that drives the transformation from simple to complex. However, what we observe is just the reverse process! This is where the leap of faith becomes relevant.

We witness the 'complex' devolving into the 'simple,' yet we are asked to accept the notion that somehow the 'simple' evolves into the 'complex' through a spontaneous process governed by unknown sources and laws. This perspective is convenient, as it allows us to claim that design emerged without a Designer. Any alternative suggestion is considered taboo. Is it not interesting that 'taboo' is a term often associated with religion?

 

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)

Abiogenesis is fundamentally impossible. Louis Pasteur was a remarkable scientist whose contributions saved millions of lives through vaccines and medical innovations that prevented early deaths from various diseases. He developed methods that effectively preserved life, employing rigorous scientific techniques. One of his significant achievements was conclusively demonstrating that life does not arise spontaneously from an inorganic matter. This principle has become an established axiom, widely accepted without the need for peer review. No rational individual would contest this truth, as it is not merely a matter of opinion or belief, but a verified fact of nature.

Despite this, we are told that life on our planet originated in a manner that contradicts Pasteur's findings and the scientific consensus that has followed. While science presents one perspective, the "scientific hypothesis" suggests an opposing narrative.

Now, let me share a story from my favorite anti-Darwinian mathematician, David Berlinski. Before that, I will refer to another work, "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 gain a deeper understanding of "academic freedom," consider researching David Berlinski. Below is the anticipated narrative by Berlinski, extracted 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 appreciate the story crafted by a mathematician and narrated by a renowned writer. It is hard to believe it is true. No scientific method was required or employed—just straightforward observation and simple analysis. We just KNOW that this story CANNOT be true.

From a mathematical perspective, the DNA of an amoeba is millions of times more complex than all those remarkable literary works. Yet, we are told that DNA code formed itself through a series of mistakes during a slow transformation, leading to existence of Darwin and his followers.

Oh, woe is me, a man of no faith!

It is not that I require a Designer in the equation of life; life itself is a testament to His Name and His love! I don’t believe – I Know.

 

Now, let us delve into a bit of history. Unlike Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and even Biology, History relies more on research than on scientific methods. Indeed, the conclusions drawn from partial observations in History cannot be treated in the same manner as scientific conclusions.

The Jewish people are not only observers and preservers of history but also significant actors within it. Our sages have received and developed rigorous tools for preserving the knowledge passed down through generations. They acknowledge that some content has been lost amid the turbulence of Jewish history, which is precisely why, during many crucial moments, the Law and its context—i.e., history—were preserved in written form.

 

Jews utilized the alphabet earlier than any other nation in the world. Yet, this fact is often overlooked by those who cloak themselves in the guise of science.

Gretz and Wellhausen arrive, welcomed with eager eyes and thirsty ears, and their every folly is published under their names. Consequently, they inspire thousands of imitators and followers.

It goes without saying that most of these individuals possess limited skills in the Hebrew language and methodology, not to mention their ideological biases.

Bias—why does it all boil down to bias? Why is there seemingly a single underlying ideology across these subjects? Why does it appear that a significant portion of what is deemed science, which has undeniably enriched humanity—such as Pasteur's contributions to saving and extending the lives of millions, if not billions—seems to be focused on discrediting Jewish history and worldview, or at least undermining or compromising it?

Who decided, and when, that science must be atheistic? As if accepting the idea of Creation by a Creator would render the invention of penicillin or smartphones impossible.

Science and the scientific method were not atheistic from their inception in the 17th century; this shift occurred only in the latter half of the 18th century. This historical fact alone indicates that the exclusion of Creation from “science” is unrelated to the essence of Science itself. Instead, it was ideological bias that fueled the ongoing conflict of “science” against Creation.

But why?

I believe I have found the answer. It seems quite evident if you are honest with yourself.

And no, I will not conclude this essay with my own convictions, which may already be apparent. I will leave you with the freedom to conduct your own analysis.