Scientists don't know what Science is
(By the way, this is the real introduction Gaede chose to feature on his website: A new language. It might make more sense to read through that before you begin with what I chose to feature here.)
I'll talk and read more about it later... For now here are a few summary-like quotes about the fundamentals of his arguments, but you'll probably need to read much more to understand what Bill Gaede is really saying and the implications of it:
"...In a world where the number of opinions seems to rise in proportion to population, if we are to talk consistently about a particular subject (let alone reach a decision), it would be in the interest of all parties to begin by rigorously defining the words that serve as currency in the discussion. The more accurate our definitions, the better we communicate and understand each other. Specifically, we should develop a definition of science that:
• distinguishes between ordinary speech and scientific language
• accounts for the humanities while distancing science from pseudo or patently non-science.
So? What then is Science? How do we define this mysterious word?...
...Science is not about predictions, falsification, or experimentation. Science is about presenting a theory in a logical manner. The definition of science also makes no provision for mathematical equations. An equation is just a description, and a description alone is not science. A scientific theory consists of an explanation...
...A theory is an explanation of how (cause) or why (reason, purpose) something happened. Where predictions and guesses have to do exclusively with the future, a theory deals exclusively with the past. Science ONLY deals with consummated events. Science does not deal with predictions or with experiments. Whether a researcher carried out or will carry out an experiment is irrelevant. The role of Science is to explain a phenomenon rationally so that the jury understands how or why it happened. The role of Math is merely to describe how something behaved either at hypothesis or at theory. If a hypothesis is a narrative -- an ideally objective description -- a theory is a subjective explanation.
The establishment erroneously believes that a show of hands summarily converts a theory into a fact. Here I do my best to debunk such misconceptions. There is no Legislature of Knowledge. You can at best persuade another human being that you have discovered one of Mother Nature's secrets. Whether you have really discovered a secret of hers is something only she knows for sure...
...let me say it bluntly: There are no experiments in Science! Whether you ran an experiment to prove your theory is irrelevant in Science. Science has to do with communication; not with experimentation...The purpose of an experiment is to add weight to argument and coax the jury to change its mind. A consummated experiment is just another piece of evidence and, as Popper noted, constitutes neither proof nor knowledge...
[Example: ...Certainly, the ultimate reason we are still debating whether Evolution and Creationism qualify as science is because we have not defined the word science unambiguously. For instance, Gould declares Evolution to be among the best-documented concepts in all of science. He suggests that Evolution is not just as theory, but should be accepted as a universally recognized fact. Thompson and Harrub accuse Gould of stealthily promoting Evolution from theory to fact to gain the high ground in the discussion. Demar, a determined opponent of Evolution, argues that the alleged ‘fact’ Gould talks about does not even meet the minimum standards of the scientific method. Evolution has never been observed and cannot be reproduced experimentally; therefore, it is unconscionable to sell Evolution as science in the classroom.
...Like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of fact and opinion, evidence and theory, and we must learn not to confuse them. The Darwinists confuse finding bones in a given layer of earth (facts and evidence) with their interpretation of the finding (theory and proof). A fossil is evidence of a fact (i.e., that something happened). How long it has been there, why it is there, and whom these remains belong to are either statements of fact or theories, but never facts.]
---
...A scientific definition is one that can be used consistently... A scientific definition is timeless and observer-less (i.e., proof-less). When initially brainstormed, it is usually in a rudimentary form and therefore receives a broad interpretation. As we realize that the different versions cause communication problems, we begin to restrict the word’s usage in order to express thoughts with increasing precision. A perfect definition is one that has been refined to the point where everyone interprets exactly the same thing... It is axiomatic that without definitions we would be unable to formulate hypotheses or explain theories. Without them we cannot communicate ideas. This argument alone should place definitions in a more prominent position than they enjoy today in science. The mainstream doesn’t even allude to definitions indirectly in its definition of the term scientific method....
---
...What does science hope to achieve? Does a scientist investigate the past by reading up on a little bit of history or tempt the future by running an experiment? Is a biologist who studies birds a scientist? What about a relativist who jumps from a ladder to test how fast he hits the ground? Are these activities what we call science? What if, after observing birds for a year, the biologist didn’t learn anything? What if the relativist arrived at the wrong conclusions or designed the experiment wrong or timed his fall with a lousy watch? How will we know what they did or whether they understood what happened if they fail to publish their findings and open their theories up to criticism? Hopefully, when secondary school kids take science courses they either read something that someone wrote or tell the class what they learned from a personal experience. Without communication, science is dead.
Science involves two distinct individuals: a detective and a prosecutor. A detective is a lab technician, a researcher, an engineer, the fellow who finds happiness in observing and tempting nature. Think of Galileo, Fresnel, Faraday, Michelson, and Curie, individuals who labored incessantly and somewhat selflessly to sift secrets from Mother Nature. An investigator has an insatiable curiosity, especially for phenomena that appear to work by magic...
...The detective is a highly admired individual, but unfortunately a relatively inconsequential phase of science. The detective can make countless predictions, run countless successful experiments, develop the most sophisticated technology, and still understand nothing about nature, which is actually the present situation in science...
...But even if the detective did understand something it wouldn’t matter anyway. A detective is accountable to no one but himself. If he is lucky, he gets the theory right, but if he is equally unfortunate and suffers a heart attack from the excitement a moment later, he takes his secret to his grave and Science is neither the better nor the worse for it.
It is when the detective changes hats and becomes a lawyer that science really vibrates. Science has to do with information bequeathed from one generation to another. Like an opera villain, the prosecutor is the true anti-hero, the embodiment of the scientific method. We confer medals upon and glorify popular prosecutors especially when they cheat, lie, and steal successfully. On the other hand, no one gives a damn about an anonymous although diligent and decent detective.
The role of the prosecutor is not to run experiments, but to communicate ideas to others and help them understand...
...The prosecutor is the individual that the establishment has overlooked because of its insistence on research and experiment. The mainstream has mistakenly concluded that an experiment is a necessary ingredient of science because of the alleged impressive successes of the first to use the Inductive Method (Bacon, Galileo, Brahe), from the stunning accomplishments of technology (radio, TV, computers, rockets, the A-bomb), and from the seemingly successful explanations offered by theoretical Physics (gravity, light, and our Universe). The erroneous idea has developed that without an experiment (or Math) the prosecutor only has a tentative explanation: a hypothesis. And if the tentative explanation is not even supported by observation, the prosecutor is merely speculating or guessing.
Actually, a prosecutor only rarely runs an experiment in the courtroom, and when he does, he has slyly put on yet a third hat that has nothing to do with science or with the scientific method. The prosecutor is now acting as a politician. The purpose of an experiment is to add weight to argument and coax the jury to change its mind. A consummated experiment is just another piece of evidence and, as Popper noted, constitutes neither proof nor knowledge...
...To summarize, the detective is a person who wants to learn what happened whereas the prosecutor is responsible for exposing the results of an investigation to public scrutiny. A prosecutor that doesn’t communicate ideas is just a detective, and a detective holding on to his secrets contributes nothing to science...
---
...Physical objects are not only absolutely necessary for a theory of Physics, but also for any scientific theory. A prosecutor should be able to make a movie of his theory because this is what a theory is: an explanation. A theory is a story of how or why a physical phenomenon happened. Every verb, adjective, and adverb that the prosecutor pronounces implicitly alludes to a physical object. Without objects, the prosecutor is simply not doing Science. It is at this fundamental level where the theories of Mathematical Physics fail the scientific method....
...it is important to reinforce that science is distinct from technology. We may discover what artifacts nature allows us to build through trial and error yet understand nothing about what makes them tick. Man realized early that two magnets attract each other and eventually discovered that he could use magnets to deflect cathode rays. We use this technology to build TVs and computers. However, to this day not a single person on Earth can explain to you what is physically happening. Why does one magnet physically attract and then repel another. The 'experts' at think tanks like Cambridge and Harvard only have opinions about the physical nature of magnetic fields and electrons (and misconceived ones at that). Science has to do with theoretical interpretations (i.e., explanations and opinions). Technology has to do with objects developed mostly through trial and error..."
He also has a YouTube channel: bgaede
For example this video should help distinguish between a description and an explanation: Why do the magnets work the way they do?
P.S. Thanks to Chris Noble for the information about this website.
Email this post
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment