Any science based on hypotheses inherits myriad flaws. These flaws include the idea that hypotheses, by design, drastically reduce the field and scope of exploration. In doing so, they fatally skew experimental results, so much so that they guarantee these results will translate poorly to individual, real world cases. A separate but equally problematic assumption…
First, I agree with much of what’s been written. This said, it would easily take several books to document all these flaws. Where to begin? (please forgive any repetitions from previous posts). [1] Nowhere Is The Method Stated Clearly and Precisely To begin with, the oft-promoted idea that there is a single scientific method is…
First, kudos to the person who asked this question. It may be the most important a scientist could ever ask. It alone asks, what tangible qualities must we understand in order to know the nature of all things in our world, including us? Not surprisingly, the minute you try to answer this question, the present…
[NOTE: This was posted in 2016. Obviously, a lot has changed since then]I agree that with some posters that as AI exists, it will never be more than smart statistics. The problem is, you cannot change what you cannot see. Thus the main flaw in AI design lies not in any lack of intelligent effort…
Alex, whether you realize it or not (and at the risk of inciting any currently attending science-police), this question is at the heart of what’s wrong with the current scientific method. And despite this method having done much good, in truth, it fails to make discoveries close to one hundred percent of the time. Imagine….
First, nice to meet you, Kalangi. And thank you for this seemingly simple, but incredibly complex, and lovely, question. So what is the difference? I’m going to offer two directions in which to look for an answer: in an origin story, and by using logical geometry. First the story. ************************* In my early forties, I…
Thank you so much for asking me what is surely one of the more intriguing questions I’ve been sent lately. Hopefully the little drawing I’ve included below will be of some help here. Imagine that this square (the outer boundary of the drawing) contains all you could ever know about a certain subject. Say this…
Almost every child, before they turn seven, experiences some variation of a particular kind of life event. This particular kind of life event then forms the foundation for accepting bullshit without question. And while the science behind what I’m saying isn’t commonly known yet, I’ve three decades of scientific evidence which supports this claim in…
Scientific Knowledge equates to knowing the meta nature of a thing, the full constellation of all the meta patterns which make a thing, state, or process this thing. Think ordinary water. One meta pattern involves the number and kind of molecules, their bonds, and such. But another meta pattern is the “source” of water’s emergent…
I must admit, my first reaction to being asked to answer this question was to pass on it. Why? Because the question is phrased in the very manner in which closed-minded scientists, and trolls, phrase things. Please notice, I said, “closed-minded scientists,” not all scientists. Many scientists are amazing people. And part of what amazes…
On unpacking this question, we find what at first glance appear to be three simple questions. [1] Are scientists personally biased. [2] Do they intentionally hide these biases? And [3] if yes, how often? On reflecting further though, these questions are anything but simple. This said, I’ll try to offer a few starting points from…
Like most people, for much of my life, I took cause and effect for granted. Then I read David Hume’s take on this, and I’ve never recovered. Hume says you can never actually see cause and effect. You can only assume it exists, based on the sequence in which things unfold. Hence the Latin warning:…