A lot of my work on reinventing the operating-systems for humanity is based on their discoveries, in addition to my own observations of nature. The theory of general relativity, combined with nature’s guiding principles, can, thanks to Einstein, in intricate detail also be observed right here on earth when you pay attention to nature.
My point is, relying solely on the current purview of science is a mistake. As science is a mere manmade proxy of the “laws of nature.”
I am very selective about who I take seriously (in all aspects of life), as our world is filled with cunning and self-aggrandizing imposters, not excluding the practice of science.
Nobody really knows what they are talking about.John Cleese
The imposters are literally everywhere, bolstered by the notion that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king. All one needs to do is define a promised land and the hopelessly uninformed will become eager disciples. It pays not to have to think.
The real greats of science allow themselves to be questioned. Those who masquerade for it will not.
But even the greats of science are “wrong” as nature’s relativity cannot be fully captured by manmade theories of absolutism.
Don’t Believe In Science
The belief in science is an oxymoron.
Even Lawrence Krauss makes that mistake -on occasion- unduly deflating both his credibility and that of the practice. His analyses and fantastic lectures (such as A universe from nothing), standing on the shoulders of the greats of science, should not be boiled in a soup of scientists with questionable credentials.
You will not believe how many scientists contact me to question the existence of entropy or Einstein’s theory of relativity. These are the scientists that teach our children for a hefty fee outright nonsense. I know now where not to send my child.
Not every Ph.D. is worth its foregone reputation in an education system that in so many ways has lost its collective mind, a club so unwilling to let Albert Einstein in, at first. Outliers that have no precedent are generally scorned by an education system built on knowledge from the past.
Belief of any kind, as I describe in Learn To Think, is the sleep of reason, the opposite of infinite inquiry and proof required to award science the credence it deserves. For belief is a foregone conclusion of truth incapable of withstanding new and higher normalizations of relative truth poised to expire its predecessor’s validity and relevance.
Belief is the opposite of the “woke” curiosity required to discover how nature really works.
The trapped-door science often falls into comes from being positioned as the bearer of absolute truth; immediate bate for creationists claiming theirs. The battle between a false-negative and a false-positive cannot be won by either supposition of absolutism in a universe revolving around relativity.
A universe of relativity cannot be traced by absolutism. No manmade practice can lay claim to the accuracy of absolutism of any kind. The victory of human ingenuity belongs to the methodology best suited to produce an evolving proxy correlated to the ever-expanding discovery of nature’s truth.
There is no absolute truth, there is only absolute nonsense. The nonsense sold by religions incapable of proving its past, let alone preempting a future appealing to the sigh of the hopeless.
As I discovered through my work how manmade constructs (I cannot call them systems) violate nature’s principles, I am appalled by the seemingly untouchable reputation of their institutional creators.
The problem with science as an institution, spare the greats, is similar to what I discovered about the Press positioning itself as an unchallengeable institution, demanding constitutional protection.
As I wrote in the article about The Press, four types of scientists exist these days:
- One who describes what has been discovered (paper regurgitator)
- One who invites talking heads to debate what has been discovered (advertising whores)
- One who merely describes the impending delta of consequences of what has been discovered (rebel without a cause)
- One who understands the cause of what was discovered (the real scientist)
Type 1, 2, and 3 comprise the vast majority of scientists today. The greats, the outliers in search of a new normalization of truth, are type 4.
Not all science is created equal. Admire specific scientists as you can admire specific press members, don’t hand out free hall passes to the institutions that embrace them as members.
The Study Of Nature
Science, in the words of Richard Feynman, is the study of nature. Yet, many in things of nature are not discovered by the predisposed practitioners of science.
Science is the study of natureRichard Feynman
Dutch optical lens grinder and philosopher, Baruch Spinoza in the 1600s, earned recognition as one of Western philosophy’s most important thinkers, demystifying for the first time succinctly the value of knowledge, and the relationship between mind and body.
Leading writer, printer, political philosopher, politician, postmaster, humorist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat turned inventor, Benjamin Franklin in the 1700s, helped us understand and use electricity.
German writer and statesman, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in the 1700s, told us how “No one is more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free” leading to the comprehension freedom cannot exist without its paradox, with freedom as the necessary precept to produce outliers.
Philosopher, cultural critic, composer, poet, and philologist, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche in the 1800s, as a prelude to relativity, made the remarkable observation of how most “people confound consequence and cause, leading to the grave depravity of reason” still causing manmade dysfunction of gigantic proportion I harp on in this blog frequently.
Lawyer turned amateur observer of stars and galaxies, Edwin Hubble in the early 1900s, was responsible for the recognition of an expanding universe, in his honor the Hubble space telescope was named.
Patent clerk, Albert Einstein in the early 1900s, discovered the theory of general relativity. Arguably the most important discovery of the 20th century which humanity has yet to apply to the workings of the operating-systems designed to manage itself.
With universities acting as one of the many fathers of unprecedented discovery, science does a good job inducting the unconventional greats into its practice, quickly expanding its realm, purview, and curriculum by association.
But the reverse engineering of square pegs in the round hole of science does not lend more credence to the round holes of formal education. These geniuses succeeded not because but despite the practice of formal education.
Not everyone wants to be an observer of nature, but in the words from the Pixar movie Ratatouille, an observer of nature can come from anywhere.
Everyone, in their own way, can and should be an observer of nature, for the future of every human, and humanity collectively depends on it.
Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, get a telescope and observe how a universe with one-hundred billion galaxies each with four-hundred billion stars like our sun, helps us understand how nature’s macro determines the micro on our insignificant pale blue dot.
As a species, we must maximize the fractal of human ingenuity needed to combat nature’s sword of Damocles, called entropy.
Human acuity is crucial in defining the infinite truth of nature we seek to unravel. To claim the study of nature is relegated solely to science’s current practices is like proclaiming America’s success comes from its government. America’s relative global success happens not because but despite our government, deploying a chaos “theory” spawning many outliers.
Science Is A Derivative
Science, although a much better process of discovery, and a better proxy of nature’s truth than any religion can ever dream of, is also put on an overzealous and self-aggrandizing pedestal by its practitioners.
Nature doesn’t care about our concoctions. I squirm when I hear Lawrence Krauss reference the “laws of physics” asking many to bow down to its purported absolutism of truth. As I describe in first-principles for dummies, those “laws” may hope to describe an improved understanding of the laws of nature.
The laws of physics are, at best, a derivative of the laws of nature. In the same way, the share price of a stock defining the valuation of a company is by correlation, not inferring causation, no accurate representation of the value of a company. Especially not in the manmade constructs that artificially inflate valuations.
I squirm when some 95% of scientists suggest solving the undesirable consequences of climate change will improve our climate, again confounding consequence and cause. A statistician of climate patterns, per my rating of scientists listed above, is not someone who understands causation, but someone who revels in consequence as a rebel without a cause.
I squirm when the U.N. ignores the lessons from the greats of science over the convulsions of its stale practice.
Remember, one-hundred percent of the inductees of science in the world, unwilling to challenge their foregone conclusions, for long believed Einstein, Copernicus, Lemaitre, and other outliers were wrong. Without those outliers of science, we would not be where we are today.
Ode to real scientists over science
The belief in science, as a practice of our education system, is like the belief in the automobile industry coming up with viable and practical solutions to reduce carbon emissions. It took Tesla, an outsider, to change the way cars are built today and tomorrow.
Love the players, not the game, for most members of science have their own reason for existing. Congruently, I do not love the press, for most of them are lazy armchair quarterbacks. But I love the few good ones that exemplify how critical inquiry is needed to reinvent their practice to advance humanity.
A few independent free-thinking outsiders of science have dramatically expanded the fractal of human ingenuity and dragged the practice of science along with them. We have yet to apply their discoveries to the first-principles of the operating systems of humanity to make humanity fundamentally more compatible with nature.
I will show you how.