Live the science!

Comment this page with Sidewiki

Thanks for the links in Wikipedia
because of the scientific recognition they imply.

Share this page with your friends.

I. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

I.1. Science evolution

Why has the existence of planets not been scientifically accepted until they have been detected as seeming to be planets, and yet it has been accepted that the speed of light is constant in the entire universe when it has not been proven either?  

Of course, it can be said that the probability of planets existing outside of the solar system was the unit for the probabilities that the human brain normally handles.

In my opinion, the logical reasons for their existence are much more powerful than the new discoveries that indicate their existence.

I imagine that science did not accept it as true because it was not necessary nor urgent, but in practice, most humans thought that they did not exist or had more doubts than what was reasonable, which is quite different from being completely certain. On other hand, the possibility of certainty can always be denied due to the influence of philosophy.

 It is the same with the existence of organic life, from a logical point of view, there can be no reasonable doubt of its existence outside of our planet or solar system. This is due to the game of purely mathematical probabilities.

Other more modern or classic concepts of life, according to how you look at it, have another more immediate problem in that its existence is not even acknowledged nor can be acknowledged scientifically on Earth. Clearly another way is to deny it such as what a fair share of scientists attempt to do because with denial the same thing occurs as with affirmation: Proof is needed!

If we contemplate the concept of science, or simply ask ourselves what is science, we will have to turn to an external discipline: the philosophy of science.

Understanding the Philosophy of science as a level of reasoning helps science and not as an academic discipline using many Latin or Greek words. The Philosophy of science is like the self-limitation that the little boy philosopher sets for himself in order to discover those wonders of the new world that have profound common sense.
 

To maintain the progress of science, the temptation of easy explanations of reality must be resisted, as well as to adamantly reject certain elements of witchcraft or black magic within the domain of the philosophy of science such as:

• Empty space with content
• Negative energies
• Objects that are in two places at the same time
• Tautologies presented as scientific theories
• Effects preceding their causes, or things that go out before going in
• Instruments that change their measurement without their measuring mechanisms being affected
• Forces at a distance or pure telepathy
• Dimensions and imaginations that cannot be confirmed or refuted
• Effects on the physical world of pure mathematical abstractions
• Games with the language, and scientific requirements for how language is expressed in physics

Perception, intuition, and logic are the three weapons used by man in order to strengthen his control over nature. As we will see, the scientific method of the philosophy of science has three principal variants based on these three instruments.

In this respect, perception and logic are the two polar concepts while intuition would be situated in the middle which allows it to formulate theories that in some cases surpass the theories developed through logic and perception, or the combination of both. To a certain extent all theories are a combination of the three.

On the other hand, even from the point of view of the philosophy of science we cannot deny that at times it has been madness that made it possible for science to progress by proposing topics that previously seemed impossible. On other occasions what has made science advance has been love which is perhaps what was being referred to when Newton related the wonderful story of the apple.

Anyway, we can leave it as a small part of all that impelled me to formulate the General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life.

Given the importance of an accurate interpretation of the scientific method and the objective of personal neutrality upon evaluating the theory introduced; a special section has been included relating the limits of knowledge from personal and social psychology and the sociology of science that could affect the acceptation of one or another evolutionary theory.

The impulse must have been so powerful that the outcome of the General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life has naturally been the exposition of the Global Cognitive Theory: divided into the four on-line books: the brain and computers, intelligence and creativity, memory and, lastly, will: the decision-making processes and artificial intelligence.

In order to demonstrate so much theory about the elegant intelligence, with greater success than expected, I extended the IDI Study on the statistical analysis of the Intelligent Design of intelligence based on the longitudinal data from families’ IQ (father, mother, children, siblings and twins) which exists thanks to the Young Adulthood Study, 1939-1967.

Since I was satisfied with that, and I had discovered the Equation of Love, I decided to try to learn the Theory of Relativity without abandoning my concept of the philosophy of science and, consequently, I have elaborated the Theory of Global Equivalence in order to substitute it before some stellar disaster occurs.

Finally, since there were arguments on the philosophy of science in all the books in order to try to understand why the scientific method had failed considerably, and with the acceptance of scientific paradigms and pretty weak theories from the point of view of common sense, I have decided to include them in the present book dedicated to the aforementioned Global Scientific Method.

It should be mentioned that there is a fairy tale of terror, which is better off ignored to the possible extent about the Sly ones of the Inquisition. He who warns is not a traitor!

At the same time, the current defense of the scientific method seems important because it is one of mankind’s and life’s great conquests in general. However, I think that it would be convenient to cast off some of the nineteenth century millstones and twentieth century obstacles, among which their atheistic complexities and utilitarian shroud can be emphasized respectively.

For sociological motives, I think that the philosophy of science has been distorted in the twentieth century due to the almost constant rejection of unquestionable advances of logical scientific knowledge by an unattainable idealistic perfectionism while the illogical is embraced as far as it represents the interests of individuals or groups. Perhaps it is due to the very development of the philosophy of science that it finds itself in the stage of intrepid adolescence.