I am a big fan of the greats of science, and I frequently quote Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and reference Lawrence Krauss, a modern-day scientist I respect as my source of inquiry.
Much of my work on reinventing the operating-systems for humanity is based on their discoveries, in addition to my observations of nature. The theory of general relativity, combined with nature’s guiding principles, can, thanks to Einstein, be observed in intricate detail right here on earth when you pay attention to nature.
My point is that relying solely on science’s current purview is a mistake. Science is a merely manufactured proxy of the “laws of nature.”
Question Science
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 everywhere, bolstered by the notion that the one-eyed is king in the land of the blind. It pays not to have to think. All one needs to do is define a promised land, and the hopelessly uninformed will become eager disciples.
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 manufactured 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 have contacted me to question the existence of entropy or Einstein’s theory of relativity. These scientists teach our children outright nonsense for a hefty fee. I know now were 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 with no precedent are generally scorned by an education system built on knowledge from the past.
As I describe in Learn To Think, a belief of any kind is the sleep of reason, the opposite of infinite inquiry and proof required to award science the credence it deserves. 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.
Absolute Nonsense
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 supposing absolutism in a universe revolving around relativity.
A universe of relativity cannot be traced by absolutism. No manmade practice can claim the accuracy of totalitarianism 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.
Institutional Credulity
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 most scientists today. The greats, the outliers searching for 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
In the words of Richard Feynman, science is the study of nature. Yet, predisposed science practitioners do not discover many things of nature.
Science is the study of nature
Richard Feynman
Dutch optical lens grinder and philosopher Baruch Spinoza, in the 1600s, earned recognition as one of Western philosophy’s most influential 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 that 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 recognizing 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. It is arguably the most important discovery of the 20th century that humanity has yet to apply to the workings of the operating-systems designed to manage itself.
Reverse Engineering
With universities acting as one of the many fathers of unprecedented discovery, science does an excellent 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 of the practice of formal education.
Not everyone wants to observe nature, but in words from the Pixar movie Ratatouille, an observer of nature can come from anywhere.
Everyone, in their 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 insight 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 of our government, deploying a chaos “theory” spawning many outliers.
Science Is A Derivative
Although a much better discovery process and a better proxy of nature’s truth than any religion can ever dream of, science 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 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, confounding consequence and cause. According to my rating of scientists listed above, a statistician of climate patterns 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
As a practice of our education system, the belief in science 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.
Most science members love the players, not the game, and have their reason for existing. 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.
