|
House of Ideology Welcome Manifesto Music Art Gallery Table News Services Give Links Blog
|
|
Human
life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe.
Although I prefer to believe what is true, I often disagree with others about
what that is in particular instances. I verify facts are true based on sensory
perceptions. Alien quantity of energy, fractal quality of space, infernal
longevity of time and infinite denominator of continuum are limiting
characteristic attributes of my seed body. These characteristic attributes limit
my sensory perceptions. Because of limitations to my sensory perceptions, some
of my most fundamental convictions in life I acquire by using logic to extend
what I know to be true beyond what is verifiable by means of my sensory
perceptions. The
chief concern of logic is the evaluation of arguments. An argument is an attempt
to demonstrate the truth of a statement called a conclusion, based on the truth
of a set of statements called premises. I relate premises to each other in such
a way that these as a set are supposed to provide support for another statement
called a conclusion. The transition or movement from premises to conclusion, the
logical connection between these, is the inference that the argument relies
upon. The primary concern of a logician is to evaluate the validity of
inferences, the patterns of reasoning that lead from premises to conclusion in a
logical argument. The validity of inferences is distinct and different from the
truth of the premise(s) and conclusion. An inference maybe valid and logical if
the truth or falsity of the conclusion of an argument follows by valid logical
inference from the truth or falsity of the premises. An inference maybe invalid
if the truth or falsity of the conclusion of an argument does not follow by
valid logical inference from the truth or falsity of the premises. If an
inference is probably or possibly valid, then logicians call this an inductive
inference. If an inference is definitely valid, then logicians call this a
deductive inference. Deductive
arguments meet a much higher standard of truth and validity. When an argument
uses valid logical deductive inferences to arrive at a conclusion, then all
other possible conclusions are systematically eliminated as possibilities
leaving only one definite conclusion. When an argument claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable and that its conclusion may also be true, logicians say an argument involves an inductive inference. The standard of correctness for an inductive inference is much more flexible than that of a deductive inference. An inductive inference succeeds whenever the truth or falsity of its’ premises provide some legitimate evidence or support for the conclusion. Although it may be reasonable to accept the truth of a conclusion based on the possible or probable validity of an inductive inference from true premises, it would also be reasonable to withhold judgment or even to question the truth of such a conclusion. Inductive arguments may meet a standard of truth and validity to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon the amount of support the premises and inferences supply. No inductive argument is either perfect or entirely useless, although one may be relatively better or worse in the sense that it recommends its conclusion with a higher or lower degree of probability. In such cases, relevant additional information often affects the reliability of an inductive argument by providing other evidence that changes estimation of the likelihood of the conclusion. A scientist is a life form that makes observations, identifications, descriptions, experimental investigations, and theoretical explanations of natural phenomena; all in an effort to gather truth; derive knowledge of theory about laws of cause and effect that predict the behavior, fate, and destiny of matter and energy in the known universe; and apply this truth and knowledge of theory to solve problems. A scientist uses both inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning in the form of the scientific method to solve problems pertaining to the existence of discovery and mystery, the conflict of predator and prey, the game of survival and sacrifice, and the test of success and failure. Using Inductive reasoning a scientist moves from specific instances to general theories that have a certain probability of being true. Using deductive reasoning a scientist moves from general theories that have a certain probability of being true to specific instances that must be true if the general theory is valid. A simple version of
the scientific method looks something like this: 1. Use sensory perceptions to make observations and gather information about how some part of the existence of one totality behaves under various conditions. 2. Search for meaningful patterns in observations made and information gathered about how some part of the existence of one totality behaves under various conditions. 3. Apply valid logical inductive inferences to evidence of patterns found and arrive at a probable set of conclusions often called a hypothesis that is consistent with attempts to explain, give reasons for observations, justify all patterns observed, and make possible prediction of the future behavior of some part of the existence of one totality under a wide variety of conditions. 4. Apply logical valid deductive inferences to a hypothesis and make predictions about the behavior of some part of the existence of one totality that would occur under new conditions. 5. Create an experiment and or make observations to gather information about the behavior of some part of the existence of one totality under those new conditions. 6. Compare information gathered about the behavior of some part of the existence of one totality that is observed under new conditions to predictions of behavior of some part of the existence of one totality derived by valid logical deductive inference from hypothesis. 7. If there are any discrepancies
between predictions and observations then go to step 1 until there are none. A hypothesis
becomes an accepted theory when predictions are consistent with observations under all known sets
of circumstances. A theory correctly explains a range of phenomena. A theory is then a
model of some part of the existence of one totality that accurately explains observations and makes predictions. A valid theory is
one that produces desired results. The desired results produced by a valid theory are
accurate predictions about the future behavior of some part of the existence of
one totality under all
conditions. Scientists repeat most experiments and observations verifying that a theory is
valid many times. This is because each new generation of scientists must learn about the
work of the generations that came before by repeating the same kind of experiments and
observations that demonstrate the validity of a theory. Each new generation of scientists
moves forward into new areas of investigation; and in so doing builds on the work of
predecessors. Thus when exploring a new area of investigation, scientists do use existing
theories. Scientists always keep in mind that old theories might fail to explain results
of new experiments and observations. In such cases, scientists devise new theories and
test new hypotheses until a new theory emerges that explains the results of both old and
new experiments and observations. The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced. One does not have to believe a given researcher. Given enough energy, space, and time one can redo experiments and or make new observations. Conclusions of a valid theory will stand irrespective of the state of consciousness of the investigator and or the subject of investigation. Ideally, scientists do not accept a theory based on the prestige or convincing powers of proponents. Scientists accept a theory based on results obtained through observations and or experiments that other scientists can reproduce. The validity of a scientific theory rests upon use of senses and perceptions to gather objective evidence that confirms predictions arrived at by valid logical deductive inferences made from the premises of a scientific theory. The validity
of a mythical theory does not rest upon use of senses and perceptions to gather
objective evidence that confirms predictions arrived at by
valid logical deductive inferences made from the premises of a mythical theory. The validity of
a myth rests upon it's ability to produce desired results. The validity of myths included
in my model of the existence of one totality rest upon their ability to enable me; to have the
highest esteem of the existence of one totality; and thereby to produce the most
optimistic thoughts, beliefs and expectations about the existence of one
totality.
Proponents of myth propagate their beliefs based solely upon a creative imagination, and
unrestrained fancy made possible by the existence of discovery and mystery.
Generally, myths are preferred because belief in them ‘feels right’. Myths are
‘proven’ in the heart. Scientific theories are ‘proven’ in the head. I base truth
and knowledge of theory on the existence of discovery. I base myth and fantasy on the
existence of discovery and the existence of mystery. I leave lies and ignorance for critics to point out. I reject lies and
ignorance. I eliminate lies and ignorance from my model of the existence of one
totality. Lies and
ignorance contradict truth and knowledge. Myth and fantasy compliment truth
and knowledge. A scientific theory has an important characteristic that helps to differentiate it from a mythical theory. Scientists consider a theory scientific when a theory makes predictions about the future condition of some part of the existence of one totality that a scientist could then check against results from some experiment or observation. Accuracy of results predicted for experiments by a theory are necessary to establish its’ validity and that any given theory is scientific. Without predicted results, scientists consider a theory to be a myth. For example, the atom is some part of the existence of one totality. Werner Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schrödinger in Zurich were scientists that worked to develop a new picture of sub atomic reality called quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical theory makes predictions about some part of the existence of one totality that scientist can check against results of experiments. Experiments were designed by scientists to check predictions about some part of the existence of one totality made by quantum mechanical theory. Scientists have found that results of experiments agreed with predictions made by quantum mechanical theory. The accuracy of results predicted for experiments by quantum mechanical theory established its' validity and that quantum mechanical theory is scientific. In contrast, the theory that the known universe is a finite part of an infinite system is not testable, provable or disprovable. As such, the theory that the known universe is a finite part of an infinite system is a mythical theory. I
affirm the truth that myth is myth. I acknowledge that the existence of discovery and
the existence of mystery make possible an infinite number, diversity, and variety of myths about the existence
of one totality only limited by our creative abilities and powers of imagination. The
validity of each of these myths about the existence of one totality follows from two definitions of
the word valid. The logical definition of the word valid is: Containing premises
that may be used to derive a conclusion logically. The presence of evidence in
the form of the universe provides premises that may be used to derive by valid
logical inductive inference each and every one of an infinite number, diversity
and variety of myths about the existence of one totality made possible by the existence of discovery and mystery.
Therefore the logical definition of the word valid leads to the conclusion that
each of these myths about the existence of one totality is an equally valid possibility. Another
definition of the word valid is producing the desired results. If the desired
results are improvement in our various health behaviors, our immune functions,
and our biochemical functions by our optimistic thoughts, beliefs and
expectations about the existence of one totality in ways that make our bodies more resistant to
illness and better able to recover from existing disease; then optimistic myths
about the existence of one totality are more valid and pessimistic myths about
the existence of one totality are less
valid or even invalid. A
capacity to produce the most optimistic thoughts, beliefs and expectations about
the existence of one totality; is the basis for choosing to
believe
in the one myth that enables me; to have the highest esteem of the existence of
one totality; and is
the basis for choosing not to believe in all other myths about the existence of
one totality that are made possible
by the existence of discovery and mystery. It is on the basis; of producing the most
optimistic thoughts, beliefs and expectations about the existence of one
totality; that I suggest to
others a belief
in the
one myth
that enables us to have the highest esteem of the existence of one totality. |
|
Copyright 2010 |