HAVE WE LOST TRUST IN SCIENCE OR SCIENTISTS? (AND ARE THEY SCIENTISTS AT ALL?)
(worth reading)
(a) We have lost trust in scientists, claiming they’re practicing science (testimony) when they are not, but practicing sales, storytelling, fictionalism, and ideology. And we have lost it because these pseudoscientists fully deserve our loss of trust. Fix? Separate teaching and research in the academy. End the use of ‘slave labor and slave wages’ that requires immigration in the upper labor force as it does in the lower agrarian labor force. End the publication requierment. Require publications in the sciences are limited to testifiability. Science is an outgrowth of our ancient practice of truth before face in law. And that origin in law is the reason for the long history of european development of reason, empiricism and science – and now what is emerging from the scientific process: computation from first principles (laws) of the universe at every scale: a constructive and falsificationary logic of all existence (demonstrating once and for all that the intuitionist rebellion in the early 20th was correct in the rebellion against the restoration of mysticism in mathematics physics and in particular in the behavioral sciences postwar, which, are nothing more than a religous revolt against darwin’s explanation of not only biology, but all of existence.
(b) Tyson, Green, Kaku, Witten, et al, have become as comical or more so than the train of psudo-philosophers who endlessly opine on reality, information transmission in reality, qualia, mind, and consciousness – which, as present technology is slowly demonstrating, are really a quite simple emergent properties of neiurological disambiguation (organization, hierarchical recursive memory, the resulting prediction, attention, and wayfinding (goal seeking). Thankfully we have at least one borderline thinker in Roger Penrose, who, while tempted to fall into mathematical platonism (confusing math with realithy) does try to correct others, a few responsible parties like Gerard t’ Hooft, and emergent critics like Sabine Hossenfelder, who are attempting to preserve what little testimony limited to realism, naturalism, and operationalism (theories) that remains in the field – where that field has abandoned not only testimony but testifiabity, by claiming mathematical (geometric) logics are theories when they are not – they are mathematical frameworks without a theory.
Why? A theory requires two properties: (i) a system of measurement – meaning description one of the grammars of measurement we call the spectrum of logics (ii) a narrative model (search criteria) reducible to an analogy to human experience, and always and everywhere possible, because the universe is consistent at all levels, and describable using the baseline of fluidic behavior.
I spent my adult life working on what you would call scientific epistemology, but I would call testimony, and its application to decidability, and that application to cognitive science, economics and law. However, in that journey I have come to understand that across the human arc of disciplines from the most intuitinistic to the least intuitionistic and most abstract and counter-intuitive, the tendency of those of mythic, theological, philosophical, rationalist, empirical, scientific, and computational all seek to use the model of their expertise beyond it’s capacity for precision given the question they are trying to consider. And the progress of our understanding is as much limited by new information, the convergence of discoveries that produce it, the cost of obtaining them, are offset by the tendency of those whose self image, status, and sunk costs in their methods, inhibit discovery and innovation and application of those ideas – which explains Kuhn’s correct assessment that science progresses with tombstones. And as FA Hayek said, and which I have discovered in horrific detail, that the twentieth through the mid twenty first, will be remembered in history as a new age of mysticism that we did or did not conquer, because of the malincentives of the academy and the state exacerbated by the new capacity of debt, and debt’s facility in extending correction beyond lifespans.
The future is ours only if we fix the delusions and illusions and especially malincentives of the present. At this piont we cannot see past the inflection point caused by our follies, which, in the next no more than twelve to fifteen years will result in anything from a new dark age to a reformation to restore our historical dependence on public speech as testimony, and convert from republican representative government and academy as market for the individual academic rather than for the production of generations of citizens capable of preservation of our W.E.I.R.D. institutions of cultural production, by restoration of the natural, common, concurrent law, legislation, and regulation – which, while not understood by our people, is just the scientific method applied to universal government, and we will hopefully both restore houses of the classes and direct democracy or direct economic democracy, thus making the public a jury too large to bribe, and a constitution prohibiting them from briging themselves – because the laws of nature, and the natural law of cooperation, and the resulting law of evolutionary consequences are inviolable over time, and like all else in the universe, their violation leads to a equilibration at a lower state of energy, mass, and potential.
I do realize the public has little access to thought of this nature since the 1920s, in large part because the war and postwar era, exacerbated by the civil rights era, and exacerbated further by the feminine capture of education and the expansion of feminine incentives to infantilize in order to reduce the stress of adaptation and capacity for the burden of responsibility, and the resulting equality in incompetency, and dependency – and I’m consious that social media is an unconventional forum for such compositions.
But I’ve been consistently surprised by how many people can be reached by investing in a comments section, and who eventually follow, and incrementally learn.
In a field of weeds, planting seeds of trees matters.
Affections
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute