the greatest story ever told!

Evaluating The Current State Of The Scientific Enterprise

In a recent interview with Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson lays out how one figures out empirically, what is fundamental. The principle of assessing what is fundamental, can then be applied across all sorts of different categories in society, across the globe and throughout the universe. Here first is the principle, laid out in clear language. In his example he uses language as his subject of study:

That is straightforward enough. More interesting, is how he next applies the principle, in an example using books:

With Science, things are a little different, because Science is not a work of man's imagination, but a path of discovery of what already exists. However, the principle of assessing what is fundamental still applies. In terms of nature, it is based on what building blocks are found at the base of structure of nature. So, for instance atoms are more fundamental than molecules; and electrons and protons are more fundamental than atoms. We get the picture. When it comes to Science, what is fundamental are the proven knowledge, that other later knowledge is founded on. So, Copernicus' theory of Heliocentrism, is more fundamental in the history of scientific discoveries, than Newton's laws of Gravitation, because Newton's work was founded on the heliocentric model of the solar system (what he imagined to be the universe). This is what Newton meant when he said: "If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Of course, we can also apply the principle to the discovered laws of Science themselves. For, instance the laws of mathematics are more fundamental than the laws of motion, because you cannot describe the laws of motion without using mathematics. In our case: the most basic laws that scientist have figured out, are some of the laws governing physical reality, which we have named - Physics. Physics is fundamental to our understanding of the universe, because it explains - to the extent that we are competent in discovering and cataloguing such knowledge - how physical entities are regulated: i.e., how the planets move in their orbits; how gravity controls attracts all matter towards all other matter; what light is composed of; and why it travels in straight lines ... etc.

But physics is a double-edged sword: while it tells us, how the things we have thus far discovered work; more importantly, it also tells us: how the universe does not work! Physics, has a dual utility. Here's a question: what is more fundamental, physics, or astrophysics? The answer, of course is physics, since the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe, and astrophysics is just an application of the physical laws discovered in laboratories on earth, to celestial phenomena in the rest of the universe.

What that means, is that all the stated laws of astrophysics must be based completely on physics! And, all the physical laws we have so exhaustively covered, feature, in determining the validity of astrophysics as a science. Wherever, there is a breach, it would mean, we would have stumbled upon a portion of astrophysics that is not based on proven science. Now, that we have our complete tool set, and we have understood the mission - let us begin.

Physics & Metaphysics: An Eternal Battle?

Immediately, we come across our first clue, as to how things are going to go, when we consider the definitions of the astrophysics and cosmology - two terms, which ostensibly, carry the same meaning to most people, and are therefore used synonymously. And, interchangeable, they should be - for both are branches of astronomy, that deal with complementary features of celestial objects and phenomena. Astrophysics deals with the "behaviour, physical properties, and dynamic processes" of the cosmos; and cosmology "deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe." That first clue, is the inherent contradiction in two theories that should be complementary. For, while astrophysics is based on physics, cosmology is based on metaphysics! Never, can the two be reconciled.

Here is the definition of "cosmology":

And ...

Let's see how this applies in practice ...

Below, we have an example of a black hole - an entity, which does not exist in real life, but whose researchers are busy putting in applications for grants to study a non-existent phenomena that they claim lies just on the other side of where our line of sight - ends.

Thus, cosmologists try to mimic the perspective paradox dynamic of true science, with their fake version. But it is easy to tell the two apart. There are two factors that distinguish them from each other, and the factors can never be confused with each other. In real science: you can "see" the paradox that needs to be resolved, hence the term perspective paradox - because you are looking at it and can identify it. "How can you say the Sun is the center of the solar system, when we can both 'see' it tracing an arc across the sky and the Earth is still?" Or, "The stars at the edge of galaxies are supposed to move slower, but these ones are moving at the same speed as the ones towards the inside?" These are just two examples of such line-of-sight paradoxes. Secondly, the paradoxes get resolved, once our knowledge base has advanced far enough. Once we have collected enough data and performed enough experiments, we resolve the paradox, and add to our scientific knowledge: the Sun does not revolve around Earth, but it is the other way around - the Earth, revolves around the Sun. There is invisible matter at the the edge of each galaxy which acts to coral those stars together. This both stops them from flying away from their home galaxy, and gives them the angular momentum to maintain the velocity of that galaxy's inner stars. Below, is another false perspective paradox with its explanation from an old friend - Paul Steinhardt.

Revisiting an Old Friend

Just like Lavoisier disproved Preistley's ether of dephlogisticated air, with his clearly thought out reasoning on oxygen, only to turn around and introduce another ether - "Caloric," instead of phlogiston: so our old friend Paul Steinhardt, has disproven the Big Bang theory - only to come up with just as zany an idea for what actually happened. Instead of a "bang," he offers that, there was a contraction and expansion. I have illustrated his idea below. He uses the same info-graphic as Big Bang cosmologists, but instead of a bang at the beginning, he tacks on a contraction, and then expansion into our current universe!

On the other hand. With fake science, you can never "see" the problem. These are things like: where are the aliens, which is called the Fermi paradox. But such problems are not paradoxes. They are just contradictions between an incorrect model of the world that is based on evidence-free assumptions, and the facts as they are being accumulated. That is not a paradox. It's called being wrong! Your "guess," as Feynman spoke about was wrong. Scientists never accept this. They just move the goal posts and claim it is a mystery, why the search has not produced results - yet. Ignorance springs eternal. There's always a "yet!" Which, brings us to the second point. Since these are not genuine paradoxes, but wrong guesses, unlike perspective paradoxes - they can never be resolved! The contradictions between the geocentric model of the solar system and the large amount of observable facts that were gathered by Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and others have never been reconciled. They can never be reconciled. For falsehoods and the truth never intersect! Thus, these ideas must eventually die and become obsolete. Abandonment is the only destiny, for all such theories. There is no way to merge phlogiston theory with chemistry; or the luminiferous ether with electromagnetism. The twain shall never meet. This is the final outcome for the Big Bang theory; cosmic evolution; the cosmological principle, with its twin variables of universal homogeneity, and isotropy; black holes; the multiverse; and aliens among many, many others. In fact, most of what you would today classify as science!

Illustration 18 - The retrograde movements of Mars Frog23

Internal Inconsistencies are ...

Never defined as perspective paradoxes, because they are a completely different animal. An internal inconsistency, means after everything has been defined internally - a contradiction in logic is discovered. This has nothing to do with perspective paradoxes. Such paradoxes work on the premise that all of mankind's knowledge is thrown out of whack - not with itself, but - by new evidence discovered outside - in nature. Only then do we revisit what we "thought" we understood, and make amends. This process is called making scientific progress. And it is normal! On the other hand, while scientism tries to pull off its internal inconsistencies as perspective paradoxes, it is quite clear why such inconsistencies exist - lies are by definition internally inconsistent! "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you,+ turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called 'knowledge.'" - 1Ti 6:20

Why Metaphysics is not Science

Metaphysics is the "study of what is outside objective experience." But not a single proof in physics is based on what is "outside" objective experience. Instead, the exact opposite is true: the whole landscape of physics is based on verified experimental truths that are inside objective experience. Consider what some of the scientists, who are unanimously considered, to be the greatest to have ever lived, have to say on this specific point:

This quote links the proper relationship between the physics discovered on earth and the "astronomical ... demonstrations," that they regulate: that they are both "founded primarily upon sense experiences," that is primarily experiments - together with "very exact observations." We treat the next three quotes as a series, and take them together:

And ...

On the one hand; and on the other ...

Each of the first two quotes explains one side, of the two sided coin, of the truth about how the known laws of physics were, are, and will always be discovered. We will contrast that, with the lesson from the third quote. On the one hand, we see that "experience" acts to "void" what is not true. On the other, it acts to establish what is true. Thus, as it relates to the scientific method, experience is the final arbiter in establishing both what is, and is not true. As such, humans must be humble about our limitations, and honest in our methods - as we engage in this search. It is a relative few, who appreciate this:

It takes humility to appreciate that we don't have a bird's eye view of the natural order, since we ourselves are within that order - and it presents itself to us, as a maze. A maze, that we can only discern the details of, in small increments - over large periods of time. These small increments, are in turn, punctuated by occasional leaps, in our understanding of the overall pattern. Thus, as Bohr notes, are efforts must be aimed at only trying to "track down" the relationships between the many different aspects of the phenomena we experience. That's what all the great pioneers did. Think Copernicus; Brahe; Kepler; Galileo; Newton; Count Rumford; Joules; Faraday; Clausius. That's what science is! Those relationships are what our laws describe. Nature is not a product of our minds; we are a product of nature. It is an obvious truth, then, that we cannot "disclose the real essence" of phenomena since our place in the natural order renders nature as a whole - counter-intuitive to our minds. The diligent application of the scientific method is one way to peel back the layers, and resolve the counter-intuitive into the understood. As the greatest practitioner of that method now makes clear,

Of all the above quotes that express how fundamental, experience, that is, experimental proof is, to discovering truth, my favourite is the last: "The best and safest way of philosophizing seems to be, first to enquire diligently into the properties of things, and to establish those properties by experiences...." It is my favourite, because it brings the contradictions between the definitions of astronomy and cosmology into sharp focus! Since, physics is all about establishing truth through experiences, or experiments: how is it, that astrophysics, which is based on physics, is simultaneously co-defined by cosmology, which is a branch of metaphysics? Physics and metaphysics run parallel to each other: they never meet!

According to the accepted dictionary definitions of these terms, there is a big discrepancy that exists between the two - one so wide, that they can never be reconciled into a unified, coherent whole. Put another way, if Astronomy is true to its astrophysical claims, and is based, as it should be, on the experimentally proven laws of physics as discovered on earth: then, none of its explanations should agree with the theories of cosmology. And, if cosmology is true to its definition, and is based on metaphysics, then no cosmological theories will agree with the laws of physics. Yet, both sciences, are supposed to be branches growing from the same tree - astronomy! We all know how to tell whether such a claim is true or false - through our experience. Have you ever seen a tree that produces two different kinds of fruit? Similarly, if the science of Astronomy is made up of two sub-sciences, that contradict each other: one real; one psuedo, then it too, does not exist. That's the CONTRADICTION. And, our task is to use our physics tool-set to separate fact from fiction - what is true; from what is not!

There are only four ways, that two variables can be arranged, either: A is true, and B is false; or A is false and B is true; or both A and B are both false; or lastly, A and B are both true. In this case, because B represents metaphysics-based cosmology, we know that it it always false. Since, the only way to establish scientific truth is through experience, we already know that two of the usual possibilities must be false: A being false, whilst B is true; and both A and B being true. We know this because metaphysical is defined as the "study of what is outside objective experience." In other words, the study of things that can never be confirmed as being true! Hence, both options where B is true are arrangements that are impossible in the real world. And, the nature of the real world, is what we are studying, after all! This leaves us with only two options about the current state of the scientific enterprise - as it applies to Astronomy, the study of the physical and chemical properties of everything "outside the earth's atmosphere." Either: both astrophysics and cosmology have stayed true to their respective definitions and are thus completely incompatible: OR, in an effort to have them both harmonize with each other, cosmology has corrupted astrophysics and brought it, into the metaphysical realm. That, is the only way for them to be in agreement! Determining which of these two possibilities - possibility 1, or possibility 2 - is the reality is our simple task. It's a binary choice - like the 1s and 0s, of computer code. As we start our investigation, a word of advise from a lofty scientist, who had also observed the trend in the Sciences for corruption - for Science capture: