So
to answer the question as to why it is preferable to use the
term 'logical-positivism' to 'science' - it is because these
words attempt to clarify the dynamic between the twin processes
of logic and observation. But 'observation' here should always
make every attempt to be in the first person using
this most rigorous of methods. In this sense, building your
own evolutionary algorithm of the solar system, according to
your selected theory on gravity, is essential to a genuinely
positivist appreciation as to the validity of the logic in that
theory.
Most everyone seems to just pick a side, much like a football
team. They then chant slogans and type random extracts in favor
of their side, and against the others, completely oblivious
to the logic between the claims themselves.
Truth is not a monolithic institutional dogma. Truth is a pursuit
that is open-ended and multi-faceted. And a most vital facet
of truth is that of falsehood. Truth cannot exist without untruth.
Ignorance is a necessary consequence to Enlightenment. Knowing
one idea always leads to us realizing that the next idea, is
unknown. Good answers lead to more questions. This process is
the dialectic.
And its easy to lose sight of meaning in the endless interaction
between ideas because it often seems that at every point our
answers depend on assumptions, opinions of others, and unverified
or unattainable data. That is why the first facet of the scientific
method, or any other method, must always be the internal logical
consistency of any body of work. No valid idea can contradict
itself. Logic is the foundation, and thus it is also the goal.
Before we can use logic and observation to uncover truth, we
have to make a less-certain decision on what is a worthwhile
topic to pursue. So prior to starting a study, we are lead by
our intuitions - more commonly termed 'guesses'. The typical
error is to begin with a seemingly worthwhile intuition: a hypothesis,
but then to ignore data which does not fit that intuition. Thereafter
the claim is made that the hypothesis has been verified by the
data that does fit. So methodically accounting for how wrong
data comes about, is vital. Proper careful contextualization
of the data that does not fit is actually the key to
authentic progress. This is why free speech is so vital to a
proper understanding of what the process of understanding
actually entails: errors must be included. People who make mistakes
must not be excluded.
We always begin with a hunch, we almost never start with pure
logic. And observations can easily be misleading, or beyond
the capacity of our immediate individual perspective. On the
one hand we have those who mistakenly take intuitions as verified,
and on the other hand there are those who believe that intuitions
are worthless; insisting on a type of rigor which if possible,
would mean that we all know everything instantly. The rigid-mind
and the fickle-mind actually complement one another. We need
both, and dispensing with either prevents a dynamic growth in
the process of understanding.
Often, the rigid-mind will idolize a famous theory for no reason
other than its fame. 'The theory is famous because it is
correct, and it is correct because it is famous', is the
only real method of the rigid-mind. Another classic error is
'science-of-the-gaps'. Two quite separate or even contrary famous
ideas are assumed to both be true; and it is also simply assumed
that some-or-other 'science' will in some way fill the gap between
them.
After a time, that assumption is then itself simply assumed
as being verified due to the unthinking repetition typical of
the by-rote examination process. Most simply assume because
they scored marks for memorizing a theory at a big institution,
that this therefor makes the theory true, despite the contradictions
within the theory itself. This science-of-the-gaps
ritual often relies implicitly on esoteric jargon and complex
formulae with arcane symbols, which are either memorized by-rote,
or simply glossed over and blindly accepted. Sadly, it is actually
the majority of academic texts at university that fall into
this category.
And yet, complex formulae are often valid. But devising complex
ideas without explicitly explaining them in detail is the hall-mark
of pseudo-science. The most complex ideas always comprise of
many simple steps. Assuming these simple steps exist
and are valid, and then relying on others to make similar assumptions
are psychological tricks employed by the lazy mind. Often the
chicanery is so pervasive, that it is impossible to be certain
who has been duped by sophistry, and who is doing the duping.
It is very easy to dupe oneself out of the will to reach a conclusion;
to appear knowledgeable. But there are never total
conclusions; so we have to be just as comfortable with accepting
the mysterious; as we are determined to de-mystify the unknown.
Authentically, we must just be honest about what is theory,
and what is proved. All too often theory dons the guise of science.
The very phrase 'scientific theory' is an oxymoron. The psychological
key to identifying false theories in the guise of science is
to observe the way in which contradictions are blithely countered
with dogmatic assertion. Jargon in such instances is qualified
by more jargon. References qualified by other references. Contradictions
are glossed over with vague promises to resolve them, either
unfulfilled, or themselves full of further contradictions with
further vain promises of resolution. And the smoke-screen of
filibuster eventually wears down the reasoning process. Thus
bureaucracy is a tactic of the sophist.
The rigid mind memorizes esoteric sophistry; obediently ignoring
his intuitions which are nagging at his subconscious with ever-increasing
dissonance. It becomes quite easy to notice such a mind, because
intuitive dissonance manifests as anger and belligerence; eventually
disintegrating the personality into psychosis. So if you feel
anger at some idea, then this is often an acute warning signal
that you have missed something vital. Go back. Identify what
and why you are angry. Suspend further progress until you can
be certain where you left the logical-positivist path.
For Truth is not just cold-fact, but it is a 'truth-of-mood'
as well. Ignoring such qualities for the sake of assumed quantitative
posturing is the rigid mind again. And yet, the seasoned sophist
knows this, and employs every tactic to evoke anger in the mind
of the honest logical inquiry. Aah, the wicked webs of the mind
of man, are their own worst enemy. So above all, the most essential
method is simply testing for internal logical consistency, and
ensuring self-contradictory ideas are exposed for what they
are. Our legend here is Socrates.
Intuition and style are often conflated. Many reject my own
work off-hand because I like using colors and put elaborate
fractals in the margins. I was once told by a University professor
that my work was too interesting, and if I want to be accepted,
then I should do something more boring. Many thus use the tepid
corporate style as a means to convincing the rigid mind that
their own trivial ideas are of value. Of course, we must not
now assume the opposite and only embrace the colorful, creative
style. How to recognize worthwhile intuitions is a slippery
fish.
But paying attention to the graphic detail is a methodical way
of starting and ending a day's work. The harmony of color eases
my mind into a state of joy that carries over into the rigor
of the programming. Observing the little details in the graphics
tunes the mind to recognizing the tiny little geometric inaccuracies
which need to be ironed out to achieve precision in computation.
Constructing the fractals (fraxtals) has taught me how to visually
turn math into geometry; and to extract the math from the geometrical
patterns too!
And composing music has likewise become an essential human experience
in bringing the emotions into harmony with the proportions of
geometry. The similarities between discovering astrophysics
and creating music are so intertwined that I would suggest they
are both essential facets of the mind. Where logic and emotion
meet is right at the core of our very being: Ethics. And even
parapsychology is very close to this essential mode of mind.
Identifying
inner psychological dissonance is thus a vital part of any philosophical
method. So ultimately, tackling problems and confronting evil
is the path to enlightenment. How can God exist if there
is evil in the world? This is the question that undermines
faith. But is it a perfect game of golf, when all the players
always get holes-in-one? True value is in over-coming the obstacles.
Setting goals and achieving some of the them, gives us a sense
of satisfaction. So a world without evil would be dull and static.
Thus the evil mind convinces itself that it is doing good. And
that is itself dissonant.
Be aware of those who obstruct truth as a means to preserving
academic territory.
|
