The Apes of Objective Science

“I sought great human beings, but found only the apes of their ideals.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The Fundamentals of Contemporary Science

We have repeatedly noticed and experienced a definite tendency by members of Work groups to accord credibility to the theories of contemporary science. We dispute the relevance of modern science without an atom of compromise—as uncompromisingly as Gurdjieff does in The Tales. In the pages that follow we provide reasons to doubt modern science. For the sake of brevity, we confine our focus to modern physics. Modern physics, even in terms of its own approach to knowledge, is misguided and wrong-headed in respect of the theories it espouses. It is “off the mark,” by a country mile.

The paragraph below, taken from Wikipedia, briefly describes the scientific method:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

We can formulate it as a series of easy to understand actions, as follows:

  • Observation: Some phenomenon is observed that is deemed worthy of investigation in order to arrive at an explanation that can be expressed as a set of principles.
  • Problem statement: A statement of the phenomenon is made as accurately as possible, perhaps in the form of a question such as: How does A react with B to produce C?
  • Prior evidence: Prior validated evidence relating to the phenomenon (if any exists) is examined and used if necessary as reference material.
  • Hypothesis: A hypothesis is proposed derived both from existing evidence and the formulation of the problem statement. The general rule here is that the hypothesis must be falsifiable.
  • Prediction: A set of unambiguous and well-defined predictions representing the logical consequences of the hypothesis are formulated.
  • Experiment(s): The predictions of the hypothesis are empirically tested with measured results being obtained.
  • Analysis: An analysis of the outcome of the experiments is conducted in an effort to prove the hypothesis wrong. If the hypothesis is not negated by the experiments, the outcome of the experiments can be regarded as support for the hypothesis.
  • Reformulation: If the hypothesis is disproved then it may be reformulated and another iteration of prediction, experiment and analysis may take place.

So, scientists observe the natural world, formulate hypotheses, test them experimentally and then adjust the hypotheses if necessary in response to experimental outcomes. If the hypothesis is general enough, and has sufficient experimental support, it becomes a theory that is taken to apply to many contexts. If there is enough scientific consensus for a long enough time, the theory may even be accepted as a “law,” implying that it holds unfailingly in a set of well-delineated contexts.