My LOVE HATE relationship with scientific inquiry is that by nature it (scientific inquiry) is self limiting, exclusionary and self-deifying. If it cannot be empirically measured by science, it is invalid, a misperception, or does not exist. This argument can be extrapolated to mind bending levels of abstraction for even the most prodigious of abstract conceptualists. How many scientifically validated theories have been proven not only untrue, but destructive, through the annals of time. Yet without scientific inquiry we may not have the benefit of many of the technologies that we take for granted everyday such as electrical service and its attendant developments and devices. Much the same for allopathic medical discoveriees, expedient transportation, and a plethhora of other contemporary products and processes. However, assuming that proving absolute truth by testing an induction hypothesis and proving or disproving its validity using currently available tools of measurement and qualification is arrogant and nihilistic at the very least. Nowhere is this more apparent than the currently held scientific opinion by organizations such as the Infectious Disease Society of America, which denies the existence of chronic Lyme disease and the Morgellons phenomenon, almost militantly refuted based upon scanty research at best. The arrogance in science lies in its implications and inferences that if current tools cannot measure a phenomenon, it is either invalid or does not exist. I propose that the only accurate conclusion to be drawn in such cases is that something cannot be proved or disproved using currently available tools of qualification and quantification. This is a broad chasm to cross. Can science prove love, hate, generousity, greed, enlightenment, bigotry? I leave that answer open to the reader. The scientific method has its place and can result in benefit to us all. It has its downfalls as well, which can be associated with the development of devices that are profoundly destructive in misapplication. The hydrogen bomb and Fukushima come to mind. Yet the voices of critics, even scientifically informed ones, are oft snuffed out. Despite numerous salient inconsistencies in the theories of general and special relativities, they are held before us as absolute truths in the reductionist equation E=MC squared. How does one scientifically prove the mechanisms in action vis a vis the Heisenberg Uncertainty and Pauli exclusion principles? What about the immediate observation that two essentially massless photons can be combined to form a third particle, with measurable mass? As a corrolary, how does one prove or disprove the accepted observation that light, scientifically deemed essentially massless, is subject to gravity, an observed phenomenon described as the exponential increase or decrease in gravitational attraction defined with respect to the gravitational constant, G, the masses of the two objects in gravitational relationship, M1 and M2, and the inverse square of the increasing radial distance between their respective centers of mass, R squared. If one of the entities in question, e.g. is an essentially massless photon, this accepted theory goes out the window, as gravitational attraction is a product of the two masses observed, and we know that anything multiplied by zero, even infinity, is well, zero. These formulae weaken at or near light speed (C), and do not hold true in cases of perceived massless particles, such as photons, in the presence of super massive black holes where the mass of the world could conceivably exist on the spatial characteristic of the head of a pin. Just because science cannot validate it means science cannot validate it; nothing more, nothing less. Inferring anything more, using its own tools, an induction hypothesis that scientific inquiry is invalid, can be proved. And therein my friends, lies the rub.
Posted on: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 18:04:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015