Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:

By Menvall
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Science is not a belief, but a craft

Saturday, December 8, 2012 19:50

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

The biological systematist idea of “a single true tree of life” is analogous to the physiscist idea of “Higg’s particle” and string theory, respectively - it is the idea of an imaginary fact that would close their respective circles.

Unfortunately for all of them, there is no conceptual circle that can be closed in agreement with facts, because conceptualization is 3-dimensional and thus either rectangular or cylindrical. A circle requires two end points (like black and white) which joins to form a circle, but conceptualization consists of three orthogonal components, ie, object, infinite class and finite class, which thus joins to form either a cube or a cylinder. All facts are thus consistent with conceptualization only in the form of a cube or cylinder (see for example T. S. Eliot), which can be converted to each other (see conversion of nuances, or hues, between RGB and HSV). The problem with this fact for simplification into a circle is that when we add change along time to this 3-dimensional system, then the middle becomes undecided. There simply isn’t any middle in a 3-dimensional system that changes along a 4th axes (ie, time), although this is the reality we live in. Every attempt to close a conceptual circle is thus bound to encounter either contradictions or paradoxes.

The biological systematist idea of “a single true tree of life”and the physiscist idea of “Higg’s particle” and string theory, respectively, are thus sympathetic in their respective aims to reach the impossible fact that would confirm their respective beliefs, but, unfortunately, belief in conceptualization does not agree with facts.

Fact is thus that we are confined to making models of reality, but that we can’t find a single true model, only better or worse models. There will thus always be better models to be found, but also models that can be discarded definitely. This search of better models is what we traditionally call science. It is thus extremely important, actually fundamental, that we don’t let this search tilt into the biological systematist idea of “a single true tree of life” or the physiscist idea of “Higg’s particle” and string theory, respectively, because all of them are bound to encounter contradictions or paradoxes. We must not sacrifice science on the altar of belief by claiming that it can be a belief. It can’t. It can just be a practical way of describing reality in terms of models. It is a craft, not a belief.

Science can thus only be a craft. It can never rise to a belief, because every such attempt encounters either contradictions or paradoxes. Making models of reality is what science is confined to.