Museum of the science of future
Philosophy of evolution, history and life
The research methodology of scientifically enigmatic paradigms is explained by the sociology of science through errors in the stage of general acceptance of the scientific theories.
It is not easy understanding why enigmatic paradigms of science are given, or why the scientific method has made such big mistakes, why it keeps making them, and how difficult it is to admit it and rectify it. Like I have already commented, Kuhn’s sociology of science explains many of the reasons pretty well.
With regard to the constructive criticism, an additional complication is that when one realizes that there are big flaws in the orthodox doctrine he/she begins to distrust even the most basic elements.
I am going to discuss the biggest errors that, in my opinion, with special reference to the research methodology of the scientific theory of evolution for being absolute absent and far far away, and the dynamic history of the research methodology of Modern Physics, that is, the Modern Physics of each stage of history.
Many of the problems are derived from the very same misunderstanding of evolution and the egocentric humanism, despite the initial contribution of Darwin in the sense of concluding that humans are evolved apes.
Before exposing the mistakes made in each particular science, let’s look at some of their general causes:
How can it be understood that intelligence has not changed in the last 2000 years? This generally shared assertion is the only one that leads us to believe that intelligence has taken enormous leaps in early stages because it seems obvious that there are quite a few differences between our ape-cousins and us humans. In the page about Historic and human evolution in the book on the General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life, some of the consequences and more relevant facts of man’s biological evolution and its stages of research methodology are cited.
I imagine that, with elements so basic and erroneous, all of the research methodologies in history will be affected, given that equally mistaken arguments are derived from them. On the other hand, it will be necessary to look for other elements that make up for the mistakes from the structure produced, in order to coincide or to be compatible with the part of reality that is not open to loose interpretations.
The same argument can be used to preach about the language research methodology. It seems that all languages are similar in that they are found in the same stage of development and have the same number of words. At least there are not any clear statistics on the evolution of the number of words of each language throughout recent history of mankind. I think that there must be some relation between the number of words and the intellectual capacity of the individuals.
But it seems that it is more appealing to say that language is an innate characteristic in all humans, and that the variations among some other groups, current as well as historical, and among some other individuals is due to randomness. Each one has its aesthetics, but the scientific methodology is designed to search and reach the objective truth.
Furthermore, the aesthetics of reality, which if understood, are better than what is usually thought at first impression. I think that an appealing objective of life is to find the divine aesthetic of the essence of reality.
On the other hand, surely the success of certain scientific theories is related to the complexity of reality and the possibility of understanding and most conveniently explaining that complexity for the different acting groups of society, without visibly leaving the scientific methodology.
Suffice to say that this complexity of reality has been a constant in the evolution of science given that, for each stage, scientific research has always been found in the limits of the unknown. I confess that the most difficult aspect of criticizing a theory is being able to understand it well enough. It is difficult for me to believe certain things and to convince myself that, indeed, the scientific community in general, and not a specific scientist, think of what I am going to argue against. It would be funny to make a criticism and they reply: “That’s figurative speaking, a metaphor, and no scientist believes it”. Well, doing it, they constantly do it and in every possible sense.
One day at university, I asked a graduate in physics about various topics related to time, and he told me that he couldn’t tell me because I didn’t know what time was and he didn’t have time to explain it to me because it was very complicated. The conversation ended quickly. I agreed with him in that we couldn’t discuss it, but our personal thoughts did not coincide on the objective reasons of the aforementioned impossibility.
Another big mistake is the case of the research methodology of learning and psychology. I think it has been the abandonment or excessive criticisms of certain proposals that were correct, but did not offer absolute certainty. Of course it is fine to not guarantee what cannot be guaranteed in complex systems, but that should not mean not recognizing that it could be true in the majority of the cases, and, therefore, with these limitations, maintain the opportune doctrinal positions and not go on to the contrary.
A very extensive issue is the ad hominem fallacy or to argue against someone, for example, for the lack of an academic degree instead of arguing against the scientific reasons. When there is no argument…the fairy tale of The sly ones of the Inquisition.
On various occasions, there is a tendency to say that certain topics are empirically tested when they aren’t. Perhaps it is more probable or verisimilar in one stage of the research, but it is not the same.
This hinders the constructive criticism of individuals that actually accept the supposed validation or the lack of support for other theories or alternative sciences.
Thanks very much for your visit,
your comments, wikitos