the greatest story ever told!

Is there a Sure Way to Know the TRUTH?

One of my favourite things to do is listen to people musing about ancient history and what they would have done in certain situations. It's an activity I often engage in myself: if I was there when such-and-such happened, would I have handled the situation any better? Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and estimating our with the benefit of knowing how things turned out is never an honest game!

Why is Hindsight Sure & Foresight Uncertain?

One thing that makes people feel assured that they would have handled the situation better than the historical characters that went through it, is the firm, but mistaken belief in the minds of many that they are intellectually superior to ancient peoples of mankind. This belief comes from adopting conflicting belief systems that remain unexplored and thus unresolved in the minds and more importantly, the hearts of so many. For instance, many Christians also believe in evolution, not appreciating that belief in one, by definition, means, you cannot believe in the other! They propose alternate, binary world views. Only one can be true; and the other necessarily false. An outcrop of this kind of confused, hodgepodge belief systemology, are beliefs such as: the man God created, evolved from apes. A downstream consequence of that thinking is the idea that there is such a thing as modern humans! In this scenario, people in ancient times believed in "crazy" ideas, like that the earth was flat, or that it was supported on the back of a huge turtle - because they were closer to apes than to modern, sophisticated man. Those ancient beliefs seem laughably outdated in our times, and often, people rationalize that the reason for - what they believe - are our modern, enlightened belief structures, is simply because we are farther down the evolutionary chain than our ancestors were. Is that true? It is the purpose of this section to provide Evidence Profiles that establish the truth on any and all such matters! That might sound like a lofty claim, but:

We will provide proof shortly, but for now, take it as our premise, our starting point, that the ancients were just like us. If that is true, why did they believe in what are frankly ridiculous ideas. If they had the same mental capacity as we do, that is, they were not some sort of half-man, half-ape, how did they reach such ridiculous conclusions on important topics? Something to ponder as you contemplate those questions is: why do we have people today, who believe the earth is flat? In the same line of thought, there are many beliefs that people hold today, that the ancients would laugh at if ever they were told them. Ancient peoples of mankind would think anyone who believed humans could create life - like the engineer from Google does - was an irredeemable idiot. They would think anyone who believed in alien life forms on other planets was crazy: for they believed man was at the center of the universe, and besides us; there was only God, the angels and the demons. So, the answer as to why people believe the things they do, is not as straightforward as it might first appear. For this reason, I never use the term "modern" to describe what is current! It smacks of the "Time-ism," that always thinks was is latest, is greatest. Wrong!

Is Our Perspective Unique - Or Universal?

We thus find ourselves at a most interesting period in history. Or, do we? No, we do not! And, that's the point. As far as misconceptions in Science goes, our period is just like any other in the history of mankind. In terms of knowing one or two things about nature, but holding many superstitions and basically being ignorant of the nature of reality, we are much like any, and all other secular periods in world history! Whereas many people, might think we hold a distinct advantage to judge what is scientific and what is pseudo-science - living as we do in the information age; nothing could be further from the truth. At all periods of history, mankind has fancied that "they" were the modern sophisticated generation, with our forbearers being primitive and uninformed in comparison. The Egyptians built the pyramids, but most people with a smartphone think their default smarter, than the ancient Egyptians. The truth is there is no difference between the times we live in and the times Copernicus, or Galileo lived in. In Copernicus' time, there were things humans had figured out: farming techniques, building sail boats, architecture and design etc. etc., that made them feel they were the smartest generation in history. Much like today GenZ feel that they are the most enlightened, because they are more enlightened to human suffering, and they know their way around iPhone menus better than their parents. In the same way, millennials feel smarter than GenX, and GenX than the Baby Boomers. The truth is every generation has knowledge they inherit from the generations before, but they also have falsehoods, that they inherit. It is these, that form mental blind spots. It is these falsehoods, that are presented as traditions, institutions and societal beliefs that form the basis of an inherited worldview, one that is accepted without the benefit of critical analysis. And that is how "turtle all the way down" mythologies are perpetuated in society - sometimes for millennia!

Back to our analogy of the Copernicus generation. They felt solid, about their belief that the Sun revolved around the earth. That is what their senses told them. That is what all the seasons were based on. That is what the "greatest" scientific minds in history told them. And, most importantly, that is what the inviolable word of God told them was true! All four pillars of that belief system were false. Now put yourself in their situation: if you were living in that time and you heard Copernicus' claims, what would you have needed to do, in order to reach the correct conclusion on the matter? Now, come back to our time: do you think there are any widely held anti-Copernicus Geocentric-type belief systems, in our time? Or, are you like Philipp von Jolly who, in 1878, told one of his students not to pursue a career in physics because: "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes." That student was Max Planck. Planck went on to discover quanta - the foundation of Quantum Mechanics just 22 years later in 1900. In 1918, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work. On the other hand, this anecdote - with the exception of biographical information - forms the entire content of von Jolly's Wikipedia page. As Donald Trump would say: "SAD!" If there was and outdated model of the world that was waiting to be overhauled, how would you go about assessing how to falsify the one worldview - geocentrism; and validating the other - the heliocentric worldview? The answer is the same as it has always been - the scientific method.

The value of what we have learnt so far, is that it gives us a complete foundation for accurately assessing all current scientific claims! That reality, might have slipped you by, so I will repeat it. The value Danielson, of our diligent efforts to "wax on, wax off," is that those efforts have equipped us with all the tools we will need to correctly assess, all current scientific claims: falsifying those that are false; and verifying any that are true! Training is over and we are ready to take the fight to falsehoods.

The Value & Significance of SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS

We lay the basis of our analysis by comparing what is proven, with what is claimed to be proven - to see if there are any contradictions! Of course, conventional wisdom will strongly assert that there is no daylight between what it proven, and what is believed to be proven. To many, these are one and the same thing - which is why, we must put everything we think we know through the lense of Critical Analysis. Applying critical thinking to the process of verification is essential in distinguishing between what has merely stood the test of time, i.e. the geocentric model of the world that endured for several millennia! The Ptolemaic model - a refinement of older geocentric models - itself, stood for over 1500 years. So, we need to apply a standard that goes beyond the shallow threshold of having stood the test of time. We need scientific knowledge that is verified by both time and experience. This is what Kepler meant, when speaking of his astrological charts - in the days before astrology and astronomy where separated - pointed out that some of his guesses would prove true; but the majority, would be disproven through time and experience:

Not jut time; but time and experience. That is, we need scientific theories that are Lindy-compatible. And, the only way to test Lindy-compatibility, is through an assessment conducted with critical thinking. Or, put another way: questioning everything we believe to be true - to verify what is, actually true.

Understanding the Subtleties of Scientific FALSIFICATION

We have covered Popper and his standard of falsification for scientific discoveries. However, there is a hidden and very subtle clause within his definition: can we ever truly know the that something is true? Consider the opinions of two popular physicists, Einstein and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Below are two quotes, one from each, which on the their face, seem to contradicting each other, but are they? In the first quote deGrasse Tyson is explaining why scientists consider Einstein's theory of gravity, as not replacing Newton's theory of gravity but of encompassing it, whilst itself having a larger scope of application:

So, in his mind, because, Newton's theory was experimentally proven to be correct, such proof can never in future be deemed to be non-proof, to have been false all along. Thus, it cannot be falsified. So how does Einstein's theory fit into Newton's if they have both been experimentally proven and independently verified? In his view, since they are both right, the only thing that separates them is range! I pick up the quote with some slight overlap for orientation: deGrasse further explains,

Seems satisfyingly reassuring ... until you read what Einstein had to say on the experimental validity of his own theories, and thus their ability to stand the test of time and experience:

The exact opposite sentiment as that expressed by deGrasse. And with Einstein, Popper agrees:

In his own words, Popper expresses the his thoughts in this way,

It Has Limits

The first of Popper's quotations explains induction, forming a belief on the future validity on the basis of having seen the evidence for it continuously, and without exception in the past. The standard example of inductive reasoning is the belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow, because it has risen everyday through recorded history. Popper agrees with Einstein and Hume, that such a foundation for belief if not logical. This meant there was a one-side (asymmetrical) relationship between positive and negative proofs. In other words, even if you had a billion positive experimental proofs for the validity of a theory; one negative proof would render it false! And, so we come to the unspoken caveat in Popper's theory about how to know what is true: shockingly it is not a theory about truth at all, instead it focuses on how to know something is "false!" That is both depressing and unsatisfying: for since, "falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science," and forms his sole "criterion" for deciding "wha is, and is not, genuinely scientific," it means mankind can only ever know what is false, and not what is real. That is both depressing and inadequate. One-sided, indeed.

What to do? Under such a regime, we cannot know anything with absolute certainty! Is the best mankind can do, just an inductive emotion that "it happened yesterday, and today - I'm sure it'll happen again tomorrow?" The answer to that question is a definite no! And, it comes from, a perhaps unsuspected corner, of Scientific thought - Einstein.

It is an Inadequate Description of Reality

The study of knowledge itself, that is, the surest path for humans to pursue in their quest for ultimate knowledge is called Epistemology. Merriam-Webster defines it as: "The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity." Wikipedia goes further adding, "Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge." In stating the above, Einstein is saying Science, as it is currently practiced, is not the ultimate source of knowledge. Indeed he relegates it to a distant second place, in that he sets its utility and jurisdiction to the mere ascertaining of facts, on one or other phenomenon. However, he finds that unsatisfactory. He wants something more. He doesn't want to know the "details" he wants to know the origin, the source code - God's thoughts. I say this is an unsuspecting source for such a suggestion, because people often use Einstein to assert God is not to be part of scientific discussions. His statements that propose such views are not often quoted, but we can get a glimpse of what people think of prominent scientists who promote a religious perspective by reading of how people - both the secular and the religious - responded to Joseph Priestley's attempt to synthesize religion with science, as published on his Wikipedia profile,

There is a Better Way

Though, some, as in the case of Priestley's readers, view such attempts with contempt; Einstein elevated them to the highest priority. I do not know the thought process behind his quote below, but you only have to contrast his views of the universe with Carl Sagan's views of a cold and meaningless Cosmos, to see their wildly different opinions on what the universe is about, and whether or not it has an underlying purpose:

That, decision is based on whether we believe the universe was created for us by a loving God, or whether we believe we are the products of "blind chance." Einstein was clear where he stood: "The more I study science, the more I believe in God." But claiming to believe in something, doesn't mean, it is right. The preceding paragraphs have been chiefly to show how, and more importantly why, the theory of falsifiability alone, is not sufficient to arrive at absolute truth. For that, we need to employ the Lindy-compatible of resources of Critical Thinking and Reason. Critical Thinking, for taking back the right to process information for ourselves. An activity many have outsourced to "experts." If eating processed foods is bad for your health, how can thinking processed thoughts be good for your sanity? To get to where we need to, we are going to have to learn to THINK for ourselves. Otherwise in what way are we humans, and in what way do we have free will? Secondly, we will utilize the ace that each of us has, up our sleeves: our power of Reason! Once we have gotten a grip on the facts, we will lay them out logically. As an aside, that is why inductive reasoning is not logical, because it has an infinity of tomorrows, to prove the catalogue of yesterdays wrong. Logic, can only truly be utilized when all the facts are at end, indicating a finite, not infinite dataset.

I purposely capitalize our resources because I want to express the idea that we should all view them, as nouns. That is as something you can own, and control and exploit: the way you own shoes, or a bicycle, or a car - and can use them in any legal way you see fit. The same is true of Critical Thinking and Reason: they are our tools, to utilize for our enjoyment, betterment and prosperity - two more quotes from Einstein:

And ...

We don't have to be geniuses to know the truth. We just to need to have the courage and integrity of heart, to not nod our heads when we don't understand something; and the clarity of mind to process information for ourselves. To reiterate: the value of our study of the history and development of Science, is that we now have all the tools we need, to correctly assess the validity of Scientific claims for ourselves! That is the course, we will now pursue.