How are scintific theories produced?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Diomedes71
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:56 pm

Post by Diomedes71 »

Hi Effie
indeed there are no absolutely new and prototype ideas or ideas that have never been expressed in the past. However, we have nothing to lose (on the contrary, we can only gain) by bringing back and using to our benefit ideas that have been forgotten. We could even improve already existing ideas , since any idea or knowledge can be further improved. Besides,in any case that's exactly the quintessence of progress, including the level of ideas.
Agreed

Thank you for the greek mythology lesson... no seriously!
BUT.. I just don't get the problem you are trying to address generally. What problem is your system trying to solve? How have you succeeded where others could not have done with general scientific methodology taught?

It seems to me, we have answered your question, and the ways scientific theories are produced has been perfectly adequate for millenia. Ofcourse there are mistakes, but, that is part of the system. I think you are mistaken if you believe you have found a way to produce flawless theories.
since every human being has a basic truth (doctrine, axiom, fundamental belief etc) for each one of their everyday activities (scientific or not).
I don't think this is true, how do you deduce this?

Regards
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Post by Arising_uk »

Hi effie,
You and your mentor might be interested in C.S.Peirce's "Values in a Unverse of Chance." If you can get it.
effie
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:58 am

Post by effie »

Diomedes,

there is no doubt that we are able to produce theories, as proved by the huge numbers of theories that are constantly produced by all sciences. However, the ability to produce theories DOES NOT prove that we also know how we do it. Similarly, we are able to live, dream, imagine, deide, program our actions etc, but that does not prove that we know exatly how we do it.

Between "being able to do something" and "knowing how to do something" there is a huge gap, which is called effectiveness.

Our effectiveness is determined by the amount of knowledge we have regarding the execution of a specialized activity. If our knowledge regarding the production of theories is complete and accurate, then:
1. Why does philosophy of science continue its efforts? What does it try to accomplish?

2. Why, since we have all the essential knowledge, haven't we sueedeed in interpreting fully at least ONE of the activities of living organisms (biological phenomena), one of the intellectual faculties or their disorders?

3. Why the percentage of well founded theories is so small, compared to the total number of theories that are produced? By any chance, do scarse sucesses represent the exeptions, which confirm the rule?

4. The inability of any given science to fully understand the phenomena it studies reveals, to whom is willing to see, that the knowledge we have is, in someway, incomplete. Because, if it was complete and adequate, science would rush into using it and ,therefore, interpreting the phenomena it studies.

As far as the phrase "partial understanding" ,that is often used, is concerned, there is no such thing. Interpretations are either compatible or wrong. It is impossibe to claim that an interpretations is partly correct and partly wrong, as it is impossible to support that "she is partly pregnant". Either a theory explains the phenomenon it deals with or it doesn't.
However, since theories are views of reality, a correct theory can be improved and become more adequate. The ability to improve a corret theory does not signify that this theory was wrong in the first place!

E.g. Newton's laws of motion, even if they have been superseded by Einstein's theories, continue being valid (even if they can only be applied to low- speed systems) and being applied by contemporary physics. Einstein didn'tprove them wrong: with his work improved them and created a new physics, which was better and more effective than the classic one. He didn't create a brand new physics!

I think that the above answer your question "what problems are we trying to solve with this system". If you had read my previous posts, you would have noticed that our effort aims at the constitution of the theoretical sector, which will be effective when it manages to obtain ALL the necessary elements. The sector of research is effective and productive because it has at its disposal all the elements it need in order to execute its specialized work. In addition, possible inabilities of research are seondary due to the incompetence of theoretical sector and to the ill founded theoretical interpretations which it has to test. These inabilities will be surpassed when esearch will be supplied with well founded theoretical products.

As far as your last question is concerned (how can we deduce that all our activities are guided by the respective basic truth), it's up to you to answer it. Take a look around and you will observe that a basic truth with diferrent variations and synonyms (model, paradigm, fundamental belief,mode, ideals, folkways, rolemodels, etc) is present in every religious, social, cultural activity. Furthermore, if youwould like a more specialized view, take a glance at every normal science that has existed (nowadays or in the past).

A basic truth, with its various synonyms, is the linchpin which "glues" different people together and transforms them into a homogeneous group. Which is the power that connects a group of people with different bagkrounds and makes them act and think, broadly speaking, in the same way, if not the basic truth? E.g. all orthodox christians have a common religious dogma (basic truth), all communists share the same model for how society should be, etc.


What would you call the idea (which is commonly accepted in molecular biology) that identifies living organisms with the lifeless matter (molecules) of which it consists , the idea that identifies brain (cerebrum) with the organ that serves all the intellectual faculties ,the idea that earth was in the center of universe or the idea that universe is consisted only of matter (and its newest version that universe consists of matter and fields)?


Ps Arising_uk, thank you for the recommendation
bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Post by bus2bondi »

hi effie, your thoughts are interesting. I was wondering if any of your research has dealt with consciousness within cells ('cell consciousness'); or at least the methods which might help us learn more about it? Thanks
effie
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:58 am

Post by effie »

Bus2bondi, very intriguing question! it may seem brief and simple, but it is complex.

The answer is sited analytically in our book, but you might understand that it's impossible for me to right it down analytically in this forum. However, I will provide you with the general outlines of the path that one should follow in order to reach the answer.

Consciousness, according to psychiatry is one of the known basic intellectual faculties, which are 8:
1. memory,
2. perception
3. space and time orientation
4. will (volition)
5. concentration (attention)
6. emotion
7. thinking (reflection)
8. consciousness.

Accoding to psychiatry (once more), a living organism who has at least one of them, then it surely has all of them. Consequently, your question is reduced to the following: Do living cells have intellectual faculties and how can we prove that?

The answer to the first "leg" of the question is affirmative and is proved (supported) by the innumerous data that have been produced by all research sectors of biology, which show that living cells (from marine bacteria to embryonic cells and the cells that compose human body) have ALL the intellectual faculties that are known and they use them in order to grow, evolve and survive in their environment.

By studying the existing papers (if you would like I could provide you with some specific references) you will easily realize that cells have the ability to remember, to determine the sort, the intensity and the duration of their response, to orient in time and space, to perceive possible changes of the surrounding (environmental) conditions, to communicate with their neighbours (cellular dialogue), to live together (symbiosis) and in general to complete successfully all the basic biological phenomena that are completed by multicellular organisms.

The fact that those data and knowledge, which are present in every biological research, remain invisible and unexploited is clearly due to the inadequacy of the molecular basic truth and the molecular scientific perception which dominate on contemporary biology, which (arbitrarily) deny that living cells have intellectual faculties. Molecular basic truth, functioning as Procrustes, impedes the access to scientific perception to all the information (data, knowledge etc) that regard E.M. fields and intellectual faculties.

The data will be gathered and utilized correctly when the adequacy of the molecular basic truth will be improved, that is to say when biology obtains a new basic truth regarding living cells, which will be complete (it will include all the basic structural and functional elements of which living cells are consisted) and compatible with its object (it portrays fully and accurately the living cells).

Ps If you have more specific questions (e.g. which is the identity of the cellular biological factor which performs the intellectual faculties or which are the physical mechanisms with which it completes its functions), I would be more than happy to discuss them :-)

Ps. 2. in our book, the improvement of a basic truth(we use an examle the molecular basic truth) and the location of the identity of mind are the results of the theoretical procedure, parts of which I have tried to post in this forum. In other words, our approach is systemic (and that's why i have insisted on presenting gradually small parts of it) and it is has no "gaps"between each phase.
Mind is a (still) unknown factor, who nevertheless provides us with indications that reveal its presence and its role. Concisely, i can tell you that mind does not belong to the level of lifeless matter (molecules).
bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Post by bus2bondi »

hi effie, i look forward to your book when its done and i understand why you cannot share it all right now in the forum. Totally understandable.

Thank you for sharing the outline & some basics. Some of it i'm familiar with it, and some of it was all new to me, so much apprecialoved. I would really love to find the source of consciouness (within a cell). Have you found anything relating to its source? And if something is living & non molecular should we or could we infer or assume it to then have a brain? (the cell that is.)

I would also like to learn more about 'the identity of the cellular biological factor which performs the intellectual faculties' and 'the physical mechanisms with which it completes its functions.' (Kind of what i asked above, so i think were on the same wavelength:). Anyhow, look forward to any info or thoughts you have about this.

And just one more question... does the psychological approach differ from the neuroscience approach in your opinion? Thanks
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Post by Arising_uk »

mark black wrote:effie,
You must be shagging this mentor because he certainly doesn't employ you for your writing skills. mb.
Best you pay attention to your own social skills here mark. Is your Greek as good as Effie's English?
a_uk
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Post by Arising_uk »

Hi effie,
You ask to many 'big', 'technical' questions for this philosophical brain to process but this caught my eye,
effie wrote:...In order for this to happen, each of the individuals that becomes a scientist must be able to locate the basic truth of their science and have the knowledge that is essential in order to test it objectively and improve it...
If you are right we could we optimize this process by the way we teach the relevant 'science'. So we provide students with all the background data and knowledge that the 'greats' had when first forming the 'basic truth' of their subject and only train those who make the 'breakthrough' or some good aproximate explanation of the data. This would lose us all the 'scientists' who have just 'learnt' the process and are producing 'pointless' theories from the 'endless' data?
I think its a bit harsh to ask them to 'improve' the theory? Or are you saying that should be their scientific career? Would that not leave many in pointless research?
a_uk
effie
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:58 am

Post by effie »

Bus2bondi,

The fact that you are familiar with many of the things I have written proves what I have been claiming since the beginning: our approach we suggest is so simple and so common, since we use it constantly in every theoretical activity, that you will realize that you "älready know" all I am about to write to you. When I started , I was a little puzzled, but then (as my mentor had insisted), I began to see that I already had all this knowledge, but I hadn't realized neither I had it nor I used it. Now I am fully convinced (and I can provide you with hundreds of exmples) that we know much more than we think we know. In order to convert our "silent", "subconscious" or "empirical" knowledge into scientific and conscious knowledge all we have to do is manage to express it verbally.

As far as the book is concerned, it will soon be published in Greek. However, we do not have any contacts in U.S.A. in order to publish it there as well, so it may take a little longer. Until it's published, I will discuss with the fora users who are interested in it and try to give them the answers they seek. If we do not manage to publish it in English we will post it on-line.

The first step we have to take in order to find the answers to your questions (or the answers to any search) is the choice of the respective basic truth. The selection of the basic truth, according to my mentor, is similar to the choice of the train on which we will board in the starting point, from which many trains begin their route. With this choice we seal the route we will follow, the stations from which we will pass by and the destination to which we will arrive. We all can imagine that if our choice is wrong, our "path" will also be wrong and we will never manage to arrive at the desirable destination.

Since you have wondered about the basic factors of which cells are consisted and from what you had written I assume that you now that cells have all the known intellectual faculties (and therefore an "organ"which serves these faculties, before we move one we must answer the following question: Are the endogenous cellular fields biologically active? If yes, which is their role?

My mentor, after 25 years of search, has all the necessary evidence to prove that living cells consist of three basic biological factors: molecules (matter), fields and intellectual (along with its intellectual faculties). The latter 2 (fields and intellect) are the trademark of life: an organism without fields and intellectual faculties is dead. The three unsimilar (both physically and functionally) factors are functionally interconnected and all together form an entity whose abilities supersede
the aggregation of the abilities of the solitary parts. Each factor offers to the total its specialized "services".

The next step is to find the identity of the intellect.
The "organ"which serves intellectual faculties (which we will name "noetic organ"), since it exists and has obvious impacts on the activities of living organisms, it must have a physical hypostasis (substance).

Contemporary science,regarding the identity of noetic organ, is in the same position as it were before Newton "discovered" gravity. Scientists, before Newton, were convinced that material objects used to fall due to their tendency to return to their "natural place". That is to say, scientists believed that gravity was a property of matter. The similarities are obvious: today many scientists believe that intellect is one of the properties of matter.

Noetic organ must be a physical presence, since it gives specific clues and indications that reveal its presence and its role. Besides, if it weren't a natural factor there is no point in trying to locate its identity and know it.

The fact that so far we haven't been able to locate the natural identity of the noetic organ is due to the inadequacy of the basic truths of molecular biology and of psychiatry. The failures themselves clearly show that neirther molecules nor brain serve the intellectual faculties. If those basic truths we should have found and explained at least one of the basic intelelctual faculties by now!!! Please note that the formation and acceptance of these basic truths is has been based on indications, NOT evidence. Their presence (functioning as Procrustes) prevents us from observing and utilizing the existing data and knowledge, which revel, beyond any doubt, the identity of the noetic organ.

One of the facts (which are literally dozens) that prove the incompatiblity of those basic truths is that, despite the long lasting theoretical and research efforts, neither of them has been verified. Another proof is that, if brain WAS the noetic organ, then cells shouldn't be able to perform any ntellectual faculty, since they have no brain. However, those who study the cellular activities has ascertained on their own that living cells have ntellectual faculties and they use them in every activity they perform.

Consequently, in order to locate the identity of the noetic organ we have to start from point zero. During the first phase of our effort we must rely on what we know (utilize the known) in order to approach the unknown. That is to say that we have to gather what we KNOW about the noetic organ in order to find its (unknown) identity. What we know about the noetic organ are its functional properties.

The method is very simple and we can use it to locate the identity of any natural factor. Each factor has two identities: the physical and the functional, namely it has its physical (natural) and functional properties. These 2 identities reflect each other and represent the two sides of the same coin. If we know the former we can use it in order to locate the latter and vice versa.

Consequently, if we form a list consisted of the functional properties that we KNOW that the noetic organ has, we can use this list as a checklist of criteria with which we will evaluate all the candidates that will be proposed for the role of the noetic organ. The factor which, beyond any doubt, has the ability (physical properties) to serve the functional properties of the noetic organ is the most prevailing candidate for the vacancy of the noetic organ. On the contrary, a factor that does not have the physical abilities to serve the functional properties of the catalog cannot be the noetic organ.

In order to move on and give you "food for thought" :-), I will give you this clue: the noetic organ is tightly connected to the biological substrate of memory. In other words, noetic organ is the final recipient of all the information that are headed towards the organism and the organ which evaluates and utilizes them. Can a factor be the noetic organ if it does not "possess" the total memory of the organism and the ability to use it n order to perform its faculties?
To sum up, the noetic organ physically identifies with the substrate where memory is stored. If we manage to find the final recipient of information and the organic substrate of memory, we will have located the noetic organ.

This gradual apporach leads to an unexpected and a prima facie unbeleivable answer. Before I reveal the answer along with the data that document it (and maybe provoke some undesirable reactions :-) ), which is the outcome of the long lasting search of my mentor, I would like to underline that its documentation involves data and knowledge coming from various sciences (modern physics, neurophysiology, biology, even technology).

Before moving on, I would like to know if you know a physical factor which we already use in order to store and convey innumerous information and whose speed of function (just like noetic organ's ) approaches the speed of light.

PS psychological approach studies apparent behaviour in order to understand intellectual faculties. On the other hand, neurosciences study brain in order to understand the intellectual faculties. These are their differences. Their similarity is that they are not even close to their goal :-)
effie
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:58 am

Post by effie »

Arising_uk,

your remarks strike at the root and, in the same time, at the core of the problem that has been dominant in every science and in every era.

What we are trying to propose is that a scientist, if he wants to be effective in his work, must be equally trained both in the theoretical work and in research. Contemprorary scientists are unilaterally trained in research, while they do not receive any kind of education regarding the theoretical sector. Since the scientific work consists of theoretical and research activities, a scientist who wants to serve his science correctly and execute successfully his tasks must be trained to know all about and execute correctly both the assignments.

In other words, we do not distinguish scientists between researchers and theorists. A scientist, in order to avoid being devoted to "pointless research", must be able to perform both theoretical and research tasks equally well!

Indeed, it's "harsh" to ask scientists to abandon the behaviour they have been taught. However, this harshness is superficial and insignificant. The actual harshness is faced when we think of the generations of scientists that have been lost in the pointless effort to find the mechanisms with which brain serves intellectual faculties, to identify life with lifeless matter
and to attribute the properties of living organisms to molecules.

What would you say if Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus hadn't appeared and changed the basic truths that dominated before them? Woudn't it be harsh, for all of us, to try to interpret the planetary motions while we believed that earth is in the centre of universe? Besides, the true harshness was directed towards Galileo and the others who dared to express their revolutionary opinions. All the rest have benefited from those ideas- while those who expressed them were severely prosecuted!
Isn't harsh the fact that nowadays we have ALL the essential data and knowledge to interpret all the unexplained phenomena, but we cannot utilize them (in fact we ignore or reject them) for the sake of an uncertain opinion (basic truth)?

Furthermore,as past teaches us, nobody is left behind if a basic truth is improved. On the contrary, due to the effectiveness that is produced by a better basic truth, all scientists adopt the new way of thinking and they manage to apply it successfully. Unfortunately despite the "lessons" of the past, many scientists prefer to remain stable when it comes to basic truths, probably because they are convinced that they have reached a perfect basic truth, ignoring that every opinion (even if it is a basic truth, it is commonly accepted and has contributed to the progress of science) is inadequate if compared to natural reality.

All the above issues would be solved if the role of basc truths was known. In this case, not only we wouldn't resist the improvement of our basic truths, but we would constantly try to improve them. I will once again repeat that all opinions we have (or will) formed regarding natural reality, even those who have been somewhat effective and productive, can be improved and become better and more effective.

I will remind you what Aristotle has said: those who would like to work within the context of a science, before adopting the common (predominant) way of thinking must first express basic questions regardng what today we would call basic truth of their science, in order to be able to locate its disadvantages and, through training, to be able to eliminate them. If this does not happen, basic truth becomes a religious dogma and science identifies with religion.

Science is not (or shouldn't be) a matter of faith. Don't you think it's harsh for a scientist not to be able to overcome the obstacles posed by his own beliefs?
According to my mentor, a scientist who cannot test the context and the effectiveness of his basic truth and simply acepts wht the rest of the scientific community accepts has signed his resignation off the position of the leader of science. He has become a slave to a mere uncertain opinion, which he tries to verify at all costs! This is a fundamental deviation (probably the most grave one: it renders science a hostage of an opinion and it becomes the source from which many other deviations originate (e.g. methods with we which we try to adjust reality to our incompatible opinion, the selective utilization of some of the existing data, the rejection of valid data etc).

Finally, of course basic truths are not the only theoretical factor, but they are probably the most important one. As my mentor says, a scientist equipped with the correct basic truth will succeed in his work even if he tries hard to fail :-)

To sum up, our approach simply presents the constitution of the theoretical sector.and we strongly suggest that no one should start serving a science wthout being familiar with all the essential knowledge, because the only alternative option left is the uncritical acceptance of the predominant basic truth.

Ps. Thank you for the support but please...please do not irritate marc, because I will be the one to pay the price (once again) :-))))))
bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Post by bus2bondi »

hi eff, considering the riots in Greece right now was wondering if all was well with you where you are? Was just wondering how your fairing with all of that going on? it just struck me that you live in Greece so had to ask real quick:)
effie
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:58 am

Post by effie »

Bus2bondi,

thank you very much for your concern, I was deeply moved :-)

Indeed, things here are a litle rough right now. Severe riots take place every day and the whole town seems ready to explode. Thank God, we live in a pretty "peaceful" suburb, so we have experienced these episodic gatherings only through TV. Every day too many estates are destroyed from those unprincipled %#@%^#^&.

People are afraid to go to work because we cannot know beforehand where the next riot wll take place. Anyway, let's hope things will settle quickly.

Once again, thank you for your concern :-))))
bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Post by bus2bondi »

hi effie, glad to know your ok. I know they were upset about the teenager who was murdered by the police but i can't believe they are taking it out on innocent people. We have similar riots here, one of the most memorable was in Seattle. Their target was the WTO and the world order but all they did was hurt innocent people and the real target wasn't harmed at all. I don't like the WTO, etc... but why attack everyone else because of it just to prove a point that everyone allready knows anyway.

anyhow, glad your ok & will be replying with more about our other topics soon.
bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Post by bus2bondi »

Before moving on, I would like to know if you know a physical factor which we already use in order to store and convey innumerous information and whose speed of function (just like noetic organ's ) approaches the speed of light.
I am thinking it would be the brain? I have to mention the fact that when i read this sentence of yours (that i quoted above) i experienced deja' vu. How odd. Especially considering the context of the conversation we're having:).

What you shared was really enlightening and don't have much to offer in terms of a counter argument, as i am only a novice in the area. Less than a novice :lol:. But do have an interest in it. So i truly look forward to your book when its finished - if it happens to be in greek, i'll have to translate it then (no big deal).

For now i'll have to end contributing to the discussion because i am taking a break from the forum due to other things i have to focus on. But again wish you luck, or should i say i wish you alot of epistomological basic truth!:)

One thing i would like to add before i go, that you may or may not like to consider, or more than likely allready have... is a "conscious-scope." One day i was thinking how we have "scopes" and other devices to see what's normally invisible to the naked eye - but we have not developed a "scope" that has the ability to reach the neotic organ for example. Or to see with our own eyes what consciousness looks like. If you haven't allready, maybe you could add to your exploration the development of a different type of "scope" altogether. Maybe the current "scopes" aren't founded on the 'basic truth' or at least the wrong one in relation to the topic, and so needs to be based on something else entirely to reach these unique goals?

well, nice to meet you & thanks for the info. good luck and cheerio'
effie
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:58 am

Post by effie »

Bus2bondi,

good luck with your own goals and thanks for your participation. :-)

One last note: the "scope" with wich the noetic organ is measured has already been invented. It is called SQUID and it has been used in various conditions of consciousness (sleep, awareness, psychosis, etc) but its results haven't been interpreted correctly, something that always happens when the respective basic truth is inadequate. The results will be interpreted, explained and utilized ONLY when we use the new, adequate basic truth which we propose.

Again,good luck and Merry Christmas :-)

Ps: no, it is not brain...brain does nt have the ability to function with the speed of light (its aximum speed can be that of electricity)
Post Reply