Critique of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Critique of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws

Post by Paradigmer »

The scientific method is intrinsically flawed.

This critical issue was much elaborated in my webpage titled as: Critique of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws

The text of the webpage is cut and pasted here but less the images, links, and clutters. This is intended for the convenience of quoting for specific discussions, but recommend readers to read it from the webpage for its full presentation.

Here goes:

In a nutshell, with grounding in the discipline of epistemology, this is a critique of the contemporary scientific method on its intrinsic flaws. It criticized the intrinsic aspects of its foundational crisis, its fallacious criteria of truth, and the science delusions it entails with all sorts of physical paradox.

It is generally believed that the prejudices and discriminations like those stemmed from geocentrism in its science delusion, were events of the past. Moreover, there is also a prevalent deep-rooted belief that we are now in a golden age of physics, and scientific realism rules with impeccable and unassailable proofs. It is asserted that all the scientifically established proofs with peer review for their empirical observations, were accomplished with the well-established scientific method of modern science; the claims of scientific proofs for empirical observations were deemed to be rigorously tested and proven with their repeatable scientific experiments. As such, any critical discrepancy in the validated scientific theories is deemed as must have had been eradicated.

Nonetheless, if the basis of a scientific theory was established in a state of delusion, construed with a natural cognitive paradox of its empirical observation, its first principle is fundamentally incorrect. It therefore could be developed based on its misconception in its paradoxically negated circumstances, such as it was based on the fallacious posit of heliocentrism that proposed Sun is the center of the Universe, it thus entails its science delusion.

A scientific theory that was misled by its natural cognitive paradox, could be validated with its artificial cognitive paradox, which was conceived in the delusion of its scientific construct.

This is regardless of how developed, how profound, how logical, how coherent, how consistent and precise the scientific theory is with its quantitative analysis for its empirical observation, how diversely it has had been independently and successfully tested with repeatable experiments, how pragmatic it is in its applied science, and how broadly it has had been peer-reviewed and accepted by so many experts for a very long period of time.

Unsustainably, the general principle of the contemporary scientific method, intrinsically suffers its foundational crisis with its fallaciously endorsed posits for developing scientific theories. In the delusions of grandeur with its confirmation bias for the empirical observations, its peer review process for validation has thus been construed with its fallacious criteria of truth on its outset. The general developments for such scientific theories of the mainstream physical science, are thus construed with the physical paradoxes of their science delusions.

With the resolved natural cognitive paradoxes for epistemic theories of truth to evaluate the hallmark scientific theories, the science delusions in their theories of justification were elucidated for numerous conventional wisdom, as on how they were fallaciously validated with their criteria of truth. The developments for the hypothetico-deductive models of these scientific theories with the application of the contemporary scientific method for pragmatic theories of truth, literally ignored qualitative evaluations on the posits of their hypothetical constructs. Such overemphasis on deductive analyses with an extreme obsession on higher measurement precisions for their quantitative predictions, would incognizantly entail all sorts of science delusions in mainstream physics with their fallacies of misplaced concreteness.

Any law of physics that suffers foundational crisis with its fallacious posit for its empirical observation, would paradoxically distort its perception of reality. This is despite its validated conclusions are analytically true, and can also pragmatically work. And with its validated quantitative analyses deduced by begging the question for its premises in its science delusion, it could paradoxically establish its deductive conclusions that would be fallaciously reckoned with scientific consensus as scientifically established facts.

Any scientific theory that was proved in its mathematical construct to be analytically true, could be unwarily misled by a natural cognitive paradox of its empirical observation. As such, it would have had been fallaciously established in the delusion of its subjective reality, and ignorantly refers to its delusionally perceived observation as the actuality. This misperception for the actuality of its empirical observation, was perceived with its artificial cognitive paradox in its subliminally negated circumstances.

Laws of mathematics with deductive reasoning though are effective tools in applied science, and the propositional knowledge of a theory established by deductive analysis, although can be made unassailably conclusive in its mathematical model with the analytical proof for its empirical observations, it is not the proof for its postulated actuality. It must not be mistaken that the actuality of any natural phenomenon, can be conclusively and absolutely proven by its mathematical interpretation with validated and precise quantitative predictions that are deduced with its axiomatic mathematical construct.

The deep-rooted belief in the capability of mathematical principles for conducting evaluation to validate a scientific claim solely through unassailable deductive analysis with quantitative rigors, could lead to the illusion of knowledge under the subliminally negated circumstances of its science delusion.

A mathematically proven conclusion of its mathematical construct in theoretical physics solely deduced with quantitative rigors, although could have integrated its inference of reality with its empirical observations, in its abstract with its a priori assumption, it was based on its philosophy of science with varying degrees of uncertainty for its interpretation of the numbers obtained from the observations.

All mathematical constructs of natural phenomena in theoretical physics, technically are their hypotheses established with the propositions of their axioms. And as much as almost all of the recognized experts in mainstream mathematical physics believe math is the language of the universe, the subjective reality of any axiom that was validated with the a-posteriori conclusion in the mathematical construct of any natural phenomenon, is not conclusively proven at all when referred to reality.

The science as defined in theoretical physics with the contemporary scientific method to develop hypothetical constructs for emulating natural phenomena based on its posits for objective reality, is merely the doctrine for its a-posteriori methodologies and techniques of quantitative analysis, which are for explicating the empirically observed behaviors of physical objects in its postulated subjective reality.

Any physical law or axiom for the a priori proposition of an empirical observation that was claimed to have been conclusively proven by the quantitative rigors of its a-posteriori knowledge, would inevitably result in its cognitive paradox fallacy when construed with its fallacious posit for objective reality.

Any person, in all honesty, develops any scientific theory with the contemporary scientific method, construed with mathematical rigors in physics to establish the a-posteriori knowledge of any empirically observed natural phenomenon, and thus asserts the axioms of its a-priori proposition with its unassailable deductions, at best is an intelligent fool fooling himself in circular reasoning. And with its mathematically validated proof for the a priori proposition concluded with its a-posteriori knowledge, the scientific theory justified in such positivism, at its best can convincingly fool the mass majority of people with its illusion of knowledge that was construed for pragmatism in its artificial cognitive paradox.

All delusions of the a-posteriori propositions that render their illusions of knowledge, are paradoxically stemmed from their fallacious posits.

It is a myth that solely through deductive analyses based on scientific models for attaining highly precise and consistent quantitative predictions, and thus rigorously develops scientific theories with mathematical proofs for testing by repeatable physics experiments for their empirical observations, is generally the correct scientific method for the investigation of natural phenomena to make scientific progress. Howsoever, the contemporary scientific method muddles preciseness as accurateness, and thus is merely a practice pushing for higher resolution measurements that could be consistently measured in all sorts of observational delusion.

A simple example to illustrate a cognitive paradox fallacy of an apparent observation that was resolved, can be explicated with a fallacious perception of the geocentrism. It was postulated that the Sun takes approximately twenty-four hours to revolve around the Earth, and this could be empirically observed and quantitatively verified. And since ancient times, the quantitative prediction for this perception had been more precisely measured by using all sorts of clock with ongoing improvements for higher precision. In modern science, this few millennium-old mainstream knowledge was officially falsified since two centuries ago. And in hindsight, it is now completely dismissed without the slightest doubt that this was stemmed from a false fact. However, in the geocentric era, this false fact that was construed with its physical paradox, and deduced in its delusion as a scientifically proven knowledge with precise quantitative measurements, to a great extent was undoubtedly, independently, and officially accepted for around two millenniums by the majority of people from all over the world in all walks of life.

In ancient Greek astronomy, the mathematical constructs based on the geocentric model can work for quantitative predictions of natural events, such as the earthly events of the precession cycle, equinox, and solstice. Nonetheless, these pragmatic quantitative analyses were fundamentally established on the fallacious a priori proposition of an Earth-centered universe.

The systems of epitrochoid cycle based on the fallacious a priori proposition that Earth is the center of the universe, nevertheless could be successfully used with the deferent and epicycles of the Sun to make precise quantitative predictions for geocentric events.

Unsustainably, these workable quantitative analyses reckoned with validated deductive proofs for substantiating the claim of fact that it takes a period of approximately twenty-four hours for the Sun to revolve around the Earth in a solar day, is a known fallacy in modern science. A mathematical deduction substantiated with successful quantitative predictions that were fundamentally derived in the realm of its artificial cognitive paradox, can analytically conclude a false fact to be valid with self-fulfilling prophecy by self-reference.

These cognitive paradox fallacies, were as the results of the natural delusions that are being rendered in an apparent geocentric motion. They were caused by the relative motion illusions with a subliminally manifested natural negation to result in their fallacious empirical observations of the natural phenomena.

The apparent retrograde motion of a planet can be solved mathematically with the deferent and epicycle of the planet based on geocentrism. And the mathematical construct of the epicycle system, developed based on the apparent planetary motion as observed in the celestial spheres, can provide workable solutions with its quite precise quantitative predictions for describing this peculiar phenomenon that recurs periodically.

The empirically observed epicycles of planets were deemed as immutable facts in the geocentric era.

Nonetheless, it is now a falsified fact that the planet in its apparent retrograde motion, is physically moving in the opposite diurnal motion as it could be empirically observed from the Earth. The delusion is caused by the cognitive paradox of its relative motion illusion, rendered with its passive transformation in the apparently observed celestial coordinate system.

The heliocentric postulation that all planets rotate and revolve around the Sun, is a rational proposition that can qualitatively explain the empirically observed apparent retrograde motions of planets. However, as compared with the quantitative predictions based on the geocentric model that had been well established for over a millennium, Copernicus at then was not able to make more precise quantitative predictions for the empirically observed apparent retrograde motion of planets. His qualitatively correct heliocentric based proposition on planets was apparently observed to be in their retrograde motions, was thus officially rejected with the geocentric peer review deliberation.

The mathematical construct of a hypothetical model that can consistently work with its very precise quantitative predictions that inaccurately describe an empirical observation, can fallaciously qualify the a priori proposition of its abstract by self-referencing with circular definition; the mathematical construct of a paradoxically wrong theory can pragmatically work with great precision.

Without qualitative evaluation, a highly precise quantitative prediction for an observed phenomenon, is merely the a-posteriori knowledge of measurement based on its validated theory, which was established in the abstract of its mathematically quantifiable realm. Although it can indisputably quantify how the observed phenomenon works in its mathematical construct, and its know-how could be used in some pragmatic applications, such as for successful tracking of celestial objects with its highly precise quantitative predictions as empirically observed, these are not tantamount to how the observed phenomenon is actually working in reality.

A pragmatical know-how that is developed in the realm of its scientific model, is not by de-facto the proof for the know-what of its empirical observation. Take for example, the successful predictions for natural phenomena with quantitative rigors in the exact sciences of geocentrism, are not the proofs for the postulated first principles or the axioms for their postulated models of objective reality.

And as a matter of fact, although the equatorial mount, celestial sphere, and celestial coordinate system are geocentric based, in modern astronomy, they are still very successful, much simpler, and more cost-effective than those modern pieces of equipment that are heliocentric based.

A validated quantitative prediction, despite having true value for its pragmatism, does not prove its postulated first principle.

In epistemology, any validated pragmatic theory of truth with what it postulates, cannot be substantiated as its criteria of truth. As valid as these theories could be, their postulations asserted with precise and absolute mathematical proofs for their pragmatic theories of truth, are not absolutely conclusive in objective reality. Thus, the propositional knowledge in math when referred to reality for whatsoever that is being emulated, can never by itself be reckoned as the knowledge for the actuality of any empirical observation.

It is a cognitive paradox fallacy that Moon rises in the East and set in the West as it could be apparently observed from Earth in its localized reference frame. Nonetheless, with inductive reasoning based on the heliocentric model, by tracking the positions of the Moon on a daily basis at a specific time of the day for its celestial coordinates in the celestial sphere over a period of a few days, it could be empirically observed that the Moon actually revolves around the Earth from West to East; this qualitative analysis in its transcendental perspective can resolve this cognitive paradox of relative motion illusion that has paradoxically caused the cognitive paradox fallacy in its delusion.

It was also a known optical motion illusion of a natural cognitive paradox that the Moon apparently appears to be simultaneously following every observer spontaneously, to wherever all these individual observers on Earth who are each moving independently to different directions. This is a very amazing natural cognitive paradox, and its discernible optical illusion can be easily resolved for elucidating its all applicable delusion of passive transformation in all its localized points of view.

Galileo predicated with his hypothesis by inductive reasoning on the time of descent for free-falling objects, is independent of their mass. This was with qualitative rigor in the law of noncontradiction for the analysis of its a priori assumption, and the insight of this Galileo's hypothesis had thus addressed the cognitive paradox fallacy in Aristotle's theory of gravity, which falsely states that heavier object falls faster. It was believed Galileo proved this predication later by dropping two balls of different mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the experiment demonstrated that the time of the descent of the balls is independent of their mass. The experimental proof for the predicated a priori proposition, qualitatively concludes as the a priori knowledge for free-falling objects on their time taken for their descents, is independent of their mass.

Despite Galileo believed mathematics is the language of the universe, he emphasized it with the conviction of qualitative analyses.

In an era where astronomy was based on the geocentric model of the Aristotelian universe, all mainstream astronomers in that era believed that Venus revolves around Earth like the Moon. At then the extreme crescent phase of Venus had been observed with naked-eye observations, and it was also known that Moon and Venus shine by reflecting the light of the Sun.

Although Galileo through observations with his telescope had observed Venus did simultaneously exhibited phases similar to that of the Moon when they were in close proximity, he evaluated the actuality for the predicated orbiting path of Venus with circumspection based on the Copernican heliocentrism. And after an extensive period of telescopic observation, then by abductive reasoning in its transcendental perspective on Venus showed its phase and size variations with a peculiarity, which can only happen if it was revolving around the Sun. Galileo thus resolved the physical paradox by elucidating its geocentric model delusion for the orbiting path of Venus, and therefore proved Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth.

The foundation for the a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun, was first established by inductive reasoning based on the Copernican heliocentrism that intuitively invoked its transcendental perception. And then with abductive reasoning in its transcendental perspective for evaluating its observations, which was by synthetic judgment on the periodically observed phase and size variations of Venus as seen from a farther away Earth, it thus proved the heliocentric predication that asserts Venus revolves around the Sun.

According to the discipline of mainstream theoretical physics that is currently being reckoned by the vast majority of the experts, without any mathematical equation for its quantitative analysis, the research done by Galileo that thus had proven Venus revolves around the Sun, is not science in its nowadays practice.

Nonetheless, this Galilean research is absolutely well-grounded with the proven assertion that has precedential significant, and it refers to reality for how the observed phenomenon actually works; the proven predication that asserts Venus revolves around the Sun is indubitably an epistemic truth in objective reality for the actuality of its empirical observations. From the first principle of this a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun, it can then be grounded more correctly for developing its a-posteriori knowledge with quantitative research. This thus could enable its further research to be accurate on making the quantitative predictions for the location, phase, size, and brightness of Venus for its time-based observations observed from the postulated rotating Earth.

Ever since mathematical physics has dominated the mainstream theoretical physics with the a-posteriori knowledge of measurements for describing natural phenomena, which are based on their posits with scientific consensus, all other concepts of foundationalism for physics have had been discreetly prejudiced as scientism. Consequently, under such dogmatic circumstances of the indoctrination, those who disagree would be politically pontificated and vilified, and then ostracized by all means with all sorts of stereotyping for their marginalizations. While those who endorse with confirmation bias, could thus monopolize all perceivable privileges to autonomously serve the self-reinforcing cohort of its non-self-critical establishment to dominantly sprawl with its spurious predications.

Since the transition to modern physics, the essence of the original scientific method practiced by Galileo, which was later advocated by Francis Bacon, has had been compromised.

Specifically, the exact science as defined in the nowadays mainstream physics with the officially endorsed fundamental theories for establishing pragmatic theories of truth in their subjective realities that emulate the objective reality, is very much constrained only in the development of the a-posteriori knowledge of measurements with mathematical formalizations. And generally, it merely requires rigorously precise quantitative predictions in experimental physics for proving the testable propositions of the empirically observed natural phenomena, construed in the realms of their models with the officially endorsed posits.

Unsustainably, the posits for such typical fundamental theories with the applications of the contemporary scientific method, were being proven by self-referencing with the a-posteriori knowledge that were established in their fallaciously endorsed subjective realities.

Critically, there was no direct proof that the electron vibration frequency of the caesium-133 atom used in the atomic clock, would remain stable when it is subjected to different inertial accelerations. But assumed to be stable, and thus posited in the mathematical constructs of modern physics, thereon by self-referencing with its quantitative proofs that were boasted to have greater than ten-digit precision of a second, tested in collaboration with independent competing experiments, and asserted with its precise quantitative predictions that have been overwhelmingly successful for engineering and technological achievements, it was thus misleadingly used with such convictions to conclude that transformation of time occurs; the postulation for time is physically transformable as posited in modern physics was fallaciously proved with circular reasoning. This is as fallacious as the claims of proof for geocentrism with self-fulfilling prophecy by using its successful quantitative analyses that were validated by self-reference with its very own hard-core belief, which has had insidiously corrupted all its perceptions in the realms of its scientific constructs that were perceived in their observational delusions.

Intrinsically, the quantitative proof of a scientific theory is not the proof of the scientific theory.

This is who, what, where, when, and why for how the contemporary scientific method, has had taken the wrong path for establishing the current form of modern physics with its fallacious posit for time, and thus has had rendered its foundational crisis.

Without qualitative proof for the a priori assumption in its criteria of truth, all its validated a-posteriori deductive proofs substantiated with precise and consistent quantitative predictions, are not conclusive at all when referred to reality.

With the adulterated definition for what is a scientific theory, and in self-justifications with its speciously validated propositional knowledge that suffers foundational crises, the mainstream physics with its intrinsically flawed scientific method on its criteria of truth, renders physical paradoxes in its science delusions.

The empirical observations evaluated with the intrinsically flawed scientific method, obliviously suffered all sorts of natural cognitive paradox. With all sorts of fallaciously assumed posit, their hypotheses thus suffered all sorts of foundational crisis. The conclusions of their experiments, therefore factitiously suffered all sorts of reification rendered with their artificial cognitive paradoxes. And they were speciously validated by self-referencing with all sorts of circular definition, which were construed in the subjective realities of their fallaciously postulated hypothetical constructs. Consequently, these undertakings with all sorts of complex circular reasoning, would inevitably entail all sorts of physical paradox.

To evaluate the actuality of any natural phenomenon with its scientific hypothesis that refers to reality, the epistemic process with qualitative rigor on correspondence theory of truth for the a-priori proposition of its empirical observation, is the foremost. Despite quantitative research with true value is an essential aspect for scientific works, qualitative analysis must precede quantitative analysis.

Without qualitative proof, it cannot be certain on the quantitative prediction of any scientific theory is true.
Post Reply