Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Occam's Razor and The True Scientific Method

Occam's Razor is a fantastic heuristic tool when used properly (scroll down to the next section to see how to use it properly). However, many mistakenly believe that Occam's Razor declares "the simplest explanation" the most probable, and therefore the most accurate...all of the time, without question.

There are a few issues with this logic:
  1. Issue #1: The "simplest explanation" is entirely subjective and arbitrary:
    "Simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do.” -Phil Gibbs
  2. Issue #2: Said "simplest explanation" being the "most likely" doesn't mean it actually IS:
    "Even if we take Occam’s Razor at face value the way skeptics use it, just because one explanation is more likely doesn’t mean that it’s always the correct one.  For example, if I toss a die, it is more likely that I will roll numbers 1-5 than a 6.  But that doesn’t mean that a 6 will never come up.  Therefore, occasionally an unlikely explanation can be expected to be true sometimes.  However, skeptics treat Occam’s Razor as if it were an absolute rule and use it as a label for denying any paranormal claim, no matter how valid. -DebunkingSkeptics.com
Both of these simply place personal subjectivity into an infinite regress of abstract thinking, and do absolutely nothing to help us discern reality as objectively as possible.


Brian Zeiler correctly explains Occam's Razor (and summarizes materialist thinking) when it comes to examining UFO accounts:

"UFO debunkers do not understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations.What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach" -Brian Zeiler

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth.” -Sherlock Holmes

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Materialist Dogma Creates Flawed Science

"When it comes to scientific research and proof, exploration is into phenomena that carry a factual existence independent of the observer, quarantining it from psychological bias and delusion. But by limiting proof to what is universally replicable, what remains are solely those phenomena comprising the lowest common denominator of experiences available to all observers inhabiting a consensual reality. In other words, scientific proof is strictly material proof that depends in no way upon the individualized conscious or spiritual state of the observer.
Thus scientific proof encompasses the crudest set of phenomena that are undeniably real to individuals with even the crudest levels of conscious development.
Scientific standards do not allow for personal proof that depends on the observer, and yet it is precisely the conscious development of the observer that determines what other levels of reality beyond the purely physical and deterministic can be accessed. The closest science has come is in quantum mechanics where it is now commonly accepted that the observer plays a unique role in the outcome of an experiment. But beyond verification of the statistical trends describing the distribution of all possible observations in a given experiment, any particular outcome is not universally replicable. That is why quantum physics, in not being able to predict any specific observations, must resort to statistical descriptions because in doing so it once again approaches collectivity and thus what it defines as objectivity. 
Even so, the exact influence of the observer on a quantum system is not understood, and thought to be random as well as being limited solely to the atomic scale.
That’s as far as modern science goes. 
Yet seasoned researchers of fringe knowledge and battle-hardened experiencers of the strange know that transjective (outside the bounds of materialist assumption) phenomena also operate on the macroscopic scale and depend on the quality of consciousness and spiritual orientation of the observer. Synchronicities and the correlation between attitude and attracted experiences are some examples.
We are not just observers of reality, but active participants endowed with freewill to choose to transcend our realms by going above and beyond our prior assumptions. Inexplicable events happen, and we can either rationalize it away with assumptions and rules programmed according to our collective mainstream reality, or we can figure it out and leave the herd in the dust." - Tom Montalk "The Limitations of Scientific Proof" from Transcendence through Intuitive Thinking
Science Materialism doesn't take into account the state of consciousness of the observer, precisely because it's the consciousness of the observer that materialist philosophy attempts to remove deny, marginalize, dismiss, and denounce from its processes all together.

Without a sentient observer, nothing is observed. Nothing can be quantified or measured. Nothing happens.

Materialism attempts to rationalize consciousness away, hammering it into the already-assumed-holes of what constitutes legitimate reality exploration.

Consciousness is considered an epiphenomena, as opposed to the primacy of perception it actually heralds.

Science Materialism says the observer isn't allowed to have an influence on the experiment.

Too bad "isn't allowed" is a very human (and almost childish and naive) demand on the inseparable interdependent realities of the internal and external worlds.

Attempting to argue that our senses are all we can rely on, while simultaneously saying our senses can't be trusted, is the highest, most educated and tolerated form of saying "We don't actually know".

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing. There is everything wrong with pretending to know, and pushing your methods as dogma.

This means the original assumptions of materialist science are operating with the surmise that consciousness is an illusion, while at the same time using conscious, intentional, focused deduction and reasoning to come to this conclusion.

Sounds like a "stolen concept fallacy" if I've ever heard one.

We need to stop being so easy on the mainstream acceptance of materialist dogma as a the prevailing driving force behind our world view.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Materialist "Science" is NOT True Science

"Behind the existence of all matter is a conscious and intelligent mind - this mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck, the father of Quantum Theory
Most "science" is little more than the application of materialist philosophy to the exploration (and interpretation) of nature.

Its ultimate goal is to remove the influence of the observer as much as possible.

It is this very epistemological assumption (removing the observer/consciousness) that derails science from genuine (and more accurate) free inquiry of the natural world, and into the voids of close-minded materialism.

This is like trying to study electricity in a wire without allowing a current to travel through it.

Scientific inquiry is supposed to be free of bias, yet materialism infects and blinds modern scientific exploration exclusively.

Many of the axioms of materialist science are quite literally assumptions that are reinforced by nothing more than tradition, and do not present an accurate big picture of the nature of reality at all.

True Science expands to accommodate new information.

Modern Materialist Science rationalizes away anything and everything that doesn't fit its preconceived, erroneous assumptions about what constitutes valid methods of investigation of phenomena.

As a result, modern "scientific" axioms aren't very scientific at all, and aren't dissimilar to the inflexible religious dogmas they claim to oppose.

[Respectful, intelligent, constructive, open minded comments only. You can hold opposing views and still be courteous and respectful. Anonymous keyboard warrior loudmouths will be deleted.]

Saturday, November 11, 2017

The Materialism Delusion Part 1: Materialist Science is Dogmatic



In his fantastic book The Science Delusion (Science Set Free), Dr. Rupert Sheldrake delves into an uncomfortable topic: the supposed "inquiry" of modern science, when examined closely, isn't so free from the types of dogmatic thinking it loves to rail religious types for holding.

Science, as currently done by humans, appears to be under the spell of materialist thinking. It's handicapped by a subtle yet deceptive ideological underpinning. 

I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." -Abraham Maslow "Toward a Psychology of Being" 1962

This (materialism) is a mental system that hammers all observation and experience into a square hole.

Rather than admitting this, scientists insist this is how it's to be done.

Any other method allows too much subjective bias and influence (oh, the irony...)

Unfortunately, since the human ego is involved, there's going to be a near infinite regress in terms of how abstractly disconnected from reality even our best and brightest are.

Just like "dark matter", new and unnecessary variables will be conjured up to fill in the gaps of current flawed theories.

In the next article, I'll be exploring and expanding on the 10 Dogmas of Modern Science that Rupert talks about in his groundbreaking (and banned) TED Talk above.

[Respectful, intelligent, constructive, open minded comments only. You can hold opposing views and still be courteous and respectful. Anonymous keyboard warrior loudmouths will be deleted.]