By Jon Rappoport
Jon Rappoport is the author of the innovative 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS
MAY 17, 2010. What we call science has always had a pragmatic approach to reality. Science wants to translate, sooner or later, into results.
However, logic pressed science into a framework that clarified it and squeezed out less useful findings.
Here is how.
Let’s take a very simple formulation. A) If it snows, there are clouds. B) There are clouds. C) Therefore, it is snowing? No. Therefore, nothing.
Explanation: Although every time it snows there are clouds, the presence of clouds doesn’t guarantee there is snow. You can have cloudy days without snow.
Using that simple logical format, we can present a pattern for scientific hypotheses.
For example: If matter and anti-matter collide, there will be a huge explosion. Let’s start with that.
The first part of the statement assumes there is such a thing as anti-matter. It also assumes anti-matter has certain properties. That’s quite a mouthful. That’s saying a lot.
And then we go on: When anti-matter particles encounter particles of matter, an explosion occurs.
So suppose we now say: In such and such place, at such and such time, there is an explosion. Therefore, anti-matter and matter must have collided. Is that valid reasoning?
Of course not.
Explosions can occur for many reasons that have nothing to do with the supposed collision of matter and anti-matter.
Just as with the snow and the clouds, the reasoning is invalid.
Okay, let’s try to get a little more specific. For example: We believe that in Galaxy ABC, four million years ago, anti-matter and matter collided in the vicinity of a black hole. We believe there was anti-matter in that location, because of factors Q, R, and S. We of course know there was matter in the vicinity of that black hole. So it’s quite possible that four million years ago, some particles of matter and anti-matter ran into each other there. If they had, what would have happened? An explosion. Was there, in fact, an explosion there four million years ago? Yes. We know there was. We know it because we can see the evidence through telescopes, which show us what was happening at distant times in the past. It’s in the past, because the light from faraway places takes a long time to arrive here and register on these telescopes. Therefore, four million years ago, in that location near the black hole, matter and anti-matter collided.
Now, that seems somewhat convincing, doesn’t it?
But it isn’t. It’s the same invalid and illogical pattern of reasoning. The explosion near the black hole four million years ago could have been caused by other factors. Igniting gases, for example. Factors that had nothing to do with the collision of matter and anti-matter.
Now here is the really interesting thing. ALL OF SCIENCE IS BASED ON THE SAME ILLOGICAL FRAMEWORK.
That’s right.
And here is that general framework: If hypothesis X is true, result Y would follow. We do have Y. Therefore, hypothesis X is true.
WRONG.
When logic made this point, scientists (those who understood logic) had to go back to the drawing board. They had to refine their understanding of science. And they did.
Here is what they came up with. The framework of the scientific method really has to do with usefulness, not logic, and to make science useful, it has to PREDICT THE FUTURE. That’s what we want out of science.
We want experiments based on hypotheses, and we want to be able to predict the outcomes of those experiments correctly before they happen. We want technology based on hypotheses, and we want that technology to work exactly as we think it will, every time.
So then we have to ask: Will a given hypothesis allow us to predict something useful and important before it happens? If so, it’s science. If not, it’s not.
We can refine this even further. Will your hypothesis allow us to predict something useful and important PRECISELY?
Okay.
Maybe it seems like I’m splitting hairs and engaging in empty semantics here, so to prove I’m not, let’s take a real-world example.
If the hypothesis about manmade global warming is true, we should be able to make precise predictions about global temperatures on Earth a year up the line, five years up the line, ten years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years.
You see? Science is about useful and precise predictions. It’s not about explaining the past.
So let’s apply the test. So far, has the hypothesis about manmade global warming yielded accurate climate predictions? The hypothesis has been around for at least, what, 15 years? During that time, have scientists been able to make precise predictions about Earth’s climate changes?
I’m not even going to answer that question. I’m going to let you answer it. And with your answer, you’ll be able to see whether the manmade warming hypothesis ranks, so far, as science. Is it science, or is it possible-maybe-could-be science?
You’ll be able to see the answer clearly, because once upon a time logic forced science to define itself and its core and its objectives more specifically.
And that’s a good thing.
Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students and adults. He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and has tutored extensively in remedial English at Santa Monica College. At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy. Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com His work can be found at www.nomorefakenews.com and www.insolutions.info