The Scientific Worldview: 08/01/2023

PSI Blog 20230814 Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Science Without Philosophy?

Big Bang Theory falls on its own petard.

Famous engraving in Camille Flammarion’s 1888 book L’atmosphère: météorologie populaire.

The current godfather and guardian of the cosmogonical paradigm has just been chastised for his wholesale dismissal of philosophy. In doing this much needed job on Tyson, Benjamin Cain, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, gives a new definition for the word “scientism.” In the past, that word has been used by religious folks to denigrate the scientific method as the only way to establish truth. I like Cain’s definition a lot, and will use it in the future. There is a telling reason Tyson and his compatriots claim to have no use for philosophy.

The reason for the dismissal is clear: Bad Philosophy! Here is my definition of scientism adapted from Cain’s initiation: Scientism is use of the scientific method for making truth claims while being ignorant of the underlying fundamental assumptions.

In other words, regressive physicists and cosmogonists are quite happy with their story. It brings riches and fame galore. The public seems to love their fantastic, colorful claims. Sure, the contradictions and paradoxes are vaguely troublesome, but so far there seems to be no reason to dig deeper to find out why. Ignorance sometimes can be bliss.

So why is the “underlying metaphysics” the culprit in the mess Tyson stepped in? That becomes clear when you read and thoroughly understand "The Ten Assumptions of Science." It turns out no one can live without philosophy. Like his empiricist ancestors, Tyson does not recognize his own philosophy. According to Collingwood, at best, it amounts to the juvenile form he called “presuppositions.”[1] These are unconscious fundamental metaphysical assumptions that cannot be proven and always have opposites. Cosmogonists, by definition, presuppose finity and that the universe had a beginning. True to form, they rarely, if ever, admit that finity is only an assumption and that without it, cosmogony would be defunct. This is the bad philosophy Tyson has to ignore. Assuming the opposing, also not provable fundamental assumption, infinity would destroy cosmogony and what remains of Tyson’s career.

So, you can see why cosmogonists must prevent their presuppositions from ever seeing the light of day as recognized fundamental assumptions. Scientism, as now defined, is no longer a religious swear word, but gives meaning to what regressive physicists and cosmogonists are doing and need to do. It amounts to a travesty of science.

The scientific method involves observation, experiment, and interpretation. We have to admit our interpretations may be biased by our underlying fundamental assumptions. But that is seldom the case for paradigms not in crisis. As Kuhn wrote:

“It is, I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers. Indeed, normal science usually holds creative philosophy at arm’s length, and probably for good reasons. To the extent that normal research work can be conducted by using the paradigm as a model, rules and assumptions need not be made explicit. In Section V we noted that the full set of rules sought by philosophical analysis need not even exist. But that is not to say that the search for assumptions (even for nonexistent ones) cannot be an effective way to weaken the grip of a tradition upon the mind and to suggest the basis for a new one.”[2]

Obviously, Tyson doesn’t realize that. The lesson here: Revolutions do not occur until the contradictions become extreme enough for all to see. Furthermore, do not expect the promoters of the status quo such as Tyson to see the light any time soon. He will not be the one to lead us out of the morass.

By now it should be clear why I have emphasized scientific philosophy and the discovery and promotion of fundamental assumptions as the key to overthrowing regressive physics and cosmogony. Tweaking the math without adhering to strictly scientific assumptions, has been, and will continue to be of no avail.

I have received comments to the effect that, if fundamental assumptions are not completely provable, then it makes no difference which of the two opposites we choose. This is definitely not the case. The fact is the deterministic assumptions lead to science and the indeterministic ones lead to religion. In reading "The Ten Assumptions of Science" you will see the extensive data I use in support, while their opposites have only dreams and imaginings in “support” as I showed in detail in my recent book “Religious Roots of Relativity.”

Here is Cain’s rightful complaint exposing Tyson’s pitiful attempt at doing astrophysics without philosophy:

Trampling the Record of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Scientistic Confusions

PSI Blog 20230814

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”

[1] Collingwood, R.G. 1940. An Essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[2] Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 88.

PSI Blog 20230807 Publishing Theoretical Physics in The Age of Censorship

Advice for students contemplating a career challenging the current cosmogonical paradigm.

Photo by JESHOOTS.COM on Unsplash

I just got this query from an obviously brilliant Masters student in physics. He is especially interested and quite knowledgeable in theoretical physics:

“Dear Glenn,

Where do you, as a dissident scientist publish your works as the mainstream censors dissident scientific works not to say of publishing them in their journals?”

[GB: Dear Anon: That is an excellent question—one for the ages. After publishing over 500 pubs in mainstream science, I have received only one rejection. And that was only because our theory contradicted the erroneous one promoted by consultants for the developer. One other one was rejected by a review from a competing lab that was about to be scooped, but ultimately accepted by an astute editor.

That little “experiment” shows how censorship in science really works. Publishing what Kuhn called “ordinary science” is relatively easy, while trying to publish “revolutionary science” is difficult. Few scientists favor promoting theories they believe to be false, especially if one of those happens to contradict one of theirs.

Here are some links to Blog posts at which I gave more details about censorship:

https://gborc.com/RefPhy

https://gborc.com/censorship

https://gborc.com/student-disgusted]

“Then if the mainstream would not pay heed to my theory, is my decision of doing a masters and then a PhD a good decision?”

[GB: That is another tough question. Doing a Masters and a PhD is always a good decision. The difficult part would be finding an amenable advisor in an amenable department. Someday, probably during your lifetime, the Last Cosmological Revolution will occur along with the demise of the “Last Creation Myth.” For that to happen, relativity and its currently regressive physics must be rejected first. I doubt that can be spear-headed by the U.S., because of its huge investment in religion and cosmogony. Countries such as India and China can seize the upper hand instead.

All this means there is an opportunity for students of theoretical physics to achieve either greatness or temporary failure like the 10,000 dissidents who have experienced that so far. One way to get around some of that is to go into experimental physics. What you do is to work with some prof on the cutting edge—preferably with access to some newly invented equipment. I did that when I did my PhD on neutron activation analysis, which used our new TRIGA nuclear reactor at OSU. As a result, I also got a postdoc using one in Denver and eventually the offer of a professorship teaching nuclear physics in Brazil, which I turned down.]

“Can one publish scientific research without having masters and PhD degrees?”

[GB: Short answer: of course. But it can be more difficult. For instance, I knew one fellow who had only a Masters degree. He worked well alongside Ph.D. folks, did great work equivalent to that of any of his colleagues, but seemed to regret he had no Ph.D. to go with it, probably because the salary was not commensurate.]

“If yes, then where and how so that his/her research gets noticed by both the dissident world as well as the mainstream world?”

[GB: Another good one. Dissident pubs include: Physics Essays, General Science Journal, etc. There are conferences like those once put on by NPA and now done occasionally by CNPS. Instant publication can be done in various archives, with viXra, Rearchgate.net, and Academia.edu welcoming dissidents. The problem with all these is that peer review is spotty at the least. The predatory journals I have warned about are the worst (https://gborc.com/predatory-pubs. They only are interested in profit, are extremely expensive, and seldom lead to citations, which is what makes a career in science successful. Some of the papers found in these are quite far-out, with claims often more absurd than those in regressive physics. That makes it easy for the mainstream to reject those journals entirely.

Look at it this way: Science is the search for truth. Publishers’ reputations depend on how well they do that. A medical journal, for instance, cannot print fabricated data or paralogistical interpretations. People could be harmed or even die if that was the case. Peer review is supposed to guarantee that does not happen.

People who hang out with liars or criminals also become suspects even though they may be entirely innocent. Witnesses proven to have told a lie in court, can have their entire testimonies dismissed. (Our jury once returned a guilty verdict after having to choose between two opposing testimonies.) Lawyers and scientists need to assume written material contains no lies or fabricated data. A journal that allows that to happen risks losing its good reputation and reason for being.

That brings up another problem for dissidents: It is easiest to get published in a highly regarded journal when your paper includes a lot of data. A “with and without” table is always impressive. Theoretical physics, by definition, does not have original data. Otherwise, we would call it “experimental physics.” That is why fundamental assumptions are so important. For example, there is no way one could get acceptance in today’s mainstream cosmology without assuming the universe had a beginning.

One way to get around that is to tie your critique of regressive physics to some discipline outside of theoretical physics, like Steve Bryant did:

Bryant, Steven. 2023. "Assessing GPT-4’S role as a co-collaborator in scientific research: a case study analyzing Einstein’s special theory of relativity." Discover Artificial Intelligence 3 (1): 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00075-3.

I find the best place to publish books without enflaming the guardians of theoretical physics is with KDP on Amazon. It is free, and you can set royalties as high as 70%. There is no technical review except for layout problems. You have to get peer reviews by yourself, if at all. Good luck finding reviewers who can accept your fundamental assumptions.

Of course, mainstream publishers are preferred, but they tend to shy away from anything controversial. In 1980 my agent shopped “The Scientific Worldview” to a dozen major publishers with no luck. The most encouraging rejection was from Macmillan, who wrote something like this: “Brilliant work, but too difficult for the layman and too controversial for the scientist.” Even if accepted, the second crucial part of publishing involves advertising and distribution. Vigorous support only goes to best sellers whose sales can support the costs.

There are many other ways to get the word out. For instance, our PSI Blog has over 600 entries and about 80 followers. Medium.com appears more successful. In our first year, we had over 6,000 views for our most popular post and now have over a thousand followers.

Another problem with dissident publishing: Dissidents seldom cite each other’s papers, mostly because they seldom agree. While regressive physicists can get hundreds of co-authors, a reformist is unlikely to get any. That is because the whole of theoretical physics is beset by philosophical disagreements based on differing fundamental assumptions. (That is why I always emphasize The Ten Assumptions of Science as a first step in doing theoretical physics or cosmology.)

At the moment, well established older theoretical physicists are unlikely to read any dissident stuff at all. Papers submitted to mainstream journals get the circular file unless they have some actual data in support. Associate Editors tend to be young (like I was during my ten-year stint), but are unlikely to throw out the entire paradigm implied by a dissident submission.

Eventually, all this will change as the contradictions accumulate and the ad hocs become ever-sillier (e.g., perfectly empty space pushing galaxies apart at greater than c). Read "Religious Roots of Relativity" if you want to learn what we really are up against. But don’t despair too much. I predict you will be around when the Big Bang Theory crumbles in the next 30 years as population growth and commensurate economic growth slows to a crawl. The anguish to be produced by that will cause thinking people to question authority once again. The Last Cosmological Revolution and the eventual acceptance of Infinite Universe Theory will be a big deal. Hope you can be a part of it!]

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”