(1) The Process of Genuine Scientific Investigation

Chapter 1: The Process of Genuine Scientific Investigation

Genuine science is like infants or toddlers exploring their surroundings using their mouths, hands, eyes, and ears. Genuine science is like a child who repeatedly asks “why?” until the parent finally responds with foundational truth or changes the subject. Genuine science is like a person buying a home who investigates the foundation of the property.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/2/the-war-against-truth
Genuine science is natural investigation. Genuine science is a process of prediction, experimental test, and interpretation.

(1) Genuine scientists predict the outcomes to real situations that are significant and testable. (2) Genuine scientists test their predictions using valid experiments that can be repeated and objectively verified. (3) Genuine scientists interpret the actual results of experiments using objective facts and evidence.

What do you think makes genuine science different than mathematics and philosophy? How do you think genuine science has benefited society? What do you think might prevent genuine science from being practiced by scientists or taught in schools?

Artificial science is like a magician who does not share the secrets to the illusion. Artificial science is like a philosopher or mathematician pretending to be a scientist. Artificial science is like a Ponzi scheme that may not be prosecuted until the creator has long been dead.

Artificial science is retrospective justification. Artificial science is a process of imagination, rationalization, and speculation.

(1) Artificial scientists predict the outcomes to situations that are theoretical and not testable. (2) Artificial scientists rationalize their predictions using invalid experiments that are unverifiable or subjectively calibrated. (3) Artificial scientists speculate using selective evidence and unverifiable assumptions.

Is artificial science a forward progression or a backward regression from genuine science? What are the consequences of replacing genuine science with artificial science? Why would some scientists practice artificial science and claim that it is genuine science?

Genuine science is like a group of generals debating a military strategy; artificial science is like a group of artists critiquing a poetry contest. Genuine science is like a health nutritionist; artificial science is like a fashion designer.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/3/the-war-against-truth

The fundamental principle of genuine science is that truth is objective, supreme, and firm. (1) Logic obtains its authority from reality; reality does not obtain its authority from logic. (2) Reality has supremacy over logic; logic does not generate reality but is a tool for understanding reality. (3) Our assumptions should be conformed to match reality; we should never demand that reality must conform to our assumptions.

The fundamental principle of artificial science is that the intelligence of experts is infallible, supreme, and authoritative. (1) Reality obtains its existence from the logical consistency; reality never conflicts with intelligence. (2) Intelligence has supremacy of reality; intelligence discovers and creates reality. (3) Our reality should be conformed to match the assumptions of intelligent experts; the assumptions of intelligent experts must be true if they are logically consistent.

Is the role of a scientist to investigate how reality actually is or is the role of a scientist to debate whose speculation seems most intelligent? Is it possible for an intelligent expert to say something logically consistent that is completely false?

Genuine science is like a ruler who benevolently abdicates power to leave a legacy of peaceful transition. Artificial science is like a tyrannical dictator who grabs for more power just to remain in power for selfish advantage.

The fundamental purpose of genuine science is to produce knowledge that is both honest and beneficial. (1) Knowledge resulting from genuine science should be broadcast honestly for the accessibility of objective evidence, transparent interpretations, and genuine methods. (2) Knowledge resulting from genuine science should be applied beneficially for the protection of human life and the advancement of human dignity.

The fundamental purpose of artificial science is to produce knowledge that appears to be prestigious and potentially profitable. (1) Knowledge resulting from artificial science should be broadcast for maximum complexity, abstraction, and sophisticated terminology to make it seem intelligent and important. (2) Knowledge resulting from artificial science should be applied toward advertising and fundraising to support artificial scientists.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/4/the-war-against-truth

Is the purpose of humanity to benefit science or is the purpose of science to benefit humanity? Is the purpose of mathematics and language to more easily communicate knowledge or is the purpose of knowledge to develop more complicated mathematics and language?

Dishonest scientists are like a scoundrel who commits a crime and frames the victim for it before it can be reported. Dishonest scientists are like a villain advisor who feeds a ruler misinformation for his own personal advantage. Honest scientists are like a loyal friend who cannot be bribed by any amount. Honest scientists are like objective advisors who merely inform the ruler of the consequences for each course of action and let the ruler decide. Dishonest scientists are like compromised advisors who use deception, force, and fear to coerce the ruler.

(1) Dishonest scientists decree that their unverified assumptions are scientific facts. (2) Dishonest scientists censure the rival set of assumptions that is consistent with the objective facts. (3) Dishonest scientists ignore or trivialize when their false set of assumptions logically implies inaccurate predictions. (4) Dishonest scientists defame the rival set of assumptions that does logically imply accurate predictions. (5) Dishonest scientists negligently use invalid measurements that came from devices that were inapplicable, defective, misread. (6) Dishonest scientists fabricate experimental results by replacing measurements with false information that did not come from a measurement device. (7) Dishonest scientists misinterpret the experimental results by overlooking other relevant objective facts or using a biased calibration. (8) Dishonest scientists commit partiality by disregarding the rival interpretation that is also consistent with all the objective facts.

(1) Honest scientists distinguish between unverified assumptions and scientific facts. (2) Honest scientists tolerate rival sets of assumptions that are also consistent with the objective facts. (3) Honest scientists scrutinize and replace their false set of assumptions when it logically implies inaccurate predictions. (4) Honest scientists permit rival sets of assumptions that also logically imply accurate predictions. (5) Honest scientists responsibly use valid measurements that come from devices that are applicable, functional, and carefully read. (6)Honest scientists use a variety of repeatable experiments to cross-examine their experimental results. (7) Honest scientists accurately interpret experimental results using all the available evidence and relevant objective facts. (8) Honest scientists acknowledge when there is a rival interpretation that is also consistent with all the objective facts.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/5/the-war-against-truth

Are there signs that indicate scientists are being dishonest even if you do not know the details of their work? When new reliable evidence conflicts with a theory, should scientists become more certain of that theory or less certain? Do you think that clarity and transparency are a high priority for dishonest scientists? Does it impress you when scientist use words you do not understand? Do you think that scientists lack the intelligence or honesty to translate their work for other people to understand and apply it? Do you think that scientists’ work would be more valuable if more people could understand it and apply it?

A universe without fundamental conditions is like a computer with no keyboard and no mouse. A universe without free-will is like a scientist trapped in a prison cell unable to use his or her knowledge to change anything.

Fundamental conditions are conditions that are not caused by previous conditions in the universe. Fundamental conditions cannot be predicted in advance, but their effects can be measured in retrospect. There are three types of fundamental conditions, which are initial conditions, boundary conditions, and quantum conditions.

(1) Initial Conditions are the fundamental conditions that occurred at the beginning of the universe. (2) Boundary Conditions are the fundamental conditions that continue to occur at the edge of the visible universe. (3) Quantum Conditions are the fundamental conditions that continue to occur freely at the atomic level.

Theists often believe that the fundamental conditions are determined by the influence of the eternal kingdom on the natural universe. Naturalists often believe that the fundamental conditions are determined by an infinite chain of universes with ultimately no cause.

The laws of physics are like the rules of a chess game, but the fundamental conditions are like how the pieces on the board are set up and which choices the players make. Why are fundamental conditions not the same thing as the laws of physics? Why is it impossible to measure the cause of the fundamental conditions by definition? Why will the cause of the fundamental conditions of the universe forever remain a mystery to genuine science? Why would someone try to misrepresent their unmeasurable philosophy as science?
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/6/the-war-against-truth