Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 84
- 50
- Banned
- #1
Given that the archaic 16-17th century scientific method invented by Francis Bacon, based on his inductive method is rather an archaic relic in this 21st century day and age.
And like all theories, institutions, or frameworks for gathering knowledge, is constructed from mathematics, as are whatever arbitrated standards of testing, evidence gathering, peer reviewing, and so forth are as well, it would be interesting to see about deconstructing it, and creating new scientific or informational methods altogether, based on new axioms.
Arguably, it will never be a pure science anyway in the way that mathematics is, being nothing more than a construct or approximation from such (mathematics having been a science since the ancients, while Bacon's rather silly method, in comparison, only having been invented and born as of the 16-17th, as are its various theories, as per Newton, Einstein, and so forth, something which presumably any theory or body of knowledge and information is, as in built from mathematics.
Sure, immediately the superstitious people and uneducated (which is what most scientific propaganda on television, K-12 education, and entry-level college education is marketed to, something close to the 6th grade reading level) will react in a surprised way, and repeat many of the popular superstitions surrounding Bacon's method, usually reducting it to nothing more than a quasi cargo-cult of sort, giving them cell phones, computers, and trinkets to amuse themselves with, rather higher purposes such as an actual medium of discovery, resorting to simplistic and childish argument from authority fallacies or outdated false dictomies, as though the imaginary "authority" of the various natural sciences as an institution means anything at except to a highly superstitious and quasi "religious" mind to begin with, a body of legal theory, such as the common law, for example, having much more effect and relevance on people's day to day lives, than any of the imaginary work or speculations going on in that tiny little industry known as the natural sciences to begin with, computer sciences arguably being the new front for discovery and innovation, with the rather dated natural sciences being reduced to a relic of centuries long gone, and old codgers reluctant to part with their little traditions and cultural archaisms. Even the sad and either stupid or dishonest conflation of inductive sciences with that dated little intellectual movement known as "The Enlightenment" to begin with is rather pathetic, given that induction and Bacon's method was only one of many intellectual paths or movements which were invented or took place during that intellectual era.
However, new sciences built on new axioms, and methodologies of peerage, testability, arbitration, and so forth, things which would be above the compression of the typical anti-intellectual, mindless repeating outdated 19th century factoids by indoctrination or rote about "science" as business or institution (as can be expected from simple people whose education barely gradiates above the level of simplistic, childish arithmetic and other archaic 19th century educational relics, many if not most of said IQ 100 or less individuals not likely knowing or understanding something as basic and the difference between those primitive and outdated grading or credentialing metholodiges, often serving more of function of rudimentary "time training" for those likewise too simple or apathetic to even learn how to manage or schedule time on their own as master businessmen and women do" than a medium of learning or education and depth of study or comprehension of the subject matter itself.
As a single simpleton what a simple scientific fact or tidbit of information means, whether in the context of his or her own life, or in the grand spectrum of the universe, and he or she would be hard pressed to even come up with the simplest of answers or responses, often just or merely resorting to the same veign of superstitious nonsense and abuse of logical fallacies as many of those so-called "young earth creationists" use.
(e.x. Starting with conclusion - Science is "good", because a Bill Nye show meant for the 6th grade reading level says so; now find facts to support it; derp, washing machines! derp, polio vaccinations!, cell phones! Xboxes!)
Not only are the above the same type of childish and simplistic arguments or fallaces, but they're scarsely even good ones to begin with (such as ignorantly conflating medicine, or Western medicine, or whatnot with "natural sciences", or superstitiously crediting science as a formal institution or establishment for things like vaccinations or cell phones, rather than the exemplar men and women who invented them, whether Pasteur or others; with "science" as a formal institution with arbitrary rules, methodologies, standardizations and so forth arguably having done more harm in many ways to pure innovation, invention, discovery and so forth, despite what is nonsensically propagandized by archaic mass media, or blindly believed or asserted by the ignorant or poorly educated populace, let alone the industry workmen who may have a job and a silly "job title" in some "scientific industry", despite barely being anything more than a workman, having anything resembling depth of learning or experience outside of his tiny archaic little industry, and as far away from being a Newton, Einstein, or anyone or anything remotely brilliant as an average golfer is to Tiger Woods, despite how impressive a title like golfer or a silly little, dime-a-dozen degree handed out to the bottom of the class omight sound to some naïve or childish person without better understanding or time invested into learning about the subjects, and the men or women behind it.
In the worst cases, many of these "workmen" abusing job titles which bare inordinate reference to scientific jobs, such as "scientist", or "engineer", when the actual job or work they're doing is just a dime-a-dozen industry job, which could be better automated by a robot which does the same "work" twice as fast, doesn't smell half as bad, and doesn't lack basic etiquette, social, or emotional intelligence that would make a more intuitive or socially savvy 6th grader blush at the sheer ineptitude thereof, no offense in the case of true "savants" intended, sadly many simply possess the bad etiquette, impared social or emotional intelligence, as well as the lack of any actual savantry.
But back to the topic, as an example, a new science based on a new axiom such as "rationalism" (based on the mind), rather than empiricism or induction (based on the body, and arguably often an inferior form or means of acquiring knowledge or evidence to begin with) could be instituted, some dum-dumbs not even being intellectually apt enough to avoid falsely conflating "science", or "induction" with "reason", or "deduction" to begin with, "reason" often merely being a trendier brand name or marketing title to the intellectually uninitiated, much as "atheism" as a trender title for the New Atheists like that old 19th century fossil Dawkins (making proposals so inept and stupid, you'd honestly have to think he was either lying or cheating people, or aware of even the rudiments of institutions within his own country of England, such as the basics of the Common Law and its philosophy origins, the Church of England itself, the bare bones of the field of evolutionary psychology and its role in human behavior as per contemporaries such as Pinker, Wright and others, or even able to come up with anything resembling a meaningful or coherent definition of "feminism" and any of its sources or inspirational figures thereof) to market the philosophy or religion of Secular Humanism, its statement of principles, and various faith-based axioms under to begin with.
And like all theories, institutions, or frameworks for gathering knowledge, is constructed from mathematics, as are whatever arbitrated standards of testing, evidence gathering, peer reviewing, and so forth are as well, it would be interesting to see about deconstructing it, and creating new scientific or informational methods altogether, based on new axioms.
Arguably, it will never be a pure science anyway in the way that mathematics is, being nothing more than a construct or approximation from such (mathematics having been a science since the ancients, while Bacon's rather silly method, in comparison, only having been invented and born as of the 16-17th, as are its various theories, as per Newton, Einstein, and so forth, something which presumably any theory or body of knowledge and information is, as in built from mathematics.
Sure, immediately the superstitious people and uneducated (which is what most scientific propaganda on television, K-12 education, and entry-level college education is marketed to, something close to the 6th grade reading level) will react in a surprised way, and repeat many of the popular superstitions surrounding Bacon's method, usually reducting it to nothing more than a quasi cargo-cult of sort, giving them cell phones, computers, and trinkets to amuse themselves with, rather higher purposes such as an actual medium of discovery, resorting to simplistic and childish argument from authority fallacies or outdated false dictomies, as though the imaginary "authority" of the various natural sciences as an institution means anything at except to a highly superstitious and quasi "religious" mind to begin with, a body of legal theory, such as the common law, for example, having much more effect and relevance on people's day to day lives, than any of the imaginary work or speculations going on in that tiny little industry known as the natural sciences to begin with, computer sciences arguably being the new front for discovery and innovation, with the rather dated natural sciences being reduced to a relic of centuries long gone, and old codgers reluctant to part with their little traditions and cultural archaisms. Even the sad and either stupid or dishonest conflation of inductive sciences with that dated little intellectual movement known as "The Enlightenment" to begin with is rather pathetic, given that induction and Bacon's method was only one of many intellectual paths or movements which were invented or took place during that intellectual era.
However, new sciences built on new axioms, and methodologies of peerage, testability, arbitration, and so forth, things which would be above the compression of the typical anti-intellectual, mindless repeating outdated 19th century factoids by indoctrination or rote about "science" as business or institution (as can be expected from simple people whose education barely gradiates above the level of simplistic, childish arithmetic and other archaic 19th century educational relics, many if not most of said IQ 100 or less individuals not likely knowing or understanding something as basic and the difference between those primitive and outdated grading or credentialing metholodiges, often serving more of function of rudimentary "time training" for those likewise too simple or apathetic to even learn how to manage or schedule time on their own as master businessmen and women do" than a medium of learning or education and depth of study or comprehension of the subject matter itself.
As a single simpleton what a simple scientific fact or tidbit of information means, whether in the context of his or her own life, or in the grand spectrum of the universe, and he or she would be hard pressed to even come up with the simplest of answers or responses, often just or merely resorting to the same veign of superstitious nonsense and abuse of logical fallacies as many of those so-called "young earth creationists" use.
(e.x. Starting with conclusion - Science is "good", because a Bill Nye show meant for the 6th grade reading level says so; now find facts to support it; derp, washing machines! derp, polio vaccinations!, cell phones! Xboxes!)
Not only are the above the same type of childish and simplistic arguments or fallaces, but they're scarsely even good ones to begin with (such as ignorantly conflating medicine, or Western medicine, or whatnot with "natural sciences", or superstitiously crediting science as a formal institution or establishment for things like vaccinations or cell phones, rather than the exemplar men and women who invented them, whether Pasteur or others; with "science" as a formal institution with arbitrary rules, methodologies, standardizations and so forth arguably having done more harm in many ways to pure innovation, invention, discovery and so forth, despite what is nonsensically propagandized by archaic mass media, or blindly believed or asserted by the ignorant or poorly educated populace, let alone the industry workmen who may have a job and a silly "job title" in some "scientific industry", despite barely being anything more than a workman, having anything resembling depth of learning or experience outside of his tiny archaic little industry, and as far away from being a Newton, Einstein, or anyone or anything remotely brilliant as an average golfer is to Tiger Woods, despite how impressive a title like golfer or a silly little, dime-a-dozen degree handed out to the bottom of the class omight sound to some naïve or childish person without better understanding or time invested into learning about the subjects, and the men or women behind it.
In the worst cases, many of these "workmen" abusing job titles which bare inordinate reference to scientific jobs, such as "scientist", or "engineer", when the actual job or work they're doing is just a dime-a-dozen industry job, which could be better automated by a robot which does the same "work" twice as fast, doesn't smell half as bad, and doesn't lack basic etiquette, social, or emotional intelligence that would make a more intuitive or socially savvy 6th grader blush at the sheer ineptitude thereof, no offense in the case of true "savants" intended, sadly many simply possess the bad etiquette, impared social or emotional intelligence, as well as the lack of any actual savantry.
But back to the topic, as an example, a new science based on a new axiom such as "rationalism" (based on the mind), rather than empiricism or induction (based on the body, and arguably often an inferior form or means of acquiring knowledge or evidence to begin with) could be instituted, some dum-dumbs not even being intellectually apt enough to avoid falsely conflating "science", or "induction" with "reason", or "deduction" to begin with, "reason" often merely being a trendier brand name or marketing title to the intellectually uninitiated, much as "atheism" as a trender title for the New Atheists like that old 19th century fossil Dawkins (making proposals so inept and stupid, you'd honestly have to think he was either lying or cheating people, or aware of even the rudiments of institutions within his own country of England, such as the basics of the Common Law and its philosophy origins, the Church of England itself, the bare bones of the field of evolutionary psychology and its role in human behavior as per contemporaries such as Pinker, Wright and others, or even able to come up with anything resembling a meaningful or coherent definition of "feminism" and any of its sources or inspirational figures thereof) to market the philosophy or religion of Secular Humanism, its statement of principles, and various faith-based axioms under to begin with.
