Science Fallacies Assume Their Latest Invention Is Straight From God!

Science fallacies begin with the trendy notion that whatever is popular today is all anyone needs to ever know about. Quickly this expands to the silly belief that whatever is novel today is absolute truth and everything prior is proven dead wrong now.

Buddhist philosophy has a far more reasonable basis. Human ignorance is the overwhelming ocean in which we all are cast adrift. Due to our ignorance our fear brings us to make defensive simplifications to make sense of our world. These expectations and simplifications are what our minds deal with only.

The continuing collisions with our experience, as our expectations arising from our fear and ignorance are broken to painful bits as we bump blindly through our lives cause the overwhelming suffering of the unenlightened.

One of the least sophisticated responses to the limitations of human understanding is to believe some set of knowledge is all you need to know about, cling to it, reject all else and when your expectations bump painfully into your experience to lash out at some evil that is to blame.

This is the way of small children still in the magical thinking Piaget developmental stage. It is also the refuge of adults who find themselves overwhelmed by their lives and the difficulties of their experience. Christianity at its best has very sophisticated notions of universality and altruism. There are also more primitive versions of Christianity where total vision and blind faith in a single book replaces all other thought.

Christian claims that all knowledge is revealed in the Bible is mostly political from a time when the new faith was fighting for a place in a far more sophisticated pagan world. The transition to Christian world was accomplished through epidemic disease where those nursed by Christians survived and repopulated the countryside.

Once the population was mostly Christian, it was easy to reject the culture that had been replaced, declare they had all knowledge in the Bible and everything else is totally false and evil. It was the Dark Ages and everything glorious of the ancient world was long gone with few left to defend its glory any more.

The Bible is actually narrative poetry which can be beautiful and even inspiring, but never answers hard questions of fact in any way whatsoever. But then, Christian Europe didn't write their Bible and this transplant text was taken on faith without any fundamental understanding of what exactly was its cultural context.

The ignorance and fear of the Dark Ages developed a new cultural context where what they had was all that would ever be needed. The new "modern" millennium of 1001CE started the notion that by military conquest and their interpretation of the Bible all knowledge had been revealed to them and everything else was terrible and evil and only to be destroyed.

By the 12th and 13th century, the trade and conquests of the Crusades brought enough experience of other cultures and ancient Greek texts that the earlier beliefs that no one else knew anything weren't working out so well. Expectations were modified to say that the new knowledge could be interesting if it were translated and edited and improved by Christian monks.

As a result new science and other knowledge began to develop. However, it was always encased in theological nonsense of many kinds. The worst nonsense was the assumption that whatever is the current knowledge is Divinely revealed Absolute Truth.

Each new development is thus required to totally throw out every prior view, since there can only be one Absolute Truth. Science fallacies became necessary to maintain the fiction that each new idea is the absolute final word and everything prior must therefore have been totally wrong.

The ideological foundation of modern physics remains that each newly accepted paradigm can be the only truth and everything prior must be rejected totally as foolish nonsense only a prior century could believe. The complete system of the modern academic has not actually advanced from the 13th century was frozen by the 14th century Black Death.

So, science fallacies are those quaint notions worked out anew with each new century while still remaining within the Crystal Spheres as originally mistranslated by Aquinas from Aristotle.The modern millennium culminates with science and technology visions of Aquinas and Roger Bacon though it took until the turn of the 20th century to actually come to fruition.

The first and most terrible fallacy is the claim that God uses mathematics to create and order the Universe. There is no basis in empirical reality or revealed scripture for such a claim. The notion that whatever is known today came directly from God and is the ultimate and absolute Truth underlying all reality is not logically defensible.

For Aquinas the current discovery was the elegant Greek rhetoric of Aristotle which he translated as an expression of Aquinas’ medieval Christian theology. For Newton the discovery was using calculus to extend Euclidean geometry to curves by imagining the observed approximate positions of celestial bodies could be made exact and absolute by claiming they were really expressions of the infinitesimal.

For Laplace (and his commander-in-chief, Napoleon) it was the discovery that vast armies with artillery batteries could destroy small armies and occupy the capital cities of Europe. Upon that military conquest he assumed he had conquered physics and God as well and knew everything there was to know.

For Einstein and the Quantum physics of the early years of the 20th century it was the discovery that they could use observational data to develop math equations and then claim their theory based upon that math was empirically proven by the previously developed data. They had no new insights actually, just the enthusiasm of the calendar turning from the 19th century to the futuristic 20th and their observed data was more preliminary than decisive. Their theories were a way to avoid serious challenges to their assumptions raised by the actual observed data.

Simple logic debunks them all and shows that science fallacies and theological claptrap is all that physics has ever had. The science of physics emerges from a mistranslation of Aristotle’s elegant Greek rhetoric involving objects on Earth that change rather than being eternally constant like the celestial bodies. Changing bodies on Earth became the science of motion in Aquinas translation.

The point of Aquinas translation of Aristotle as science fallacies was to allow the use of these elegant rhetorical arguments even though Aristotle wasn’t a Christian. Since Aristotle now was describing how God created and controlled the physical world, he could be taught with just a small rebuke that he wasn’t a Christian and thus was imperfect.

This first science fallacy then put observation in the service of theology and allowed later physicists to claim that they must be right since they were Christians and their latest novelty was the revelation of how God created and maintained the Universe. Actually, they did remarkably poor science in the service of various political and calendar timing aims of their day.

The ultimate science fallacy is that algebra equations are the structure of the physical universe as God created it. Algebra is a technique to express symbolically what you do not know in hopes that you can figure it out. It is ignorance given an abstract, symbolic name that can be connected to what you do know.

Originally, science meant the elegant deductive logic of Euclid’s Elements which deal only with straight lines and circles and what can be derived from them. Newton faced the problem of extending geometry to include the curves that could be drawn through set of observational data from the Royal Observatory in Greenwich.

To accomplish his goal of extending Euclid to algebra equations of curves required a number of science fallacies. The first was that equations were God’s language of creation. The next was that curves based upon partial and approximate observations could be converted to absolute perfect data by the sleight of hand of the infinitesimal.

The true and reasonable data would be expressed as a bit of change in something on the y-axis of a graph called delta y related to a bit of change on the x-axis called delta x. The science fallacies begin with the claim that somehow the quotient of these two can be more exact and perfect than the original data. Division actually lessens the accuracy not increases it.

The science fallacies involve real sleight of hand stemming from Zeno’s paradoxes. Zeno claimed a runner even as fast as Achilles could never pass a totally slow tortoise since before he could get to the tortoise Achilles would have to pass through an infinite number of middle points. Actually, a runner puts one foot in front of the other and never knows about any midpoints.

The trick to these science fallacies is claiming you can take an infinite number of fractions of something when you can’t even take a large finite number of them and have it be physically meaningful. The limit between what can be actually observed as a tiny bit of something and the abstract mathematical process of turning delta y into dy solves all the issues of quantum physics.

What is the physical reality of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? That the observation of position and momentum is approximate since you can not in reality obtain the infinitesimals assumed in the definition of velocity or position. What does Planck’s constant represent? The limit of what can be physically observed actually rather than the mathematical assumption of infinitesimals.

The data available in the late 19th century was too exact for the science fallacies and phony mathematical forms developed by Newton. The choice was to either admit science would require an entire new fundamental basis or retreat into fantasy and claptrap sleight of hand. No one has dared develop an entire new fundamental theory since the Black Death ravaged Europe in the 14th century.

The only other option was to wait for the calendar timing to turn with the new 20th century and get folks to accept what was available as the science of the future. In the waiting period lots of data was accumulated from studies of unknown lines in spectroscope observations. The data was consistent but unexplainable by the available theory with its science fallacies.

An equation was written that empirically and approximately expressed the relationships found in the data. After this equation was cobbled together then the search was on for who could come up with a theory that would fit that data. The scientific method requires that you understand a subject first and from that knowledge develop a hypothesis which can be tested and either verified or disproved.

When the data is previous known then the hypothesis isn’t proven at all. The crucial experiment needs to be a new perspective that either confirms the data or shows it is not yet fully explained. All of quantum and relativity theories are pure science fallacies based upon prior data and sleight of hand.

Einstein’s relativity theory assumes that Newton’s equations remain the absolute, God-given laws of nature. In order to maintain the science fallacies involved in that assumption he has to say that time and space don’t really exist and everything frame of reference has its own reality. The other alternative would be to say that Newton’s equation were approximate and do not describe absolute reality as God created it.

Recognizing that we use changes in light patterns for our measurement solves a lot of Einstein’s issues. A light microscope is recognized to have a resolution limit. The degree of fine detail is limited by the wavelength of light. A microscope image magnified beyond that limit shows a larger image but with no finer detail.

Applying the same thinking to all measurements made by changing light patterns or other electromagnetic radiation says that you can’t measure a speed faster than the speed of your measuring medium. All of the Lorentz transforms and Relativity theory can be explained as simply the resolution limit of using light beams as the standard of measurement.

The standard thought experiment for time dilation involves imagining a light beam bouncing between two mirrors with its arrival at each mirror being counted as time. If the system moves near the speed of light, the distance between the two mirrors is suddenly increased. The light beam must hit the same area of the mirror but that mirror has moved a considerable distance farther since it has traveled between the time the beam left one mirror and hits the other.

It is not time that has changed but the accuracy of the measurement of time in this system. Light travels the same speed but the distance being counted as one unit is now longer by the addition of the horizontal motion to the vertical bouncing of the light beam. Modern science fallacies refuse to admit their measurements could be compromised, it must be time itself that is changing.

Similarly with the increase of mass near the speed of light, the two alternatives are that mass magically changes or it is harder to accelerate a particle to near the speed of light than it is accelerate it from rest. The second alternative requires adjusting Newton’s equations to include an element of scale. The first alternative involves science fallacies and idolatry of Newton’s very primitive equations as God’s law of creation.

Einstein’s reworking of the theory of gravity is a total mess of science fallacies. The simple explanation from Einstein’s insight is that Newton’s law of gravity is primitive nonsense and unnecessary. The motion of the Earth is sufficient to explain our sensation of gravity. That is Einstein’s theory. However, he can’t let go of Newton even when he has a better explanation.

Instead Einstein posits that space and time don’t exist but space-time is a physical entity like a physical film that is bent by the weight of objects to create a special height in some other dimension known as Riemann geometry. Riemann was a 19th century geometer who imagined this extra value that could be attached to any point in space, but never proved it consistent or workable.

Einstein grabbed this theoretical geometry to find a complex mathematical way to turn gravity into geometrical height rather than admit Newton was totally wrong in his assumption the Earth was moving but yet acted as if stationary. Even Newton was well aware that his equation for gravity posited a magical, innate force emanating from matter and working at a distance. He hoped someone would eventually find an explanation for this obvious nonsense.

In many ways Einstein did, but he couldn’t admit Newton was wrong. So he made complex notions that end up as science fallacies and double talk so he can both say that gravitational effects are simple results of the complex motion of the Earth and everything else in space as well as claim that Newton’s laws are still operational everywhere.

Big Bang theory simplified the picture greatly. To Einstein there was no reason for any place or time to be the center of the universe, thus he took a position of relativity. Big Bang theory gives us a special place and time for the Universe, the point and time of the Big Bang. We no longer need space-time fabric or mythological constellations.

We can have a definite beginning time and location for the Universe and map all celestial bodies relative to that beginning. The continuing motion from the Big Bang becomes absolute time which continues the same no matter what we hold constant. That is the other definition of time—that which continues the same even when there is no local motion at all.

Science fallacies are the alternative to admitting prior science theories were approximate and current understanding is limited too. Since Aquinas translated Aristotle and Laplace conquered Europe the intoxication has been too powerful to not continue claiming that your current theory is all mankind needs to know and reveals how God created the universe.

The result is science today is a hodgepodge of inconsistent and outmoded theories thrown together and maintained as absolute Truth. They are the paradigms that can only be modified by new paradigms and even then the old paradigms hang around in some form. The authors of the published books that set forth these classics or paradigms are celebrities and stars.

The whole system of science fallacies is based upon the theological reverence for published text like the Bible as Truth better than anything else. This idolatry of the best seller is a mystery of our culture. The inability of academics to realize obsolete theory and still cling to these science fallacies regardless of the logical contortions required is a testament to the power of faith over reason.

The latest mechanical invention becomes so much better than anything natural. The complex dynamics of celestial mechanics and the timing cycles of the planets and sunshine is dumped for primitive mechanical clocks that can only count abstract duration in similar (though never provably identical units).

The thermometer and the steam engine became the basis for calorimetric instruments and thermodynamics although it was known that temperature was an abstract notion that does not relate to any true physical property of any material. Everything expands with heat but nothing expands in a linear and consistent fashion over all temperature ranges.

The steam engine was developed by mechanics having no background in physics at all. Thermodynamics theory, totally science fallacies was based solely on the fact of the piston steam engine and the ideal gas equation that is irrelevant to a machine running on the phase changes of steam and water in a totally non-ideal range. What was available was put together with whatever folks would believe to make science fallacies into new science breakthroughs.

Mass as the measure of matter was invented by Newton to separate matter from the acceleration of gravity. Thus instead of accepting the pan balance and fact that gravity is the constant and universal awareness of the complex motion of the Earth, a new physical quantity and mythical gravitational field allowed the continuing belief that the Earth was solid and unmoving.

The idolatry of machines and the rejection of the natural has led to the notion that the level of civilization can be measured by the quantity of energy a society uses. This was developed in Britain when that nation was burning enough coal to create pollution over its capital and thus could claim to be the best nation on Earth.

Our science fallacies still equate burning fossil fuels with being the biggest and best society on Earth with the race to win being a major factor in worsening global warming. All the unexamined science fallacies have resulted in terrible problems that were obvious from the very introduction of these new technologies. The marketing hype to promote the latest new product overwhelmed any interest in rational consideration.

Nuclear power is still being promoted as clean energy although from the first reactor construction it was known that these reactors create nuclear waste that remains a deadly problem for thousands of centuries. How is that clean energy? It generates deadly radioactive isotopes not innocuous carbon dioxide? Both are a menace because of their quantity and their effect upon the entire global environment.

Even the notion of the environment is an expression of science fallacies. The Planet Earth is one entity with a unified dynamic in its interaction of local topography with the celestial mechanics of sunshine and the timing cycles and tides of the solar system. Science simplified its outlook to promote its abstract equations by declaring isolated systems and local conditions as all the scientist needed to notice.

Everything else was exhausted somewhere and forgotten about. When the volume of exhaust became too large for the atmosphere, hydrosphere or lithosphere to absorb, the overflowing pollution was renamed the new problem of the environment. It wasn’t a new thing, it was the empirical demonstration that the perspective used in science was flawed and unworkable. The total disaster of our revered science fallacies is still being ignored to allow the same old nonsense to continue.

Mathematics may well be just the structure of the human brain synapses projected upon personal observation to make symbolic approximations that are convenient for our brains. This strikes at the core of the science fallacies that assume our math forms are universal, transcendent the inherent structure of the Universe God used for creation.

When will humanity give us the science fallacies and accept being mortal and fallible and everything we think we know or develop is just approximate and subject to future correction? A complete system of unified appreciation for the natural world and its processes has been available to all the indigenous peoples of the Earth forever.

In the sixth century BCE this unified appreciation that everything on Earth is motivated and controlled by the interaction of Sunshine with local topography which can be observed and understood though shadows and wind patterns. The cycles of all process can be mapped, studied and usefully understood by the apparent positions of the planets, sun and moon.

The basic symbolism can be put in terms of circles or cubes or a six-place linear matrix with each place either background or focus. Everything is connected and all the information anyone needs is available in simple forms. Tools are better than machines. Simple symbolism is better than science fallacies. Equality, diversity and global understanding within the peaceful freedom of the local horizon is the only way for humans to survive this current century.

Return to top of science fallacies page