The Rise of Unthinking False Dogma in American Science

I have submitted the following comment to the American Thinker site, in response to an article about the degeneration of Scientific American magazine into a kind of "church organ" of materialistic science and, now, the Insane Left brought to political correctness by Barack Obama. I am of course most mindful of the sorry state of science today, not the political dissolution:

First there was Charles Darwin, who doubted his God and concocted a bootstrap physical world, suspended by its own magical "evolution" apart from any meaning to it all. Then there was Secular Humanism, an overextension of the Enlightenment that made Man -- and his unplumbed origin and plethora of mental eccentricities -- the measure of all.

For a long time, the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) was the standard-bearer for the denial of design in the world and what it implies -- scientifically, but they can't stand that, and so redefine science to keep it out -- about a higher reality than the merely physical. For a long time, it has been an increasingly unbending promulgation of undirected evolution, that has been for several generations now only empty dogma/propaganda.

When Scientific American caught the disease, and began to morph into a full-on organ of the Church of Evolution and the Scientific Consensus, also known as the "The Science Is Settled" cult sect, it quickly lost all credibility with real scientists, who do not worship any theory (like Evolution), but only seek the light of the truth, however hard and long is the road to it.

See for example:

Once and Future Paradigm is back

and

Design vs. Contrivance

A new world order, a new scientific and religious paradigm, is here. And the current consensus knows nothing of it, and won't stoop to look at it.

Alienation, Meaning, and False Dogma

I have submitted the following comment to the fabius maximus site, in response to an article on alienation:

Large-scale, or mass, alienation is due to a general incompetence on the part of the "experts", particularly in science and religion. Or to make a long story short, too long nurturing of false dogmas in the underlying assumptions of a civilization or society. The primary false dogma of modern times is the establishment of Darwinian, or undirected "evolution" as the paradigm for all scientific observation and explanation of all that we observe, without thought for the essential meaninglessness behind that assumption.

This works on the individual level too, because the individual's mind is the very unit of intelligence, which absolutely requires meaning, or more fundamentally, meaningfulness of all that is in our lives, all of the physical universe particularly (which feeds our senses).

In my book, "The End of the Mystery", I identified what I have learned through my research and lifetime of experience as the natural philosophy of Man: "I think, therefore God exists." "God", in turn, is identifiable as the meaningfulness behind all things. Our own, slightest rational thought presupposes such overarching meaningfulness; without it, our thoughts must fall apart -- hence, alienation, from ourselves and from the meaningful world.

Alienation is the individual's natural response to an assumed meaninglessness, to which the meaningfulness of our own thoughts give the lie, always and ever. The answer is, and has always been, to realize once and for all that the world and everything in it is meaningful, both in itself and in its connections to all else. Which is not to pretend that any human being knows all of those meanings, or the overarching meaning of it all. Just that logic itself tells us, or should if we are intellectually competent or wise, that the meaningfulness of all is real, and independent of our limited understanding.

I have probably said, "protested", too much...but such is life; I have said it, I take responsibility for it, I proclaim it to the world. Go forth, and multiply the understanding

As if that weren't already a lot to think about, I added separately:

The growing trouble with multiculturalism should also be mentioned. You can see how that is going, with the Western embrace of Islam and the bringing together of cultures that don't WANT to come together, but to cling each to their own culture as superior, despite evidence to the contrary. Our societies are not judging the long-held dogmas of each culture competently -- it's kind of like introducing a new predator into one's biosystem, without regard for its predatory nature. Really stupid, and the scientists have been guilty of that themselves, in their trying to improve on the established systems of the natural world while not understanding those systems well at all.

"Post Modernism" and the General Incompetence in Science Today

I posted the following comment on the American Thinker site, in response to a comment that referred to "cultural geography" and "post-modernism":

As a physicist, the term "cultural geography" sounds like another meaningless term, that belongs in sociology, not hard science.

I just took the time to look up "post-modernism" in my 4-inch thick dictionary (the only clue -- other than the vague mention of "gaia" -- your comment gave to the nonsensical "cultural geography"), and it wasn't there -- so I looked up "modernism", and found that it had to do with "a movement in Protestant Christianity...that seeks to establish the meaning and validity of the Christian faith in relation to present human experience and to reconcile and unify traditional theological concepts with the requirements of modern knowledge"...I think I see why you didn't get into that little detail.... "Post-modernism" would then refer to those who believe and assume that science and the world are past that "religious nonsense".

My unprecedented research and discovery, of the single OBJECTIVE origin of all of the "Ancient Mysteries" of mankind, is the real, historical truth, not any current "post-modernism" (i.e., anti-religion dogma), that declares that any mention of design of the "natural" world is out of bounds in science.

The truth is that the world WAS designed, and later re-formed wholesale to a lesser but still all-encompassing design (the latter, only 20,000 to 10,000 years ago, and NOT done by "God", but by the "gods", of worldwide ancient worship, and later relegated to mere "myth").

The war between "God" and science is quite false -- because it neglects the very real but misapprehended "gods" who remade the world and man -- and science is now in a crisis of general incompetence over it, as only my research has proved, with new knowledge of the actual design imposed upon the Earth by the "gods" -- as I said, the single objective origin of all of the ancient mysteries, all of mankind's earliest religious and religiously-held beliefs.

Challenge to Earth Scientists

The Science Is Not Just Not Settled; It Is False

The American Thinker site has an article, "The Science Is Settled, So Shut Up", referring to the climate alarmism on the political Left, and its tyrannous consequences, but also bringing in other political debates over science. My response:

False dogma is generally ascendant over true reason now. That is why we see evolution and sexual orientation aguments intruding into the debate over climate science. And it is not just the Left vs. Right, it is just that the Left has taken the politically correct, consensus position in every confrontation, while the Right is more open to alternative reasonable views. This is actually a disease on the Left, as the consensus ideas, or reigning dogmas, in so many fields today, are wrong, despite the false dogmas having been nurtured for a long time, in science and in wider society. Darwin set science on the wrong path of denying design of the natural world over 150 years ago, and Agassiz contributed with his theories of past ice ages, which led directly to the false "greenhouse effect" in an attempt to explain a false paradigm of "global climate change"; Milankovitch furthered the miseducation of scientists by supposing recurring changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of its spin axis; and the followers of Alfred Wegener overreached, and turned further from the truth, in the 1960s, by "explaining" past continental movements as due to ongoing global "plate tectonics".

Virtually everything scientists so confidently assert as fact in the earth and life sciences today is not only not settled, it is false. There is no undirected, Darwinian evolution; there have been no naturally-occurring ice ages; the Earth's orbit does not change as Milankovitch supposed; the continents were not moved to their present forms and positions by plate tectonics; and there is no valid global climate science being taught.

On the other hand, all religions today are full of myth, not sure knowledge, insofar as they tell stories about the pre-historic past, before events were written down as they happened, according to living witnesses to the events.

So they are no substitute for true science, and that cannot be overemphasized. It is no use trying to go back to ancient religious dogmas to counter the dogmas in modern science.

My research into the so-called "ancient mysteries", undertaken as a modern physicist and to the highest standards of true science, has uncovered the fact--not theory, not ancient religious dogma, not freely-imagined speculation--that a great design WAS imposed upon the Earth, between roughly 20,000 and 10,000 years ago (so modern geology itself is only right about the last 10,000 years or so; it cannot be trusted farther back than that). That design establishes what I wrote above, about the falseness in all the earth and life sciences, due to the false paradigm--the false dogma--they have slavishly followed.

In this, I write as the Copernicus, or Galileo, of this time, informing of a new understanding of the world, its motions in space, and the late origin of its present conditions, only a few tens of thousands, not hundreds of millions, of years ago.

Between the dogmatic scientists and the dogmatic religionists, few want to confront this new knowledge. But all who can see, can see from present debates and wars that such knowledge is very much needed. Without it, everyone is blind, on both sides of every debate about the physical world.

Dogma Is the Deeper Problem Today

Steven Goddard has a post on "1950 scientific consensus", which included the belief that "continents don't move". My response:

The continents were moved by design, at least into their present shapes and distribution. The design is so exact (the probability is one in a million million that they were placed by chance), and the supposed continental movements today so small, that it would take several hundred thousand years for them to move away from the designed placement (and that placement is but one small aspect of the design, which encompasses both the terrestrial and celestial spheres, and the entire solar system). And it has been only about 10 to 20 thousand years since the design was made, upon which all of the ever-popular "ancient mysteries" of man were afterwards based.

But today, almost everyone is bent on expressing their disdain for ideas that don't fit the dogmas they have come to embrace (religiously)--confrontation, or knee-jerk condescension and dismissal, rather than professional consideration--and those who explicitly want to consider other ideas (like "tallbloke's talkshop" or, in the wider arena, self-righteous, dangerous fools like Barack Obama) are indiscriminate in their considerations, and no more open than anyone else to the definitive truth, when it is presented to them (and no, I'm not perfect either, I'm just the discoverer of definitive new knowledge, of that great design of the "gods" who once were known and, unsurprisingly, worshipped, worldwide). There is a crisis of general scientific incompetence because of this long-nurtured embrace of dogma (of current, public, politically correct consensus) over dispassionate, strict reason, with a general inability to identify and focus upon definitive evidence that does not fit entirely, or even well, with anyone's prejudices (among those who broadcast their views, especially--they being particularly certain they know the truth).

There is no solid foundation to any of the earth and life sciences today. The central theories in both--plate tectonics and undirected evolution--are simply, inescapably disproved by the design I have found and verified, many times over. They are poorly engineered--out of ever-hopeful but incompetent speculation--and do not work, as you engineers would say.

The Growing Religious Self-Righteousness of Science

Steven Goddard has a post, "My 35th Year as a Global Warming True Believer". My response is the following:

"Global warming" hype is just the latest step in a creeping degeneracy of science--particularly in the earth and life sciences--that has been going on since long before I was born. As a physicist, I am astounded by the poor quality of introductory university physics texts being written today, and can only hope undergraduates are encouraged to study earlier, classic texts, from the first half of the 20th century. In fact, I consider it imperative not to embrace any current theory, but to inform myself of the entire field, going as far back as needed to get to the origins of those theories, when everyone still KNEW they were just a certain set of assumptions and makeshift hypotheses.

I know, as no other scientist on Earth does, that the current scientific paradigm, of uniformitarian, undirected "evolution" of all that we observe on Earth, is wrong, and has failed. I watched--and offered my two cents, over and over, in letters to the editor--as the steamroller of Darwinian evolution (theory, NOT fact) has put down all honest criticisms, over my adult lifespan (and of course, long before). More than 30 years ago, I had already concluded that the main failing of today's scientists was their inability to handle basic probabilities, and thus to govern their imaginations, and especially to rigorously match the strength--not to mention the kind--of their proposed causes to the strength--and kind--of the observable effects (0.04% CO2 as the "control knob" of global mean temperature, for example--or, Steven, "salinity differences" driving the Gulf Stream).

"Climate science" today (and every other field of science tied to troubled and failing theory) is just a massive and absurd waste of my time, not to mention the aggregate time being devoted to it by everyone else in the world. That the science community and the world should be so deluded as to take it seriously, much less let it run amuck in the political world, is insane. I dismissed the "greenhouse gas" scientists 20 years ago, when I encountered them in passing at atmospheric science conferences, and I have only had my attention called to the "global warming" world agenda since late 2009, barely two months before the climategate e-mails broke. Within a year, I had identified the most basic errors in the consensus theory, learned of the actual governance of global mean temperature by the hydrostatic vertical temperature lapse rate, and definitively confirmed it and the stable Standard Atmosphere model that assumes and rigorously quantifies it, in my elementary but (amazingly, insanely) seminal Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (which should have been done by competent scientists over 20 years ago, or even as far back as 1979, when the earliest pertinent Venus data was obtained).

I had no reason to be really surprised by the foolishness of the global "global warming" hysteria, however. I've seen the hysteria build, and the dogma ever emotionally and unscientifically defended and reinforced, over my lifetime, in the evolution debates (which from the first to the last, outlawed the very idea of design in or of the natural world), the continuing introduction and too-quick acceptance of poorly-quantified and hypothesis-multiplying theories (like plate tectonics--separate from provable "continental drift" observations--and Milankovitch theory), and the public adulation heaped upon the glory-hounds in science, intent only upon trumpeting the current consensus, men like Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan (and most recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye). The vehement, dogmatic rejection of "Intelligent Design" in recent years was but a telling prelude, the previous step in the growing religious self-righteousness of science.

I know that I, and I alone as yet, hold open the door to the next scientific paradigm, and to a once-again truly competent modern theoretical science, with my discovery of the world-encompassing design of those who were remembered among ancient man as the "gods", that, ironically and not at all coincidentally, started all of the misbegotten, religiously-held dogma that besets mankind on Earth. The present difficulties are but the tip-most hair on the tail of the runaway dog of basic scientific misconceptions, diligently nurtured through most of the last two centuries.

Climate Science Not the Greatest Hoax, After All

I have submitted the following comment to Alan Caruba's Warning Signs site, where the subject is "The Greatest Hoax", referring to the "global warming" hysteria:

I am an independent (and therefore unwanted) physicist (64 years old, and educated before the great educational train wreck of the last 40 years, which has miseducated the last two generations of physical scientists), and I disproved the "greenhouse effect" supposed to underpin the global warming hysteria, with the definitive evidence I know is needed to correct climate science. It is not just the man/woman on the street who pays no attention, what is frightening to me is that there are no climate or atmospheric scientists competent enough, or honest enough, to listen to that definitive (and quite simple, for a scientist) evidence.

I have been saying for some time that all of our institutions (AAAS, NAS, APS, AGU, etc.) have been suborned by the incompetent climate consensus (and of course, the cheerleading media). What makes this climate hoax greater than even the insiders among the "consensus skeptics" (a.k.a. "deniers") know, is that the greater the authority of the institution, the more its subornation is tied to a religious belief in evolution theory. That is to say, they think that opposition to the global warming idea is tied to a "creationist" denial of evolution (when they don't put such "denial" down to the evil of "Big Oil corporations").

And it is, in a larger context that both they AND the skeptics don't yet even imagine can possibly be true: The bad theory behind global warming is just the tail of the dog of the general evolution paradigm, that science has hewed to since Darwin: That everything we observe in the natural world is the product of undirected physical processes, without any deliberate design as even most scientists believed before Darwin. In such a paradigm, the Earth is all too easily seen as unstable (rather than the harmonious, repeating dynamic stability man has observed throughout history), and therefore can be subject to runaway climate ("ice ages", as well as "global warming"). That paradigm is now failing, increasingly openly, as the incompetence of scientists grows, as they struggle to tack on layer after layer of theoretical "natural" processes--like the non-existent "greenhouse effect"--to their "explanations". I am the only scientist in the world, so far as I know, who really, professionally knows this, because of my discovery and verification of the "great design of the gods", the highly fragmented and misunderstood knowledge of which--passed down by the "gods" to their offspring, historical man--was responsible for all the "ancient mysteries" of mankind's most ancient religiously-held beliefs.

On the Failure of Post-Normal Science

The Climate Etc. site has an article on the "Republican brain" (apparently a recent but fast-growing field of science), to which I respond here:

The larger problem is, when nobody has all the answers even to the most basic questions, instead of admitting they don't know, the self-styled institutional "experts" dig in and defend their "expertness", and fight, rather than disdaining such adolescent and misdirected behavior in favor of finding the objective truth--in fact, "objective" is the key word.

None of the opinions Judith Curry has sought out and brought forward here are worth any of my time, none at all. They are all subjective, not objective. And I am not talking about their political opinions--much less their opinions on one political group over another--which by definition are irrelevant to science. I am talking about their presumptions about "settled/good" science. None of them know what they are talking about. They just don't know what they are talking about.

Let's cut through all the BS, all the vain arguments--we live in a time of crisis in science, because the reigning scientific paradigm, or philosophy, (undirected evolution) has failed, becoming a millstone dragging down the mind rather than a light to the truth, and those who mentally depend upon that paradigm, as a religious belief, do not yet know that their "knowledge" is obsolete, just so much roadkill on the journey to more real knowledge. There are as yet no coherent societal constructs, no easy public narratives--in short, no enlightened public opinion (a.k.a. "post-normal science")--to replace the already-failed belief, in essentially meaningless development (the literal meaning of "undirected evolution") of all the miracles of natural process, of natural mechanism, we observe in the world and the universe beyond. There are only other religions, which the "scientific believers" prefer to war with, rather than see that their own position has become just another benighted religion. Darwin was a religious-minded, amateur scientist, an incompetent fool, whose fundamental misapprehension, concerning design of the natural world, has spawned a world of scientific fools--and their time is now passing, along with that misapprehension. Will that passing consume another century, of increasingly misdirected science?

Judith Curry's blog (and every other blog, filled with earnest argument and unending discussion) is just a continuing therapy session for those who cannot or will not learn. Judith Curry, like every other academic or institutional scientific authority, does not know where to turn. And that is telling, because she "knows", as a scientist, that only objective observation, interpretation and verification are needed--not reliance upon unquestioned dogma, even if that dogma is "scientific" (i.e., "settled science"). All of the people whose opinions she solicits believe unquestioningly in evolution theory. But that theory is fundamentally false, mistaking designed mechanisms for products of undirected, natural laws. Even the discovery and elucidation of the amazing mechanism that is the DNA molecule, has not broken through the false belief, to a realization of underlying, deliberate design of all the life on Earth.

And more specifically, in the climate debates, if the climate system is not designed, then it must be subject to "runaway", chaotic behavior, QED--for (and here is the fundamental truth, believe it or not) there is no coherent physical mechanism, indeed no physical coherence, without deliberate design. Scientists study design every day, throughout their lives, yet shackle themselves to the lie that everything is the result of random physical processes--and no more. The dissociation with reality is so great today, that many entertain pseudoscientific discussions of, say, the "Republican brain", in the vain hope of surcease from their inner struggle to deny the obvious design in the natural world, with concocted outer struggles against phantoms of their imagination. Such discussions are, in my opinion, insane, inherently damaging to true, verifiable reason.

How To Save Science

The "Climate Etc." blog of Dr. Judith Curry has a post on the fundamental problems with peer review. Instead of adding a comment there, I offer the following:

Scientific fundamentals like peer review are broken because science has not been self-correcting, but figuratively adding epicycles to planetary circles, for a long time, so that incompetence proliferates instead of the expertise that is advertised and expected. Materialistic scientism (dogmatically opposed to religion and, by false logical extension, to a higher meaningful reality than the merely physical) is leading science on a dead-end street; the "undirected evolution" paradigm is a failure, but that is largely unknown, especially among self-proud, cloistered academics. I am already showing the way to correct science--by identifying and focusing upon the definitive evidence that disproves key scientific errors of understanding. All scientists have to do is be willing to have even their favorite theories and supposed understanding undone, when the definitive facts say so. Science should be organized learning, first , last and always, not memorized, ritualized explanation.