Can Science Be Wrong?

And does it matter? I say, with all due respect it can and it does.

Scientific inquiry is to technology as spiritual inquiry is to religion. The former should be encouraged in all individuals as part of personal evolution, where as the latter are practical social applications of these admirable pursuits that usually become tools for manipulating the masses.

From a cybernetics point of view science becomes dangerous when it becomes too reductionist or orthodox. In principle all scientific theories should eventually become extinct as the whole of knowledge advances.

Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes the social dynamics of the culture of science as it deals with the inevitable succession of paradigm shifts that is the evolution of human knowledge.

Citing the Copernican revolution and the scientific advances of the Enlightenment he illustrates how, when the ruling paradigm is confronted with persistent anomalies, scientists from the fringes propose new theories, and how the forces of "normal" science defend the old paradigm until a fully formed and more robust mindset is developed out side the orthodox system.

As with religion's inquisitions and crusades, we've seen the dangers of scientific theories being used to justify political ends, for example the extreme Darwinism of Nazi Germany.

When science is used to justify the ends of capitalism it also tends toward reductionism at the expense of the masses, since capitalism is by its nature focused on one end: Profit.

Allopathy (Western Medicine) has often found itself at odds with its fundamentally altruistic Hippocratic roots. From bloodletting to electroshock therapy to mass vaccinations, the desire to pump up profits and human ego have resulted in the needless deaths and suffering of millions.

Vaccination programs are a perfect example of a dangerous mix of the utilitarian paradigm being applied to human beings. The very term "herd immunity" should be a hint that this kind of medicine is not about individual well being.

There is plenty of evidence to indicate vaccinations are causing a variety of epidemics in our society from autism to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

The history of the medical establishment’s battle with the epidemic of AIDS is an excellent case study of the scientific establishment facing a persistent crisis to its paradigm. Since its discovery, many opposing theories about the origins and epidemiology of this syndrome have been proposed. Scientific careers have been made and lost over the successes of these theories.

Occasionally, the medical community has faced challenges and criticism from inside and outside the field and we will see how they, individually and collectively, they have reacted to it. We will see that, as Kuhn predicted, even when confronted with questions that challenge their most fundamental tenets, the proponents of “normal science” will close ranks and defend their own. This is a demonstration of the depth of their commitment to the paradigm that provides not only theories, tools and methodologies, but also social status and norms of behaviour.

There is some evidence that this creates a sense of entitlement that comes with an undercurrent of racism, sexism and homophobia. It is arguable that there have been times in the history of this epidemic where these prejudices have clouded the scientific objectivity, perhaps to the detriment of many.

For a full paper on the subject go to AIDS, HIV and Reductionism in the Allopathic Paradigm.

Random Manifesto #2

Part of a series of randomly computer generated manifestos applying the cut-up method to some of my favorite quotes:

Linear determinist models can no longer serve to explain the behavior of the physical world, biology or intelligent systems. "For any formal theory in which basic arithmetical facts are provable, either the theory is inconsistent or it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement which is true but not provable or refutable in the theory."

It is out of the uncertainty of emergent systems that the possibilities for creativity and human agency arise.


http://kaosphere.ca

The Evolution of Jesus

I like to attribute my cynicism to an early childhood servitude to the Church and the subsequent betrayal, which left me with instinctual guilt and self doubt. These are useful tools for a skeptic, but just as having the proverbial hammer makes every problem look like a nail, so too doubt is better for building walls than windows.

I am working on writing up my ideas about chaos theory as applied to religion and, while it was easy for me to point out the role of uncertainty and the danger of faith in science, it pains me to put into words what seems antithetical to religion: that there is no absolute truth to be had.

I may be a bit more sensitive to the feelings of the faithful than your average atheist, but I would still never recommend that anyone should actually adhere to someone else's religion. Make one up for yourself maybe, and never take it too seriously, but don't ever buy one of those off the shelf models. Here's why:

One of the aesthetics suggested by chaos theory is the property of fractals to display self similarity at different scales, as demonstrated by zooming in on the mini-Mandelbrots in the Mandelbrot set.

Another is their fractional dimensionality. Unlike euclidean geometrical shapes fractals have borders of infinite complexity which interpenetrate their surroundings.

Applied to nature, these concepts are much more useful than linear measures for understanding phenomenon like clouds and turbulence. It is easy for casual observer to see the similarity of clouds or ripples of different sizes, or at various distances and magnifications. As well, anyone can see the lack of real borders between the clouds and the air, or between a whirlpool and the water.

If we look at human existence in this way, we will see that humans (and other living things) are also like this. Since we shed all our cellular material over a seven year period and new material is absorbed from our surroundings through the convoluted interfaces of our skin, lungs and digestive systems; we are more like a vortex moving through a medium than we are like a solid object. We dissipate through time; chances are you are occupying an entirely different physical body than the one you originally used to log onto the Internet that very first time, all those years ago, yet somehow there is a continuity of consciousness even though you think and feel different.

As such, we are similar to and yet different from each other, from our former "selves" and from our ancestors and evolutionary predecessors. The physical borders between our "selves" and the environment are indistinct, permeable and variable.

I have digressed, but my point is that I would like to apply these ways of looking at things to the subject of religion. The clip below demonstrates the property of self similarity in religion. We can see that figures such as Jesus and Moses are not unique occurrences in time but reiterations of a historical formula. And so truth in religion can not be absolute, but will tend to recur, self-similarly (like a self-fulfilling prophesy), in myths, social and family structures, and personal development - right down to WWJD (what would Jesus do) today.



I highly recommend you watch the whole movie. Zeitgeist is available in 13 parts on YouTube. I definitely want to write more about it here, as the producers present some thought provoking ideas about the social structures used to control the masses and promote the New World Order.

Emergent Behavior in Art

David Rokeby is an artist who produces emergent dynamic meta-art in the true spirit of the new cyber-aesthetic.



His works always interact with their environments producing - receiving - interpreting and outputting imagery. Producing visuals that even he cannot predict. He nurtures his works to maturity like living things rather than creating them like objects. They demonstrate Emergent Behavior.