Taking leave of our blind friends, but retaining what they
have taught us, let us now examine how we can apply those thoughts to the
foundations of scientific thought, to find a way to overcome certain obstacles.
We have seen that certain error-producing assumptions can be incorporated,
which we will proceed to verify in more detail. To quickly recap, we identified
that explaining an unknown strictly in terms of what is known, (and the
resulting premature descriptions that come about), invoking the majority in
order to decide the truth of the matter, and allowing an addition to the
assumptions rather than a replacement of the assumptions, prove to be massive
impediments to the scientific process. That is a weighty statement indeed, so I
ask you to bear with me in examining them, after which we shall see if it has
the backing of evidence.
First of all, what exactly is meant when I say “to restrict
oneself to what is known”? It could be argued, that we after all only know what
we know, and hence it is natural to describe new phenomena as extensions of old
phenomena. But therein, as the saying goes, lies the rub… what we ought to be trying
to do, is go into the unknown, without bias and without any sneaky assumptions.
The assumption here is that “I am going to give preference to explaining this
as an extension of what is known, rather than something totally unknown”. And
if we pursue that, and ask what the reason is (other than ‘convenience’), for
such an assumption, we reach a dead end. There is no reason to assume that new
phenomena must, or must not, be explained by already existing laws. This part
is crucial, as it means that in order to identify things correctly, when we
encounter the unknown, we must ADMIT that it is NOT known, and hence make NO
assumptions regarding whether or not the new explanation fits snugly within the
existing assumptions.
You can extend this principle into its corollary, that of
allowing new assumptions. When a piece of data comes into account that is
contrary to expectations, one has two options: abandon previous assumption, OR,
add a new assumption. If one has to abandon previous assumption, it is highly
work- intensive! One has to redo everything based on a new set of assumptions,
from scratch. If however one allows the addition of a new assumption, then one
can go on building on the old foundation with some additional “props” to hold
the structure steady.
Secondly, what is the reason the “majority scientific
opinion” has come to exist? Scientifically examined, scientific opinion need
NOT be “majority scientific opinion”. Of course, something true might be the
majority scientific opinion; however the error lies in assuming that the
reverse also holds: that the majority scientific opinion is true. It was shown
in the previous article as to how the lone researcher generally has little
support from the scientific establishment when their assumptions are
questioned. And this due to no fault of any of the scientists, it is only
because we have allowed “democracy” in scientific opinion, when it has no place
there. And where democracy is, all the associated politics cannot be far
behind. From the point of view of science it is irrelevant whether or not
something is “accepted”… it needs to be true, and an independent investigator
must be able to reach that truth. That is all there is to it.
Let us examine a couple of situations to test this on, which
are probably staring us in the face. If one takes a jug of water, and heats it
on a fire, it starts boiling at a certain point, and its temperature does not
rise till all the water is converted to steam. This is a well known primary-school-level
observation. Question: Why does that happen at ONE SPECIFIC temperature? If the
explanation that the gaseous state exists when the molecules of water start
jiggling around at a greater rate, then it must follow that there should not be
two distinct phases, such as gas and liquid, but a continuous series of states,
with the density changing all the way from liquid to gas. That is not observed,
and we do have one specific point… in fact most materials are seen to be
identified by their melting and boiling points.
Let us take a look at the explanation for the phenomenon. In
thermodynamics, a new variable, called “enthalpy of evaporation”, is
introduced, and it is said that the liquid needs that much energy in order to
change its state. Note two points, however, we do NOT know why there is a specific
amount of enthalpy of evaporation that is associated with water, NOR do we
know, from the above explanation, why there are two distinct states, NOR do we
know how to predict why water boils at 100 degrees celsius and not at -30. The
“explanation” assumes that there are two states, and then goes ahead to
characterize other quantities associated with it, bringing us back to square
one. The entire subject of the existence of different states of matter
is currently considered “settled” in the scientific circle, due to this
thermodynamic explanation. The reader is encouraged to scour the literature to
verify this for himself/herself.
Let us take another example. This one is a bigger fish: what
gives rise to the first living cell from its constituents? The question is with
respect to how the first living cell came to be, and we will not consider how that
cell evolves etc. for the time being. Considering what we know from physical
and chemical observations, where it is seen that the prevailing tendency of
matter is to go “downhill” by minimizing the free energy: all events not
involving cells go from a higher to lower state of that energy. It seems
difficult to account for not just a cessation, but a reversal of that
behavior, when it comes to a living reproducing cell unit: one cell becomes
two, two becomes four, and so on.
There are numerous “side trains” of thought that go from
this point on. One train says that it is not a simple question, as the
scientific community has struggled with it for centuries. However, in keeping
with our earlier principles, the simplicity or complexity of the question cannot
be assumed, because the result is that the answer by the community is NOT
KNOWN. Besides, science need not be a community phenomenon or an individual
one; it just has to make sense with the facts. It might be easier to digest if
the answer is complex, as that would mean that we did not miss something simple
for centuries. However, from the standpoint of testing scientific validity, it
has no part to play. A second train of thought is that the chemical processes
that take place in some areas might be so complex that something like life
might emerge from them. Observe here that the answer is not just hidden in
“complexity”, but the assertion is made that it is nothing new. However, every
observed physical and chemical phenomenon (other than those already taking part
in reproducing cells) so far tells us that the reverse happens. Naturally,
since all the physical and chemical processes in a cell are being subject to
this principle: “The cell must survive and reproduce”, as long as we have no
idea how that principle comes about, the processes appear complex.
To postulate that
living behavior can arise solely from the functioning of physical and chemical
systems would hence be tantamount to saying that by addition of natural numbers
we can obtain subtraction of them as well. Here we find the classic case of a
situation failing to confirm our assumptions, and not derivable from what we
assume. And what, exactly, was that assumption? That only physical and chemical
observations can be understood rationally, and therefore, to understand a
living cell rationally, we need to explain it in terms of those processes. Just
as the blind men assumed that since only hearing and touch etc can be understood
by them, everything else must come within that domain.
Hence, that assumption will have to be removed. The
consequences of that, and whether or not we should replace that assumption will
be discussed in the next article.
