Science in The Weigh

In order to do good science, one must observe, measure, hypothesize, and test validity.  If we are lucky enough to come up with a theory that explains a fundamental truth, we must then accept the slings and arrows of others through time ever after as they questions our results on a deeper level.  The belief that the proof is in the pudding is correct - the scheme of arrangement of science starts you with underlying falsehood disguised as truth, and with a proponent of that old theory dug in with vested interest.

The last paragraph sums up exactly what is wrong in the whirled of science today.  Instead of transparency of building blocks, we have a cesspool of partial information that delineates facts up to the point of utilization value.  Then, rather than transparency, we get sequestration by the intellectual property conspiracy of corporate liars and bean-counters who have a vested interest in some ideas over others.  The academic peer review system is a literal old boys network that ensures that no release can emanate from howdtside their closed system.

The information on how science works is constructed in a weigh to preserve the turf of each facet called scientist.  The individual strains develop their own terminology and language and speak jargon to each other.  That it all works the same at every level never crosses their minds, because their intellect is constructed through a tower-of-babel filter that allows apparent depth without really going deep.  The penalty for thinking outside the box is a penalty for thinking period.

Evaluational is the substance of The Weigh.  Building context requires making decisions on the validity of information, based on what we think we already know.  We have a truth detector buried inside ourselves that gives us gut feelings that reenforce when we know something is right.  Sometimes, we get tears when we confirm our own insight.  Other times, we realize that we missed a basic premise and that something we thought worked one way really doesn't work that weigh at all.  All of biology likely fits this context.

I am reading a Russian (A. Petrov) philosopher once again.  The forceful thinking that went into rebuilding after the USSR collapse at the beginning of the 90's left the Russians isolated from the mainstream of science.  Or should i call it the lame stream of science.  The forefront of published knowledge has retreated significantly during the past three decades - to the point where the literature is full of advances that were common knowledge 3 decades age.  The Russians never even knew there was a crises and went on thinking without the rest of the scientific community in their way.

Here, in the west, the heroes of science are also placed on pedestals - you may not argue with a dead hero.  Einstein once said that imagination is more important than knowledge - he would have cringed at the thought of relativity accepted without debate.  We are watching Tesla reborn into a false image in the media - where are folks like Schauberger, Gurdgieff, Ospensky, Reich, Rife or Walter Russell?  Time to revive Edgar Cayce.

Yet everybody knows that theory of gravity - a 315 year old truth myth of Isaac Newton.  If you wish to dive into a really good piece of historical fiction concerning Newton and Boyle and the compromise of 1700 - read the Baroque Trilogy by Neal Stephenson.  The mechanism of separating belief into the duality of religion and science and never mixing the strands is modeled in page turning delight - about 1600 pages for the 3 volume set.  A good indoor winter's project.

In order to question the illusions of science and allow some aspects of spirituality into the picture, we really need to talk through some key concepts of truth that people hold dear and investigate; whether they really pass muster.   Doc has been ruminating on water all summer and then left the track this fall to pursue other more immediate concerns.  He is down with structured water - and has been embroiled in a chemistry explanation for the healing properties of Ormus gold.  

The science fits, but the image of water as a carrier of consciousness is not a currently accepted truism.  Pollack's 4th phase of water goes into great detail providing a different image to the current myths in that area - yet i can see a few concepts that need clarification.  The structure of small molecules is series of geometric relationships.  Tetrahedral and octahedral shapes are more readily formed in nature that other shapes, because symmetry allows self-assembly of individuals into groups, when necessary.  That water is smaller than most atoms of other element is something most people do not grok; even fewer understand the significance of this fact.

In The Weigh, we look at things from a multiple number of perspectives.  We climb inside and out to picture the dynamic arrangement of steady state equilibrium.  We picture models in our minds eye that sharpen our resolution to accurately portray what we really do feel.  There is the rub.  In science, it appears to be against the law to feel - in nature, it is all about feelings and relationships. I hope you have something to think about for a bit.

Enjoy the weekend.   Namaste' ...  doc