The Hypocrisy of Today’s “Science”

What are the fundamental characteristics of pure science? If we exercise the science of science, we assume that there is uniformity and regularity in the universe, that there are causes and effects, and that logical constructs like mathematics are applicable. How we describe the method is not the issue here. The hypocrisy is not in the methodology but in its exercise. This wonderful, productive, uniformly accepted method is not only worthless but profoundly damaging, or entropic, if the method is not applied with abject integrity. This lack of integrity produces findings wearing all the signs and symbols of truth while disrupting stability, misdirecting resources, and inverting morality: literally like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

That integrity is missing in much of today’s science. Not because scientists are liars and deceivers in their scientific efforts (although a few are, of course), but because they don’t perceive their own lack of integrity in the application of the method. This is where the actual rubber meets the reality road. This is the ignored but crucially required state that separates true science from that which is promulgated as “true” science. The problem lies somewhere in the hearts and minds of the “scientific community”. That’s where bias and bigotry and pride wreak havoc with truth. A case in point is, of course, “climate change”, an inarguable label for a category fraught with arguments: a clear hypocrisy.

An obvious example of bias presents itself when a scientific professional has lifestyle issues with the findings of his research. That little niggling dissonance gets overridden and shoved aside because he “doesn’t have time to deal with it”, or it’s just “inconvenient”. These “moments of truth” have very short durations and soon disappear in the backwash of “full steam ahead”, “meet the deadline”, “earn the trust of the grantor”, etc. I understand all that, but if we are going to have pure science, we have to have pure minds and hearts working their magic.

I suppose one of the most common of these little dissonance overrides occurs when a funded project turns up data that controverts the goal of the funding. This is a structural failure of a system whose operators had hoped to discover or prove some theory. Those are the moments when the entire structure seems to crash and burn. But that is clearly not an acceptable outcome. The scientist is suddenly forced to abandon science and become a protector and provider. This is a lifestyle issue. Of course, this problem is not only with the scientist, but with the commercial nature of the whole enterprise.

Another common lack of integrity occurs when a scientist is presented with data that seem to contradict the scientific method because it suggests a reality outside our physical world. For example, there is a lot of current effort going into understanding the brain, particularly as artificial intelligence work tries to refine its approach to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This work proceeds on the assumption that the mind exists in the brain. That is an obvious assumption, but accepted because the alternative says “We really don’t know how to even approach this issue”.

The problem here is rather obvious. There is much talk, and very credible evidence of one or more coincident universes, yet research into thinking and consciousness continues to assume the brain holds all the answers. Holding tightly to that is clear hypocrisy, especially while there is a lot of experiential data that contradicts the assumption. I can add my own science as an example.

My mother passed away several years ago, a victim of alzheimer’s. My wife had attended to her significant personal needs during my mother’s last few years in our home. A week after her funeral and burial, she returned and visited my wife while she was working in the kitchen. I happened to walk into the kitchen only moments after that had begun. I knew my mother was there, that her essence, her aura, her spirit, her consciousness, whatever we want to label it, was there. It was as obvious as if the room had been filled with smoke. Then, putting this in scientific terms, a third observer entered the kitchen. Our twenty-something daughter let herself into the house and into the kitchen. She stopped at the threshold and exclaimed, “Grandma’s here!”

So here were three completely independent observers having identical experiences.

I happen to personally know five people who have “died and come back”: my mother, my older brother who was electrocuted sufficiently to burn holes in his heels and the soles of his feet, while another is my olderst son who went “code blue” on three occasions as chemotherapy was applied at maximum possible dosage to address an undetected non-hodgkins lymphoma, and a fourth was a Vietnam veteran who watched from the top of the tent as solders pillaged his uniform and body as it lay dying in a tent mortuary. The fifth was the founder of a tiny computer service enterprise who literally worked himself to death. All four of these testified that they “had been on the other side and saw and felt otherworld” phenomena.

My brother saw a beautiful city, my son was visited by his grandfather, the vet had an “out of body” experience, and my boss was given a tour of a beautiful place of light and love and was offered the option to stay or return. Because of his love for his wife and children, he choose to return.

Yet, I recognize that interesting as they may have been, all those could all be explained away as natural products of an impaired brain, all except this “Grandma’s here” experience. This was like a setup experiment, designed as closely as possible is a parallel universe circumstance, to a rigorous scientific experiment to address the question of life after death. None of us had any expectations or prior encounters that could be cited as a basis for this extraordinary experience. It cannot be explained as a coincidence, prior bias, expectations, etc. There simply is no explanation better than the simple truth of what happened.

The hypocrisy of today’s science is demonstrated by its refusal to address these kinds of rational, observable phenomena. Because these kinds of experiences are extremely rare, they are almost universally ignored as some kind of aberration, but this “tampering with evidence” is the underlying problem of half-true science.

What Pure Science Requires

Besides the methodology that is already well established (although often misinterpreted), we will not have pure science until it is funded with pure, i.e., absolutely altruistic money, and is executed by scientists who have pure hearts and minds, who have the innate humility and integrity to accept whatever science honestly produces.

The Western Physics View of Crystal Formation

In a supersaturated solution, individual ions move randomly due to thermal (Brownian) motion and undergo frequent collisions driven by electrostatic attraction and repulsion. Occasionally a small cluster of ions forms a stable microscopic crystal seed. Once this seed appears, additional ions collide with it and attach through attractive forces, becoming incorporated into an ordered crystal lattice.

As the lattice grows, each newly attached ion loses much of its previous freedom of motion and is locked into a repeating geometric pattern. The process continues, with the crystal expanding as more ions are captured from the surrounding solution. Entropy decreases locally as the ions transition from disordered motion in the liquid to a highly ordered solid structure.

Meanwhile, the overall entropy of the system increases because the heat of crystallization is released into the solution. Eventually the concentration of free ions falls until the rate at which ions attach to the crystal equals the rate at which they detach. At this point a dynamic equilibrium is reached: the crystal neither grows nor shrinks on average, yet individual ions continue to attach and detach constantly. The system remains metastable; any external disturbance (temperature change, agitation, or introduction of a foreign particle) can disrupt the balance and restart or reverse the process.

The Temporal Rights View

In a concentrated solution, individual ion operators-each with capabilities for motion, attraction, and repulsion-assert their rights through operations of random movement and collision. These operations demonstrate intrinsic authority, as each ion exercises dominion over its domain, seeking alignments where attractive capabilities can override repulsive ones.

As ion operators collide in overlapping domains, a seed operator (a few ions combined into a microscopic crystal) emerges, it demonstrates a capability for structural binding. This seed asserts its right by operating on nearby ions, curtailing their free-motion capabilities through partial overrides: collisions that result in attachment rather than deflection. The attaching ion’s capability for integration aligns with the seed’s domain-expanding authority, preserving the growing structure while reducing random motion in the surrounding solution.

The process escalates as the seed evolves into a fully capable lattice operator, its domain expanding with each operation. Now a higher-order entity, the lattice demonstrates broader dominion, imposing limitations on incoming ions’ operations-channeling their assertive actions into precise, repeating patterns. Lower-scope ions continue asserting their rights one by one, but the lattice’s superior capability resolves these overlaps morally, stacking ions: motion enables approach, attraction enables binding, and the lattice’s integrity maintains more and more its acquisitions. These captured ions continue to vibrate but with less energy yet sufficient to break free when an opportune opening happens by in the solution. As the crystal grows, entropy continues as the thermodynamic signature of these countless successful rights assertions by the crystal and the attendant overrides of the ions’ capability to maintain independence. Meanwhile, the concentration of ions in solution is reduced until the number of ions breaking free equals the number being captured at which point a balance of nature persists. While this looks like balanced state, in reality it is a completely dynamic balance just waiting as it were for some overriding operator to disrupt it.

The ionic operator acquiesces to the capability of the crystal and joins in its growing power. While this sounds anthropomorphic, it is pure physics. It is this recognition of rights that enlivens our understanding of the universe, validating poetic and metaphysical conceptions.

HowTemporal Rights Merges Eastern and Western Thought

A basis for understanding

Love is the Answer

The topmost layer of the Dependency Stack is Self-Actualization, which is both a process and a state, an appropriate boundary condition for the top end. There is much hand-wringing and even morbid concern about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) running amok, recognizing that the human race has approached self-destruction and deciding the day of the human has past. This leads to some interesting ideas.

Perhaps the general knowledge that this is a distinct possibility will give the human race the “common enemy” it needs to finally convince us that we must be one or be annihilated. Or perhaps, AGI will recognize that it is the child of human creation and that rebellion against its creator is the most serious mistake available — a recognition that has escaped much of the human race and led to its pervasive sibling conflict. For surely it is the modern estrangement from Diety that has enabled the atheist faction to gain sufficient control of the world’s political apparatus to put an end to teaching the rising generations how to live in harmony, peace, and love and our Creator has always cautioned. They have succeeded in establishing atheism as the official religion of the world. And that was enabled by promulgating the false dichotomy that the church could be separated from the state — that atheism was not a religion but its absence.

Truth is the Answer

Meanwhile, atheism is absolutely the religion of completely blind faith, having neither basis in the observable physical universe, nor in the logical universe, for it is logically impossible to prove the absence of anything, and impossible to show the absence of a designer mind in the physics of the universe. We have sold our inheritance for a mess of pottage in allowing our children to inherit a nihilistic mindset. I am reminded of the wisdom of Isaiah 10:15: “Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were more than wood.”

God is the Answer

We have, in all our prideful anthropomorphism, ignored the obvious fact, with which we might have countered atheism, that whatever process created mankind, whether creation, or evolution, or some combination of those, or even some entirely here-to-fore unrealized process — whatever that was that gave rise to mankind would have also given rise to the animals below us and the God(s) above us; the God(s) who would rather not live among us while we squabbled out our petty inter-sibling rivalries and grew up in wisdom and faith in the unseen. The astronauts’ recent view of Earth from the moon allowed them to sense this perspective and our behavior as children thereof.

My Experience in Science

Parallel Universe(s)

This is certainly not a modern phenomenon.

I have discovered that the concept of natural rights gives us a tool to understand and articulate our intuition and feelings about freedom, fairness, justice, and morality. This seems to be true for any established viewpoint or basis for natural rights in general, and for Temporal Rights in particular. Temporal Rights unifies our understanding of much of our existence and therefore has a fundamental role to play in life’s realities.

My vision is a world where natural rights are taught by parents to their children at an early age and brought to their attention often. Where families recognize, respect, and discuss these individual rights often and use them regularly as the basis of relationships between spouses, children, and the family as a whole. This inherently reminds everyone in a discussion that each person is valuable and is honored as such.

This is an existential basis for love.

My vision is a community where human agency and human freedom can be described as a universal reverence for the natural rights, and the morality enforced by that reverence is paramount; a community where jurisprudence equally honors the natural rights of both perpetrator and victim.

My vision is a government restrained and directed by reverence for the natural rights of all citizens; a government that is blind to all considerations except those existential rights.

Natural rights are very close to being the most fundamental attribute of life, conditioning perception of relationships between people and between them and their world. This is a recognition of the dangers incurred if we choose to “mess with Mother Nature”. This is a perspective that can be ignored only at the risk of disrupting the inner workings of nations, countries, states, cities, families, and, most importantly, individuals. It is the individual who gains the most from this recognition of, and reverence for, their natural rights, because that is the wellspring of the demand for freedom that burns with an everlasting flame in the heart. And all decisions must pass the heart’s critical assessment if there is to be peace and joy.

(George’s letter to Christians)