Every now and then on this blog, I poke fun at oversensitive “scientists” who are so wrapped up in the theology of science that they would greet Francis Bacon with Cartman-esqe screams of “RESPECT maaah authori-TAY!!!“
So I just love that “Nature’s Fundamental Laws May be Changing“. To me, it is common sense. Francis Bacon would have totally predicted this. BTW, Francis Bacon is the ultimate authority in “scientific method”; any true scientist would never argue with Bacon. It would be like a Republican arguing with Charlton Heston (he’s MOSES!) or anyone arguing with Clint Eastwood. Just don’t even try it.
Somehow, I was lucky enough to be trained in scientific philosophy without being exposed to too many authoritarian scientists. So when I read Michio Kaku’s lucid explanation of why superstring theory might make sense, I remember thinking, “duh! how obvious! doesn’t everyone know this?” Even if you don’t buy superstring theory, the premise of limited knowledge he describes in his fishpond analogy is dead obvious. Only someone locked in the grip of theological science could deny it. This is the premise to which I alluded in my response to Doug’s post on directed panspermia and von neumann probes. I’ve used the fishpond/dimensional anaology many times before; and am continually shocked when people need to be convinced. It’s the same base idea that underlies Korzybski and much of western philosophy.
In fact, I have a secret about Michio Kaku, which perhaps I will reveal here some day. And perhaps I will further elaborate on “dead obvious”, one day. But today I am speaking only to “them who has ears” without trying to speak to scientific pharisees.
You see, science is like a jealous husband. Science seeks to arrive at “truth” by constantly seeking to disprove the prevailing theory. Even results which fail to disprove a theory must be tested repeatedly, in different contexts, before the scientist will accept them — and even then, the true scientist must reserve the possibility that the theory might be wrong. The jealous husband always holds to the suspicion that his wife might be cheating. He might explain his obsessively suspicious behavior by explaining that, “I can never be SURE that she’s not cheating, unless I fully test every possible situation and collect a complete data set of information!”
The beautiful thing is that, if he tests often enough and vigorously enough, he’ll either waste his life testing or find the evidence he seeks. Then, when she promises not to do it again, the fun begins all over again!
Iago knew that jealous lovers can be a boatload of fun. Even while they “protest too much” that “my lover would NEVER cheat on me!”, the Iago knows that a simple whisper in the ear is enough to set the poor cuckold off in paroxysms of self-doubt and obsessive “research”. But the Othellos don’t hate Iago — Iago tells Othellos what they want to hear. Othello’s reserve their blinding hate for the likes of Camus, because he is the one who tells them, “chill out, you can never know if she’s cheating or not anyway!” That is sacrilege!
Perhaps this is why the authoritarian pharisees of the scientific community dislike Michio Kaku. He doesn’t say “you can never know”, but he sure makes knowing a lot harder. And this is certainly why they hate Ibrahim — not only does he say, “you can’t know”, but he adds “I know, through a process of faith, not suspicion”. OMFG, burn him at the stake so I can get back to my jealous obsessions!!!
And those of us “that has ears” know full well that William Shakespeare was the pen-name for Francis Bacon. Francis Bacon; the messiah who delivered us the cult of reason/science, is the same man who gave us so many literary works revealing the mind of the jealous lover, and who penned the words “All the argument is a whore and a cuckold, a good quarrel to draw emulous factions and bleed to death upon!”
If Bacon were Heston, he might come back from the grave and humiliate them with a whip or a stick. But if you read any Shakespeare, you see its better to just laugh at them. Yes, he’s laughing from the grave.
“Othello, I only tell you this because I am your friend and I respect you. I have heard that Francis is making fun of you, and people are whispering behind your back. I pray that it’s not true, but I just thought you should know. Not that you need it, but your gun is in the second desk drawer. I am sure it’s just a baseless rumor; please forgive me — forget I said anything!”
Scientist, you know I loooove you. Don’t be like that baby! I’m sorrrry!! I didn’t mean anything by it.
In fact I think that people who challenge science’s authority are a little bit like the article in The Onion. “Rogue Scientist has Own Scientific Method“. When I see sensationalist media report that speed of light is not constant, I am reminded of this comical loser’s assertion that the boiling point of water is “actually 547 degrees Fahrenheit”. When I see the biased news media reporting that glass has a state between gas and liquid, I am reminded of the ficticious Hapner’s claim that “matter exists in four states: solid, liquid, gas, and powder”. What is he on, cocaine?!? Silly humans; lucky for them we have the church of science to keep them in line.