Electric Universe as Emerging Protoscience

[Phorce]

In any case, there are many fields—I shall call them proto-sciences—in which practice does generate testable conclusions but which nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like chemistry and electricity before the mid-eighteenth century, of the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the social sciences today. In these fields, too, though they satisfy Sir Karl's [ Popper's] demarcation criterion, incessant criticism and continual striving for a fresh start are primary forces, and need to be. No more than in philosophy and the arts, however, do they result in clear-cut progress. I conclude, in short, that the proto-sciences, like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. Unlike my present critics, Lakatos at this point included, I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had.

— Thomas Kuhn, Criticism and the growth of knowledge, 1970

EU would appear to be a protscience. This is why the term psuedoscience should not be taken in the wrong way. That scientific use of the term does not denote the protoscience as bad or unwanted, it simply means that there has not been a scientific formalisation of the field. "Psuedo" denoting "not a full science", or "not fully formalised" ... NOT "false". So those that use that term offensively should be ignored - they don't know what they are talking about. They don't know their history of science and how things become formalised. Moreso those who balk at the term psuedoscience need to read the above quote or look at the term protoscience and maybe go and have a cold shower. I've got as equally hysterical myself sometimes ... it's difficult to keep your head when all those around you are losing theirs. But in the end I remind myself that science is a very difficult endeavour - if very rewarding. It also involves so many different factors, many of them sociological and psychological - this is what I think Kuhn is pointing out in the quote above - that the emergence of a protoscience can defy rational analysis and scrutiny.

[Phorce]

To further my discussion here further ... after I posted the above I discovered Paul Feyerabend and his Farewell to Reason.

My main thesis on [the structure of science] is: the events and results that constitute the sciences have no common structure: there are no elements that occur in every scientific investigation but are missing elsewhere (the objection that without such elements the word ‘science’ has no meaning assumes a theory of meaning that has been criticized, with excellent arguments, by Ockham, Berkeley and Wittgenstein)…

A theory of science that devises standards and structural elements of all scientific activities and authorizes them by reference to some rationality-theory may impress outsiders – but it is much too crude an instrument for the people on the spot, that is, for scientists facing some concrete research problem. The most we can do for them from afar is to enumerate rules of thumb, give historical examples, present case studies containing diverging procedures, demonstrate the inherent complexity of research and so prepare them for the morass they are about to enter.

Farewell to Reason: Farewell_to_reason This is an ad hoc summation of Paul Feyerabend’s book Farewell to Reason

Is it possible for the transformation of science and society to proceed at a ‘grass roots’ level, from the everyday citizen? It is possible, but doubtful. We have handed over tremendous political and academic influence to intellectuals (who, for instance, can affect political decisions without themselves being elected as representatives), and they will not give up their power lightly. Opposing this state of affairs by attacking the philosophies which are used to prop up the status quo will likely fail because people with strong belief systems are rarely convinced by contrary argument.

So despite my apologies for the term psuedoscience there is a deeper history that I'm only just learning here ... although I have had insights much like Feyerabenders for decades.

I say that Auschwitz is an extreme manifestation of an attitude that still thrives in our midst. It shows itself in the treatment of minorities in industrial democracies; in education… which most of the time consists in turning wonderful young people into colourless and self-righteous copies of their teachers… it shows itself in the killing of nature and of ‘primitive’ cultures with never a thought spent on those thus deprived of meaning for their lives; in the colossal conceit of our intellectuals, their belief that they know precisely what humanity needs and their relentless efforts to recreate people in their own, sorry image… in the lack of feeling of many so-called searchers for truth who systematically torture animals, study their discomfort and receive prizes for their cruelty.

As far as I am concerned there exists no difference whatsoever between the henchmen of Auschwitz and these ‘benefactors of mankind’ – life is misused for special purposes in both cases. The problem is the growing disregard for spiritual values and their replacement by a crude but ‘scientific’ materialism, occasionally even called humanism: man (i.e. humans as trained by their experts) can solve all problems – they do not need any trust in and any assistance from other agencies. How can I take a person seriously who bemoans distant crimes but praises the criminals in his own neighbourhood? And how can I decide a case from afar seeing that reality is richer than even the most wonderful imagination.

Yes, a colossal intellectual conceit ... is this Feyerabenders point ? The forces that claim to represent rationalism and logic are quite illogical and irrational. So maybe I am learning that there is much more going on here than the establishment of a cosmological protoscience. We are also seeing the growth of a much more relatavistic Science that takes into account other traditions, cultures and ways of thinking.

[Phorce]

I think I'm beginning to understand the point made by Feyerabend and Kuhn. Science cannot change without corresponding changes in society because science is irrevocably fused with society, art, politics, social reform and so on. This was always the point Roddenberry made as well. There can't be the scientific revolutions that produce star drives and transporters without the corresponding social revolution.

[phyllotaxis]

Interesting musings Phorce

I agree with much of the sentiment. One of the projects I'm thinking on and developing refines and joins the medium(s) of expression of new concepts in multiple ways simultaneously- a sort of wide-format presentation of information. This grants new forms of expression to generators while accelerating comprehension of those that might be generally left out of the traditional methods of information transfer and/or those wanting a wide-spectrum flood of info on a topic at their ready disposal.

I'm of the view that you must first streamline/modernize the scientific communication process before the many will follow and integrate. In a slogany form: "You must make adoption of science EASY before someone will want to know more about it"

Related article

[Plasmatic]

I recommend David Stove's (a philosopher Wal mentioned fondly once) ,Popper And After,as an antidote to Popper and his misguided children's nonsense:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/008026791 ... mdp_mobile

[Phorce]

Interesting, but quite out of date (1982). By 87 Feyerabend had left the Popper group and had utterly demolished (Farewell to Reason) the aura surrounding terms like "Reason" and "Freedom", as well as "Humanity" ("what a patronising generalisation!" as he puts it) as well as the Popper himself. Although now I'm reading Farewell to Reason he's polite to Popper ... at least in the introduction ... he only attacks the ideas he stands for.

Stone is an Australian philosopher ? I dare say he has moved on from what he wrote in 82. I'll have to look him up. I highly recommend Feyerabend to everyone ... forget the Popper association. Feyerabend is pure creative artistic genius when it comes to demolishing the absurdities that have driven so many destructive policies in our world that have been based on The Truth (TM), Freedom (capital F) and Reason (capital R) ideas that have so little to do with engaging with the glorious messiness of life ... a bit like a Picasso painting as Feyerabend put's it at one point. Anyway, as you can probably tell I'm quite taken by this guy. He makes an excellent companion to Electric Universe arguments as he uses the same fierce common sense and practical, life loving approaches .