Even harder than telling people all the science of past 100 years is wrong, is telling them that the Scientific Method is wrong.
Unfortunately, the Scientific Method is wrong in several of its premises.
Our current science paradigm is that the world is real and observable, separate from the observer. However, this is not the case. The observer is completely intertwined with what he observes. Their mood affects how they write about their observation, AND it affects the observation. Their expectations affect the observation.
A further mistake in the Scientific Method is, we do not think that way. We do not start at point A and move to point B. The graphic of the Scientific Method shows a nice loop, a one way path. But we do not do that. We work from the problem towards the solution and simultaneously work from the solution to the problem. And if the method doesn't encapsulate what really happens, then it is a poor tool for humans to use in general. Or, it is only a tool for a very specific task, not for general sciencing.
The current paradigm in the western world is one where the world is real and solid.
That it is "out there". That it is separate from the observer. But this isn't the case.
Many, many quantum experiments prove that this is so.
An interesting piece of a quantum computer is that it doesn't run when you press the GO button.
The button is an air tube that activates another mechanism that will run the program at a random time in the future. This is done, otherwise the quantum computer doesn't do its thing, it just returns the value that the programmer expects. Yes, the programmer / computer operator effects the outcome of the computation. So, you have to remove that influence as much as possible.
The double slit experiment shows that an observer turns the photon/electron from acting like a wave, to acting like a particle. What's worse is that this cause goes back in time. If you observe the photon in the future, it will behave as a particle in the past.
And there is studies going on now that suggest atoms do not exist. They only exist when you try to look at them.
Just plain weird stuff. Unacceptable if you believe the world is real and solid and out there.
This experiment is very repeatable. Showing that the observers thoughts affect the outcome of an experiment.
Humans are not really linear thinkers. Although they would like to assume they are.
But we aren't really. If we were, we would all be good with numbers and computations. But we all know that is not the case.
When listening to anyone try to solve a problem, you will find they try to work from the problem to the solution. And then later, they will try to work from the solution to the problem. We use both deductive reasoning and retroductive thinking.
With this in mind, the Scientific Method should be of a form that humans can actually use. We should not have to shut off half of our brain when use the Scientific Method.
We come at things from both sides, and our methods should reflect that.
The Scientific Method is one where you build a testable, disprovable theory.
So, you can find lots of evidence that shows the theory is accurate, but you find one disproof and the theory is gone.
However, nobody in science uses that.
Einstein: Here is the Theory of Relativity, it says things cannot accelerate to a speed faster than light.
Me: Here is an experiment which shows a thing accelerating to a speed faster than light.
Everyone: Oh no, it must be a problem with the test, or the tester, or you are just not smart enough...
This is actually because of the way humans work.
We really do not make a theory that can be falsifiable.
We don't throw everything out and start afresh.
The human brain just doesn't work that way. There is no "clear" button for the brain (there is really fuck up everything button)
So, we really need a much more complex testing apparatus. A simple true/false doesn't work for any theory that is not just completely stupid. Thus, the Scientific Method needs to provide this more workable structure.
We don't even have words for talking about how to build a new Scientific Method.
Most people do not even know the word "retroductive", one of the most powerful logic tools.
So, we have a long way to go before we will actually have a useful tool.
(unless you are a professor and need the tool to beat up other scientists with)
I am here today to show that this is a necessary step before we can actually get back to doing real science.
And yes, observation notes in the future will include a box about the observer's mood that day.
