Questions
Why doesn't the Author attempt to publish some scientific articles on Information Dynamics. Why does he instead employ this subsite to propagate and sell this proto science? Article Summary
Independents introduce new Paradigms, not Normal Scientists
Why not write some scientific articles to introduce the theory of Information Dynamics?
This is a natural question to pose as most scientists spend their entire careers doing research and publishing articles. Indeed this is the primary task of normal science. However introducing a new scientific paradigm is not the role of normal science as most are entrenched in exploring the subtleties of their academic specialty. If a discipline experiences a crisis due to data precision or theory refinement a normal scientist might introduce a paradigm shift, but a brand new paradigm generally comes from an Outsider, an Independent – one not indoctrinated into a specialized discipline.
Publication Impossible – Independents don’t know the Language
This has the advantage of fresh thinking and the disadvantage of lack of training into the language, the special problems, and the protocol of the field. For this reason alone our Outsider could never write a publishable article on Information Dynamics. However a new paradigm is rarely introduced via scientific articles, but through a book instead.
A New Paradigm creates a Science with a Book
A Paradigm Book creates a Science by unifying diverse Realms of Research
Thomas S. Kuhn advances this idea in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution. In it he proposes the theory that each science has its own unique paradigm and that the proposal and acceptance of this paradigm by a community is the beginning of the science – an essential ingredient. He supports this view with copious historical examples based in extensive research. Prior to the paradigm there are diverse realms of research with no unified core – no established direction. Then someone has an insight that unifies the previously unrelated areas of research. Frequently the individual writes a book explaining the discoveries to the educated public. Euclid’s Elements, Newton’s Principia, Ptolemy’s Almagest, Darwin’s Origin of the Species and Benjamin Franklin’s Electricity are all examples of this nature. Each established a new paradigm for looking at the world.
Normal Science – research, refinement, articles, and puzzle-solving
At this stage in the process the normal science of the discipline begins. The book has already been written. It is time for articles – explaining refinements, extensions and applications that are added to each other in an ever more complex way to create an incredible edifice of human exploration. The initial book, which integrated the research of diverse fields, introduced a paradigm which provided the foothold for further research – one of the necessities of a science –- a foundation to build on.
Prior Research included or excluded
From that point the followers are taught to think inside this Box – the paradigm that established their science. In fact, they attempt to fit all available data relevant to their field into this Box. This means that any type of research disassociated with the Box is discarded or excluded from the new science. This obsolete track of exploration is doomed to extinction unless used in another science or pseudo science [1]. On the other hand the confines of a quality Box concentrate research and insight. In such a way Newton’s basic insights about motion ignited a virtual explosion of insights into the new science of physics. Generation after generation of physicists refined and extended his basic insights. The cascade of growth was built entirely upon the initial paradigm revealed by the founder.
Normal Science resists Innovation
Normal Scientists think inside their Science Box
Due to the success of these extensions and refinements the education system begins to indoctrinate each subsequent generation into the rules of the Box – thus becoming real scientists – whether physicists, biologists, chemists, or such. This means that they are specialists in their Box – knowing the rules so well that they can even build upon the marvelous cathedral of their science – feeling rightfully proud if they can establish a new cornice here and there. However due to this centuries long indoctrination there is great difficulty thinking outside the rules of their particular Science Box. As an example many of the discoveries that extend a science are introduced by the next generation of scientists – before they are 30 – when they are fresh – before the cement has hardened – blocking further creative jumps.
Normal Scientists: “No need for New Box. Anomalies eventually fit in Old Box.”
This has a few disadvantages. First anomalies are disdained and frequently ignored. “We don’t need a new paradigm. With a little patience a deeper understanding will emerge and we will be able to put these irregularities into a small section of our big Box”, is the argument employed. For instance a new generation of scientists has adopted chaos theory as an essential component in the study of weather due to its inherent unpredictability. However a renowned old guard astronomer expressed disgust with the butterfly effect (that the small can influence the large in unexpected ways) – expressing the attitude that with enough data from enough computers stationed across the country that we will be able to accurately predict the weather years in advance – just as we can predict the position of the stars. Her attitude is dominated by the rule of the Box of scientific determinism that all phenomena will eventually be broken into predictable functions. Perhaps her belief and others like her will stimulate the discovery of these functions or perhaps it will squelch research into new probabilistic ways of thinking. No one knows.
Old Bible Paradigm resists New Science Paradigm – forcing anomalies into its Box
Similarly millennia of clerics have continued to build upon the Bible Box. While providing spiritual guidance this Bible Box slowed the growth of science – as the well-established rules of the Establishment blocked the adoption of new paradigms, which undermined theirs. Further fantastic theories were and have been created to support these rules, thereby forcing the anomalies into the Bible Box. Erratics, huge boulders sprinkled across the landscape in strange parts of the globe – including the Eastern Sierras and Northern Scotland – are a case in point. Scientists holding to the paradigm of their day – the Biblical assumption that God created the earth intact – postulated that the epic Biblical Flood created this anomaly – even though water deposits big things first. It took the paradigm shift of the early 1800s towards a dynamic earth theory – with Ice Ages and such, to explain these erratics as the droppings of enormous Ice Sheets – as ice flows drop the big things last.
Old Guard demands Rigor, which inspires Growth
Although the Biblical mindset blocked scientific advances they also acted as a drag on the System – allowing it to fly – by pushing for absolute certainty before abandoning the prior Biblical box which had presumably worked for so well for so long – at least to the extent that it created an incredible cultural cohesion that led to this same science that overturned its foundations. Of course the prior momentum was so strong that there are still groups who vehemently and even violently sometimes preach the Biblical Theory of Creationism. The main point is that the stability of the old Box demands an incredible and necessary rigor for the establishment of a new Box – a new paradigm. The rigor in and of itself can push the proponents of the New Paradigm into the meta-realms of their own Box by inspiring an intense self-inspection – creating a deeper understanding of foundations and roots.
Pressure from the Old Box inspires Growth
As a personal example: The fear of the potential attack of the Federation of Scientists with their sophisticated arsenal of logical weapons inspired my Person to look hard and deep at my City walls – didn’t want the Emperor’s armies to obliterate my people without a fight. However, in order to defend my people from their heavy artillery, it was necessary to come to a deeper understanding of the nature of his Wall – its strengths and weaknesses. Needed to repair and strengthen the Castle against the impending attack.
Examination of Underlying Logic forced me through the Vortex
An examination of the Wall revealed the first point of attack; it was easy to see that the faceless Generals of Logic would throw their minions against the actual underpinnings of the theory. This led to an intense exploration of the logical roots of the Mathematics of Behavior. Fell through the Vortex into the Chinese Theory of Correspondences due to divine coincidence. In the process hooked up the Eastern science of process with the Western science of things – all because of the impending and inevitable threat of the Imperial Forces.
Need to prop up New Wall inspires Refinement
Although this seeming gap in the Wall is strengthened, it needs to be reinforced even more with diagrams, algebra, and refinement – all because of the pressure of attack from the defenders of the Old Box – who fight desperately to protect the paradigm of hard science. Hard Scientist: “One of our basic rules is that all phenomenon can eventually be understood through the cause-effect forces of physicality or statistical relations – not through these mathematical mechanisms of process – which seem so virtual – almost magical – most likely a pseudo science like astrology – certainly nothing more. Where are the neurons or protons – the influence of family and culture – biology or physics? Only mathematical processes? How can that be?”
Anyway, the preparation for the onslaught on my tiny realm by the Imperial army has led to growth. The potential for intense scrutiny by the scientific community – that is desperately hoped for – as this is a mandatory requirement for survival – has inspired a deep investigation into the foundational premises that surround this new way of thinking. Many of these articles were inspired and composed with a defense of the System of BD in mind.
Political & Psychological Obstacles to Acceptance
It is evident from the above discussion that in addition to the hoped-for intense scientific scrutiny that there are also political and psychological obstacles to overcome before a new paradigm is accepted into the scientific fold. Let’s start with the political.
The Politics of Science & the Necessity of Seeking a Public Forum
Science is commonly thought to be pure and untainted by the intrigues of the day-to-day world – hence the term ‘ivory tower’ is applied to their place and mode of employment. This term even has the negative connotation that the inhabitants are somehow divorced and isolated from reality. Although Science might be pure, scientists aren’t. They are political animals and so must employ the processes of politics. In short they participate in the educational eco-system. This means they are competing for funding, students, and recognition. Anything that threatens their hegemony, their spot in the system, is perceived as evil – something to be ignored or destroyed – at least on subliminal levels. Scientists have spent their entire careers learning and refining the paradigm specific to their field – accumulating funding, graduate students, and prestige along the way.
An eco-struggle for scarce resources
A new paradigm, no matter how convincing or true, introduces a new line of research, which requires funding, students, and administrative support to exist as a new field. This means draining precious resources from other disciplines. In this case the intruder is denied recognition for political reasons[2].
A New Vision Threatens Legacy
A new scientific paradigm presents other threats to the entrenched professor – besides the purely political reasons – funding and such. It also threatens the legacy. First it has the potential of drawing away interest from his or her field of study – thereby trivializing the accomplishments. Second it might draw away some talented graduate students who are necessary to continue the tradition and professorial prestige. For instance the validation of Wegener’s theory of continental drift based upon a dynamic earth by the scientific establishment of his day would have simultaneously invalidated the dried apple theory based upon a static earth, which the same scientific establishment was basing their reputations upon. The implications must have been horrifying – a lifetime of research, articles and even personal legacy erased by this new conception of the world – relegated to obscurity instead of fame.
Rhetoric necessary to persuade a non-invested educated public
For these political reasons – eco-competition for scarce resources and scientific legacy – the Establishment intuitively shuns the newcomer and rejects his ideas and writings – as heretical and undermining the status quo. Accordingly, for acceptance the Outsider must seek a larger forum with no vested interests – in short the educated public. In times past a book was written, now the Internet reaches this greater audience – hence this collection of articles housed on this Website.
Note that the truth is not enough. The educated public must be persuaded that they can’t live without this new Scientific Vision – that it would enhance and even transform their lives – a useful and worthy paradigm. As this is a new product, it must be sold. The intent of the dialogue shifts from Science to Rhetoric – the art of Persuasion. These are the basic reasons that scientific articles are inappropriate and that persuasive articles aimed at the uninvested educated elite are the Way of introducing BD to the greater society.