Predictability and Reproducibility in the Three Sciences

Two immutable tenets of Second Order ‘ego survival’ science or “hard science;” also, present untenable paradoxes for both First and Third Order sciences.

As far as I know, only Three Orders of Science we use everyday has resolves this “paradox.”

Part of the resolution here is more attention paid to when ‘two things are true at the same time.’

In early 2017 current mainstream science paradigm is based on Predictability and Reproducibility. Why? It goes back to mercantilism in the Renaissance, codified into science in the 1800s.

This thinking is, ‘if we can predict what will happen, we can control what will happen. If we can control what will happen; hopefully, we can then make money off what we know will happen.’

Old Boys Clubs, Boys Clubs and Patriarchy are comfortable thinking this way.
Take for example investments made in stock market and commodities trading. Predictability and Reproducibility are the Holy Grail.

Before that, consider investments made in the Age of Discovery, funding the great age of ocean exploration, hoping to find gold–or at least slaves, tobacco, tea, rum.

In Western culture, the Age of Discovery or the Age of Exploration, was an informal and loosely defined European historical period. It extended from the end of the 1400s thru much of the 1800s. It was characterized by extensive and intensive overseas exploration.

During this Age, a large fraction of European free capital was invested in supplying, staffing, launching and collecting profits from slave, commercial and colonization efforts made possible by large sailing ships. Looking back, this age was the beginning of globalization (paraphrased from Wikipedia).

Predictability and Reproducibility were major factors in deciding whether to invest your money in this or that seafaring expedition. Since the Renaissance especially, Predictability and Reproducibility in the marketplace have been desperately sought.

To earthly human egos focussed on only physical survival and profit, Predictability remains elusive–therefore valuable–if you can assure it.

Isaac Newton in his time wanted desperately a predictable system of physics.

He looked for and hoped for a ‘mechanical precision,’ a physics “machine” which could explain many or all observable phenomena. The hope was, if you understood how the machine works, you can understand the whole of Nature.

My view is Newton uncovered some of the laws of inertia, which he believed to be laws of a sub-phenomena of inertia we call “gravity.” Newton believed with contemporary and later scientists, if humans can understand the workings of Nature, humans can understand the workings of God.

Later thinkers combined Predictability and Reproducibility with “cause and effect” so successfully, they began to believe every natural phenomena could be predicted, controlled and profited from. Why do you think Monsanto is copyrighting and patenting genes? To predict, control and profit from them for investors.

Before Climate Change became a pressing crisis, Predictability plus Reproducibility plus Cause and Effect was good, safe, and secure. So they thought, so they said.

Seeking for Predictability and Reproducibility inadvertently colored Western culture.

Survivalist egos began to hope as life becomes predictable, humans will feel more safe and secure. Earthly egos think this way; and, let’s honor they do; because, this is true up to a point. Without Predictability and Reproducibility in physical sciences, we would have no indoor plumbing nor hot and cold running water.

Let’s remember tho what a life with TOO MUCH Predictability and Reproducibility looks like. It looks like imprisonment, incarceration, where every day is the day, your life is no more than a cog in prison machine routines.

Q: Didn’t Quantum science expand the old science usefully?

A: The Quantum Discussion at the dinner table, beginning in the 1990s, engendered hope in many; that was good. However the Quantum Discussion became more science fictional than practical in nature. It did not reform, evolve or expand the science paradigm of the 1800s where it was fundamentally disturbed and out of synch with the human experience of the 1990s and beyond.

The science paradigm of the 1800s gave us indoor electrification and indoor plumbing. 1800s science is not disturbed there. It’s very effective in electro-mechanical affairs. Where the paradigm is most disturbed is in its incomplete moral, ethical and philosophical maturity.

Quantum Discussion among science popularizers and at the dinner table, did indeed “soften” the edges of “hard science.” Gregg Braden and others intuit correctly science philosophy from the 1800s-1900s is immature and needs to evolve. However the specific remedies proposed by the Quantum Discussion were largely a return to “religion is the opium of the masses” in the clothing of science.

The solutions Quantum Discussers will ultimately find workable, in about 100 years, are etheric in nature. Why can’t Quantum scientists discuss etheric phenomena openly now? Because it’s discussion is inextricably linked with moral, ethical and philosophical maturity. Dr. Frankenstein is more alive, stronger and healthier than he ever was in the 1800s. Dr. F. is now employed by corporate investors and academic corporations who wish to explore, experiment, and innovate OUTSIDE of moral, ethical and philosophical maturity.

We call this, “work made for hire.” Just do your work, take your paycheck, don’t think about how your creation changes you, don’t think about its implications, don’t think about the consequences of your creation.

The Three Sciences does not wish to alter Predictability and Reproducibility in Second Order Science. That’s not where we’re having a problem. Whee our science paradigm is dysfunctional is Predictability and Reproducibility over-generalized to apply to First Order (subjective) activity; and, Third Order (the shared commons) activity.
Embracing Principles of Uncertainty

In 1935 Heisenberg introduced natural unpredictability, the Principles of Uncertainty. Did earthly survivalist egos joyfully leap to embrace Uncertainty as a needed balance for strict hard science paradigm thought? No. Predictably, earthly survivalist egos clung desperately to Predictability-Reproducibility-Cause-Effect.

Why does this paradigm still rule many minds and all media in early 2017? Because it is in concert with and supports the paradigm of corporate-consumerism which needs Dr. Frankenstein not Goethe working for them.

How little the genius of natural unpredictability has influenced the 1800s science paradigm, is the Electric Universe theory. Mainstream prejudice against many facts contradicting the gravity-only universe is rampant.

Electric Universe ideas go back to early 1900s research into the aurora borealis in Scandinavia. Velikovsky in the 1950s was a fore-runner of Electric Universe ideas. The main website got going in 2009.

Remember, prior to Electric Universe ideas, earthly survivalist egos embraced a universe 100% run on gravitation. No batteries (electricity) required.

As more and more NASA space scientists trickle towards Electric Universe ideas, what we realize is adding electricity to a gravity-run solar system and universe–makes things less predictable.

How slowly Electric Universe ideas have spread among astronomers suggests how attached even they are to getting paid to verify and validate the predictability of celestial phenomena based on gravity alone–even when the facts contradict this.

The Electric Universe controversy is ongoing. People still want to cling to simple mechanical cogs and wheels, Newtonian explanations of cosmic events. This is one of the negative aspects of “the clockwork universe.”

Role of double-blind experiments

One advance which reduced superstition and subjective errors in observations in the 1700s-1900s was double-blind experiments. Well-designed experiments ruled out and eliminated individual-subjective beliefs, attitudes, biases and preferences altogether. That was good.

On the bad side, double-blind experiments were used to eliminate and invalidate individual-subjective thoughts and feelings of highly skilled experimenters and scientists–where their subjective impressions, thoughts and feelings were relevant to various commons and to humankind as a whole. Nuclear bombs, biological weapons and fracking come to mind.

Hard scientist trolls like to invoke the ethos of double-blind experiments to exclude, invalidate, discredit and if possible, to prohibit whistle-blowers who wish to warn the public Dr. Frankenstein is at it again.

Double-blind experimental protocols attempt to keep experimenters out of every experiment–even tho, each experimenter is both an observer and a direct participant.

Leaving the experiencer out of an experience is why PTSD was not studied until only recent decades.

Leaving the experience out of an experience is why some Army doctors remain mystified by the extreme PTSD of drone pilots, stationed here in the US, flying armed drones with guns and rockets, overseas. Unlike bomber pilots in WW II, drone pilots must circle back to see and report on the physical and human destruction they cause.

If scientists knew how expectation and anticipation, belief and attitude, thought and feeling, choice and decision are the raw materials of change, the common denominators of change, maybe some would be more honoring of individual-subjective thoughts and feelings.

First Order Science is where individual-subjective thoughts and feelings are accepted, honored, instigated, so we can learn from them.

For purposes of personal-spiritual growing, individual-subjective thoughts and feelings are raw materials of self-transformation. How else could it be? The only motivation to eliminate them from experiments is because they interfere with results potentially profitable to investors.

Keeping out individual-subjective thoughts and feelings so everything can remain predictable to investors and controllable by corporations, is the cultural fight, the battle, ongoing now in science.

Propaganda to make all natural and subjective phenomena predictable and controllable is a losing battle. A clumsy, inaccurate, imprecise awakening thru quantum mechanics –which embraces Uncertainty–has already begun in mainstream media.

We can no longer retreat back into our old friend Predictability. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.

More informed “New physics” is not replacing “old physics.” It is not an either-or world. Rather, two additional paradigms of science, categories of rational human thinking, are taking their place on either side of “old science.”

Out of this, perhaps in 100 years, an expanded science paradigm will emerge. It will be capable of taking up where Goethe, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs left off in uncovering natural etheric forces and their phenomena. This new whole will definitely be greater than the sum of its parts.


Inspired by, massively revised and adapted from a much longer talk by
Lazaris online 2016:
Author, Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson can be found at

Amazon Author Central page   There you will find three book series:
– Best Practices in Energy Medicine.
– Holistic Brain Balance,
– Group Process as an Art-form Series; Putting group process at the center of thriving, Progressive orgs

From Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment

inertia-k-12-science-physicsFrom Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment
Transition from perceiving behaviors as gravity-dominated to inertia-dominated
The bridging rhetoric for perceiving ether

One thing I learned as an elementary and middle school teacher is science is the art of asking good questions.

Tho I have a Goethean Science blog I’m not a scientist by profession. My profession is closer to “mystic.”

I’ve made some effort to stay abreast of topics in New Physics, Etheric Physics and the Electric Universe. I notice a language (rhetorical) pattern that always makes me curious. On the primary questions of mass and movement, which interested Galileo, Newton and I’n sure many readers, I notice writers coming to conclusions before all observations are accounted for; and, a tendency to give up before questions about unaccounted-for observations are resolved. Giving up is not the same as answering a question; clinging to Newtonian principles is not the same as asking and answering questions.

I notice a tendency to close off discussion prematurely and stand on the authority of Newton and Einstein instead of proposing more useful questions. I notice these rhetorical gaps especially in middle and high school science teaching texts and online articles and videos for science teachers.

No such thing as “rest” in our solar system

Mr. Google tells me in Physics, inertia is defined as “the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.”

However on Earth, anywhere in our solar system, there is no such thing as rest. The solar system is moving. So rest is only relative, one object to another.

What we mean by “rest” is two or more objects traveling at the same speed at the same time. Our perception of “rest” is highly conditioned by “proximity.” The common example is highway driving where a car in front of you or to the left or right of you appears not to move because you and it are traveling at the same speed and direction.

When we expand our perception of mass, we remember there is no “rest.” Every mass on Earth is already in motion. Since everything is already moving, each object has inertia just as much as it has mass.

Mr. Newton, I think, tells us gravity is a universal force; he tells us objects have inertia in proportion to their mass. HOWEVER I can find no observation helping me connect inertia with gravity.

My Goethean observation suggests the phenomena of inertia is very poorly described as a gravity phenomena.

My Goethean observation suggests inertia describes a mass phenomena.

Here, abstract mathematical thinking often intrudes on observation. It intrudes this way: “force X is a factor of force Y.” This is math lingo intruding on naked observation, sometimes distorting our thinking.

If correct, my observations suggest mass is independent of inertia. Whatever inertia is, Mr. Newton tell us it conditions mass to certain behavior: we must do work to move a mass from one location to another, or to change its speed or direction of movement. I observe this too.

What I am not able to observe is this common line of science teaching:

“Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”

The above quote clearly connects inertia to objects; it connects mass and inertia, makes mass a pre-condition for inertia. So far I’m unable to observe this.

The newer idea which fits observations more clearly is inertia, whatever it is, is indepdent of mass.

The idea is not unique to me. I forget the obscure references. Anybody know the references?

What I find more in line with my observations is “inertia” exists prior to mass, prior to objects.

What Newton called “inertia” can exist within mass AND exists everywhere in 3D time and space, independent and outside of mass.

When we start talking about observable something existing independent of and outside of physical mass, we are very, very close to talking about a medium within which all mass is situated and within which all mass is conditioned by.

If you like this, we are now miles away from “Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”

Once we consider inertia existing independent of mass, we are most of the way towards acknowledging a medium, invisible to merely animal eyes, surrounding and conditioning physical objects in one or more ways.

This is the of my proposal. To take it forward into discussing “ether” isn’t necessary because Rudolf Steiner, Gunther Wachsmuth, JJ Thomson and Gustave LeBon have done the work of documenting ether’s properties. Ernst Lehrs in his Man or Matter 3rd edition 1985 has done the work of connecting all of this with Goethean observation. No need to repeat their work.

I propose this thinking is 100% consistent with the thinking of JJ Thomson, Gustave LeBon, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs.

The propositions:
– ‘inertia exists independent of objects’ and

– ‘resistance to a change of location or a change in speed or a change in direction, tells us of a medium thru which all 3D physical objects are already traveling,’

…are consistent with observation. Comments and corrections invited.

If these propositions find agreement elsewhere, they can do away with confused science teaching in the vein of, “Mass is that quantity that is solely dependent upon the inertia of an object. The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has.”

To Do possibilities

Abstract-summary of the Three Sciences we use everyday

Abstract of Three Sciences chapters 19-20 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul ~

“Hard scientists,” especially those skeptical of holistic ideas and subjective phenomena, forget we use two other kinds of science every day.

three-sciences-triptych-hi-resThe average adult—especially women–use Three Orders of Science each day.

Second Order Science: Physical survival intelligence ~

Each day we make many survival choices, safe, rational evaluations about how to cross a busy street, drive a car, handle power tools, problem solving; in fact, navigating any new situation unfamiliar to us.

Activity and choices around survival are “real,” are one kind of rational thinking; and, this is one category of “science” we use daily.

First Order Science: Immune System Self intelligence ~

Each day we make choices about what benefits me and only me. Do I like this dress better or that dress? Do I want fish or turkey for lunch today? Is it more beneficial for me to go to bed at 10pm or 1 am? Do I prefer this or that color, style, music, or turn of phrase in my speech?

Down below our neck, in our Small Intestine, our Cell Level Intelligence is “asking” and “testing,” “Is this nutrient floating by safe and beneficial for me to take into my bloodstream now?” Either this nutrient is safe and beneficial now or it is not safe and/or beneficial now.

Even tho they concern me and me alone, these activities and choices are also “real” and rational.

The two above add up to TWO kinds of rational thinking; now two categories of “science” we use everyday.

Let’s pause here to not “selfishness” occurs when the above two sciences get fused, cross-wired. Then “all about me” becomes the criteria for every moment of waking life. In extreme cases, my needs become more significant than yours or anyone else’s. A certain Republican candidate for President in 2016 demonstrated the error of this mis-use of thinking magnificently. We can all learn what not to do from his example.

Third Order Science: Intelligence of the greatest good for the greatest number ~

If you are a mother or a father, you make daily choices and decisions assessing the amount of food, clothing, shelter and resources we have in hand against the needs of everyone involved. In this “science” we think rationally about how easy it is to get more of each resource; and, how each need will expand or shrink in the next time period to come.

In this third category of rational choosing-deciding, I alone am no longer the sole stakeholder. I choose to consider the needs of my children, retired grandparents; and often, extended family members. Even tho thinking here concerns me as perhaps one small part of a greater whole, choices made in this area are also real and rational. Ask any parent.

By my count, this makes three categories of rational choosing, rational decision making, rational evaluations, we make every day, Three Sciences.

Q: What practical application does this have?

A: The Three Sciences may have have the most immediate and timely relevance to methods of holistic healing and Energy Medicine, all of them.

This is because Second Order (ego-survival, “hard” science) has been at war with holism and holistic thought since the 1970s [including everything in Waldorf].

The Three Sciences make the conflict unnecessary. ONE science alone cannot span the range of rational thinking we use every day; on one end, what is beneficial at the cellular level; and, what is beneficial for highest good of everyone and all critters on Planet Earth.

We can, we do, and we must use different Orders of thinking to address issues, depending which scale of concern is before us presently.

First Order Science is the naturally supportive science for holistic studies
How our cells and immune system “think” is 100% First Order Science. Not Second, not Third. First Order Science is the Science of the subjective; where, we honor and uncover more of both its intelligence; and, its limitations.

First Order Science is the key to forward progress in health and healing because ‘each person heals uniquely’ (Rudolf Steiner paraphrase). What is workable to heal me is highly individualized. It may or may not be workable for you. What works is often subjective. Outside of accidents and physical injury, the vast majority of healing for humans must be calibrated to the single individual. Humans are the least herd-like of creatures.

What thinking, which Science, characterizes hospital-drug-surgery-medicine? Can you guess?

Conventional 20th century medicine is 100% Second Order Science, the science of physical-material survival and male-ego-survival.

This is why it was pointless for John Thie, DC of Touch for Health and his practitioner colleagues to struggle for 25 years to get T4H services accepted by established medical authorities, why insurance companies never paid for Touch for Health by anyone except MDs. Holistic healing is literally outside what they call and consider “science,” beyond what they consider “real.”

With Three Sciences, we can say, just because holistic idea X is not Second Order Science does NOT mean no science, no rational, no critical thinking is occurring. Critical thinking occurs at three or more levels of intelligence inside us each and every day.

Q: Where does the science of Galileo-Descartes-Newton-Hawking fall?

A: Second Order. The middle Science was the first to evolve. First Order did not get going outwardly until the 1970s. Third Order began with Lincoln, Ghandi and ML King.

First Order Science healthcare has no conflict with Second Order medical healthcare. Why should they? they are separate Sciences. We want Second Order Science healthcare for accidents, injuries, and needed surgeries. We want First Order Science healthcare for most other wellness, health and prevention needs. A future, more Goethean Psychology will address concerns in all Three Sciences.

Colored shadows demo how all color has a subjective aspect. Let’s apply this to ether studies

colored-shadows4 colored-shadows3 colored-shadows2 colored-shadows1According to Goethe, all hues are colored shadows. Later, color scientists, most famously Edwin Land (founder of the Polaroid Corporation), appear to produce shadows of virtually every hue… (ref)

The above photo-demonstrations serve to bring healthy doubt into Newton’s one-sided, 100% materialistic explanations of color.

If studied, the images suggest a definite subjective element must be part of how we perceive color, how we estimate and imagine polarities where they may or may not exist, how in fact, each person may do this somewhat uniquely.

These photo-demonstrations of colored shadows are part of an old argument which may have new meaning in our post-2012 world.

You may know in the field of “free” energy, older ideas about ether are being revised and upgraded as we speak.

A main piece of the old argument between Goethe~Newton on color can be summarized freshly as:  Is color 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we view color?

This is a microcosm to the identical dilemma and conflict encountered by etheric researchers.  Those who know Goethe’s view of color can propose a useful question to etheric researchers:  Is ethericity 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we perceive and work with etheric formative forces?

If you have seen Chapter 19 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul it should be clear how one-sided scientists, paid by corporations, often prefer totally one-sided science, where human ethics, morals and choice are irrelevant.  Conversely, how Goethean, two-sided scientists-experimenters celebrate the etherical, moral and transformatinal aspects of working with ethericity.

The current generations of etheric researchers are intelligent and collaborative. See the free two-hour YouTube video of intro statements by 30 of the leaders at the 2015 gathering of researchers, approximately HERE

However current etheric researchers tend to be less interested in artistic and metaphysical Oneness than Steiner and his immediate successors on this topic in Anthroposophy, most notably, Ernst Lehrs.

Dethroning gravity as the King of the Universe

abstract-gravityWhen man in the state of world-onlooker undertook to form a dynamic picture of the nature of matter, it was inevitable of all the qualities which belong to existence, scientists were only able to imagine and perceive gravity and electricity.

In the 1700s and 1800s mankind’s consciousness was closely bound up with the force of gravity in the human body.  Because of this focus, we were unable to imagine or perceive forces connected with levity, in our body, opposite to gravity.  

Nature is built on and between polar archetypes.  This means it was inevitable the ‘gravity-run-universe’ of Newton will eventually give way to a model of the universe built on gravity and its opposite.  Which we call “levity” in Man or Matter.  

[The process of de-throning gravity as sole King of the universe has already proceeded far in the topic of the Electric Universe (, et al) even tho this mis-labels some etheric phenomena as purely electrical.]

To gravity-bound intellects of the 1700s-800s, the only possible counter-force to gravity was electricity. Here lies the origins of our faulty world model, composed of only gravity and electricity, the pro-gravity side of forces, the ‘gravity team.’

We meet the idea of Creation composed and created only by gravity and electricity in the 1900s model of the atom, composed of what?  A heavy electro-positive nucleus circled by virtually weightless electro-negative electrons.  

[Man or Matter goes on to show while gravity is indeed primary, electricity is only a secondary force, NOT the equal opposite of gravity. ]

Heavily revised from Man or Matter, Chapter XIII Radiant Matter p 282.