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.

References

Inspired by, massively revised and adapted from a much longer talk by
Lazaris online 2016: http://www.lazaris.com/blog/shifting-paradigms-another-look
Author, Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson can be found at https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com

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