Determining Rightness

Or, as Galambos would say, “How do you know you are right?”

Newton's Method

(The Scientific Method)

| Close Window | Equality | Mysticism | Importance | Main Web Site | Freedom |

Synopsis

Until a thinking specie develops an epistemlogical system to determine rightRight
That which is based on true premises, valid and logical thought processes, and is corroborated by history and the laws of nature. And the resulting action—if any—is moral
from not–right, they can not create new and useful knowledge. from not-right, they can not create new and useful knowledge.

In the late 1700s we began to apply that tool basic scientific knowledge and to technology, which launched the Industrial Revolution. But we did not apply it to our societal knowledge, which left us unchanged, still having a ruler and those ruled.

Disclosure

Although I have been working on this for 50 years or so, this is a new approach to handling it. Starting over again, So everthing appears incomplete and nonsensical? The fate of all new and controversial knowledge. For now I will say no more than what is right. Can not be wrong. As it is consistent with the laws of nature and history. That we have a very serious societal problem that needs solving, Else we will continue inexorably on our way to non-viability as a specie. That you should therefore bear with, read and learn. And not practice intellectual dishonestyIntellectual Dishonesty
The failure to accept new knowledge that is right on an absolute basis, when it conflicts with currently held incorrect beliefs on the subject.
.


How did I get into this‽ I wish there weren't so many fallacies to deal with.

But this is very, very important. If you have no way of understanding if what you believe is right or not right you live in a world of never–ending disasters. A world where nothing makes sense. It is not safe to do anything, as it will most likely not work, yes? It will be like the world of the Middle Ages. Or the Muddle Ages [sic]? Where the law of “unplanned consquences” rules supreme? A world like our own current world. But only in societal things, yes? Your iPhone and iPad work, entering a name on your phone always (well, almost always…) connects you with the intended person. Airplanes take off when the Captain or First Officer says “rotate”. You push the “channel” button on the remote and your TV presents the expected thing. Technological things, things work, yes? The world of scienceScience
The creation, maintenance, updating and use of organized knowledge that can be corroborated for rightness by the use of the Scientific Method.
works.

But our societal world does not work. We have a multitude of societal problems. And, rather than fixing even one, we continue to add to them. It seems that the world of breaking news will be our destiny as a thinking specie. After all, we are generally told the the "war on terror" is permanent, yes? We live through a long life, dying without acureCure
A permanent and total cessation to all adverse symptoms.
for one societal problem. Our legacy to our hapless children and successors.

Remember how we think of the Middle Ages? When people believed in many outlandish things. The so-called world of Aristotle and of Aristotelian thought. Aristotle himself would be appalled at what happened to his name. He was actually a person who believed in experimentation and testing and trying things, but this has been lost in history. What we remember is heresy, blasphemy, the Holy Inquisition. The forerunner of modern politics. People being burned at the stake for refusing to recant their belief that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Of a universe of infinite worlds. Galileo wisely recanted in public, although never in thought. And thus was sentenced by the Religious branch of politics to a life of house arrest. A concept also used by the Civil branch of politics.

But what is the purpose of this subject and discussion? Most of which has been repeated too many times without comprehension of the facts and reality. The purpose is that you can not create new and useful knowledge—vet existing knowledge for rightness—without an epistemological tool that allows you do to this. And that this what took us out of the world of mysticism in technology. The application of the laws of nature to physical things that tend to make our life better.

When you understand why things fall down and why we do not simply float away into space. Although you need to understand that the world is round and it “floats” around the Sun and is sometimes “upside down” to wonder about such a thing.

Yet—and this is perhaps the main subject and concept of this endeavor—we did not use this tool on our societal knowledge. In what is commonly and incorrectly referred to as “Social Science”. A subject that is neither “social” (in the sense of being nice and useful) nor “science” (in the sense of being organized knowledge).

What allowed the Industrial Revolution to occur. Well, I already told you, yes? It was the application of Newton's Tool, the Scientific Method, to our "technological" world that allowed this to happen. The facilitated it. But how did this tool and early technological knowledge--innovation--occur? What faclitated that?

A recent and aspiring Ruler—Albert Gore—seems to like to talk of “levers of change”. But which I think he means things that might eliminate a societal problem or make things better for people. I told him what constituted a “lever of change”, but politicians never want to entertain new and useful ideas. You notice how in pictures they always have their mouth open and spewing forth things? In a rising voice, pausing only to receive an accolade from the masses? Anyway, the “lever of change” should be obvious to all. What happened sometime around 1666 when Newton was at Woolsthorpe to avoid the plague then raging in Cambridge.

For innovation to occur there are only a few simple things needed:

It was this latter thing that Newton discovered when he had the first two things—time and individual freedom. Out in the country he was away from everything. He was not yet famous, so no one took interest in what he was doing or not doing.

Most people believe that his laws of option and motion were his most important products. But it was his use what became known as the Scientific Method that was his most importnat producet. His bold statement that “… the universe is comprehensible, and here is how to comprehend it”.

This against the prevailing idea that It wasn't really possible to understand anything that was happening. To be a conservative. And that it was best not to think about anything new. And there was the Holy Inquisition to ensure that this is what happened. And that those who strayed from the path would be quickly put back on the path or removed from the scene.

It was the dissemination of Newton’s Method that—about 75 years after his death—finally started teh Industrial Revolution. Removing us from the Dark Ages in technology. But, since this tools was not applied to our societal knowledge, we stayed in the world of Serfdom. Of politics, in which one or a few people still controlled the life and property of all others. The few who thought about this were told that you could not apply concept of “cold logic” to nice warm things like people, their behavior and their societal system.

Newton’s Principia was originally pulished in Latin, still the language of educators and intellectuals. But times where changing, and fewer and fewer people used it. The reason it took 75 years for others to start using his Method for creating new and useful knowledge. So most new knowledge was not useful. It was a very unusual individual who “kick started” the use of Newton’s Method—Émilie, Marquise du Châtelet, the lover of Voltaire. I didn’t want to sully her image by saying that, yet I think it is rather a wonderful thing. That a person with this title and image did what she did. She was actually a renowned mathematician and physicist.

It was Émilie who translated Newton’s Principia into French. Into a vernacular language increasingly used by budding scientist and intellectuals. Those who might invent and innovate. Such as those who might invent a steamboat, the spinning jenny, the investigation of metals and gasses, the creation of the battery and the connection between electricity and magnetism. And we were on our way to radio and television, the airplane, the steam train, steel and other metals. Difficult to know what to mention or not mention.

Yet in our societal knowledge we remained mired in the failed idea that there must a a ruler and those ruled. The baron, duke, earl, king were enshrined in society. After all, we could not do anything without them, yes? Such a tragedy if the ruler dies, yes? Whatever would be do without them? I really need to cut things short. It was “The King is Dead! Long Live the King!”

The Founding Fathers of what would become the United States of America mistakenly thought that the “for life” concept of a ruler was the problem. And did not realize that actually it was the system of laws bequeathed to us by the Romans that was really the problem. This and the acceptance of this system by everyone as “the way”. The only way for a societal system to work. The person of a King was only a symbol. Yes, they could and did make unnatural laws, but the individuals came, went and was replaced by another symbol of the system. But if we could just replace the individual when they became a problem, then everything would be okay.

So, they devised such a system. The result? “The Incumbent is Out! Long Live the Incumbent!” And the system continues. A system in which one or a few people control the lives and property of all through a ever–increasing number of laws. Such that, as I thought in 1957, we have what I referred to as Government Without End. Well, isn’t it?

What is the function of a senator or “representative” of the people? With the answer to every problem being “more and ‘better’ laws“. And if they do not make them, they will lose their job and be replaced by someone else who will do this. What must be the end result? That all human action will either be required or prohibited. And that which gives our specie its name—thinking—is no longer required. Not even permitted.

The system creates a world of nitpickers. People who do not like that is done or the way it is done. And wish to become the Elected One so they can change things. And individual are forced to do many things the would not normally do. Even when the thing is immoral. Or, they are prevented from doing many thing, even when th thing is ratioal and moral. This requied action and inaction deprives individuals of the need—even the ability—from making decisions related to the coduct of their own life. With the results the they become increasingly incompetent in life. Requiring ever-more “services”. In America, an "advanced democracy" (advanced in decay) it is so bad that people actually to things that make them physically disabled, so that they can claim “disability” and get money fromt the regime. And people wonder why there is ever–widening disparity btween “haves and have nots”.


Related subjects:


℗ Prototype 1971–∞ — Andrew J. Galambos — All Rights Reserved
© Copyright 1983–∞ — William W Morgan — All Rights Reserved