THE GREAT SWINDLE

CONTENTS

• Introduction
• Theories & Science in General
  • 'Theory' Defined
  • 'Science' Defined
  • Scientific Method
    • Scopes 'Monkey' Trial Revisited
    • Scientific Method as Systematic
    • Categorization / Classification
    • 'Discovery' vs. Artificial Construct
  • Confusion?
  • So What?
  • 'Infant' Hypotheses / 'Adult' Theories
    • Theory Senility
    • All  Theories Tentative 
  • Un vs Non-Scientific?
• Specific Theories as Distractors
  • Evolution
    • [UpDate: Comet Shoemaker-Levy]
    • 'Evolution' defined
      • Biological Evolution
        • Evolution Not Necessarily Darwinism
        • Darwinian 'Natural Selection'
          • Darwin Wrong!
          • 'Species' Defined
          • The Function of Natural Selection
            • Breeding Competition
            • Resource Competition
            • Predation
            • The 'Missing Link'
            • Summary on 'Natural Selection'
          • Evidence Against Darwinism
            • No Evolution Today
            • Sudden Extinctions
            • Sudden Appearances
            • Mutation
          • Conclusion on Darwinism
        • Non - Darwinian Evolution
      • Geological Evolution
        • Uniformitarianism
          • Definition
          • Geological Uniformitarianism
          • Uniformitarianism & Natural Selection
          • Contradictory Approaches
      • Alternatives to Uniformitarian Evolution
        • Catastrophism
          • Velikovsky
          • Update
        • Biblical Creationism
  • 'Big Bang'
    • The 'Red Shift'
    • Red Shift?
    • Need Red Shift = Doppler?
    • Red Shift & Relativity
  • Atoms & Nothingness
  • Gravity & Relativity
  • Geometry
  • Freud
• Conclusion on Theories

INTRODUCTION

The title of this Distractor pretty well describes and defines it. It is the tendency and willingness within us to BELIEVE in, and act upon, certain theories about reality as though those theories were FACTUAL rather than merely the theories they are.

In this section we shall go first into theories and science in general, and then into several theories whose significance have been erroneously inflated in this way. These theories are about fundamental and basic aspects of existence and, thus, being overblown as to their FACTUALITY, play a major role in the Great Swindle.

THEORIES & SCIENCE IN GENERAL

Something as basic as the definition of the term 'theory' in an every day dictionary helps to clarify the distinction between all that a theory really is, or can be, and what we too often, and erroneously, allow it to be built up in our minds to be.

The dictionary defines 'theory' as:

As a careful reading of that definition reveals, a valid theory need only be 'plausible' or 'scientifically acceptable'. It need not be unquestionable or scientifically proven .

Indeed, no theory devised by human mind can  be unquestionably proven as FACT. Not only the dictionary, but the scientific method itself, recognize this limitation on theories, both in their definitions of that term, and in their understanding of the concept that term is meant to represent.

Unfortunately, we, more often than we realize, overlook this limitation on what theories are, or can possibly be, and fall prey to this Grand Distractor. To the extent that we do, we are in the midst of the Great Swindle.

In our dictionary definition we came across the phrase 'scientifically acceptable'. In our modern, rational age, when so many of our better theories [although not all of them] are the result of science, and when we rely primarily upon science to tell us which theories are rationally acceptable, the concept of theories is very much intertwined with the concept of science itself.

Therefore, in order to be able to fully understand what will be said here as to these theories, we must first have a clear understanding as to what science, itself, is, and is not; how it operates; and what it can, and cannot, do.

Once again turning to the dictionary, we find two relevant definitions of science:

The first definition refers to what many laymen perceive science as primarily being - an ever expanding body of rational knowledge. And it is.

But, in that very definition, we find two terms which we have used and stressed in this writing as being fraught with the perils of being fundamental factors in the Great Swindle if not handled carefully - KNOWLEDGE and IGNORANCE.

How we can easily fall prey to these perils by way of science will become clearer as we proceed here.

The second definition gets to the heart of the matter. It speaks of 'knowledge....obtained and tested through scientific method.'

In other words, that body of knowledge referred to in the first definition is knowledge obtained in a particular way , ie., by way of the scientific method .

There are other ways of obtaining knowledge in addition to the ways of science. (Instinct, day to day experience, and Intuitive INSIGHT all provide KNOWLEDGE, as will be discussed in our final chapters).

But the only knowledge that can qualify as being 'scientific' is that knowledge obtained by way of the scientific method.

(For a fuller discussion of the scientific method, see its definition).

A relatively recent court case clarifies and underlines the point being made here.

This court case involved a dispute between those who BELIEVE in Biblical Creationism and those who BELIEVE in evolution, as to which BELIEF should be taught in public schools.

(The case referred to here was in the 1960's in Tennessee. Yes, the Scopes 'Monkey' case of the 1920's was re-tried all over again. The Great Swindle is, indeed, persistent.)

A critical issue in that case was what science is - and is not.

The judge, after hearing all the expert testimony and evidence both sides could present (and no doubt reading every dictionary he could get his hands on) finally came to the conclusion that, in his words, 'Science is what scientists do .'

What do scientists do?

They, hopefully, apply and practice the scientific method  to the best of their ability.

So, it all comes down to the scientific method.

And, what is that?

Once again to the dictionary:

The key principles here are 'systematic'; 'observation and experiment'; and, 'formulation and testing of hypotheses'.

These are the things that scientists must do , in order for what ever they come up with to qualify as being scientific .

Let's take a closer look.

Everything a scientist does must be done in a rational, logical, systematic manner.

If it isn't, from the very outset, and all the way through, then whatever he might do is not good science  (or rather, not  science at all  ), and, therefore, is at best irrelevant, and, at worst, Swindlous.

And, to comply with this, scientists have often found it appropriate to classify and categorize the various things they find in nature.

Creating classifications and categories into which the multitudinous aspects and qualities found in nature can be 'pigeon holed' for study is a rational, logical and systematic way of going about such study.

But, a critical point must be recognized at even this early juncture in our discussion of the scientific method.

Such categories and classifications as have come to us by way of this scientific approach, have not been somehow 'discovered' as being natural "facts". We, through our scientists, have created  them.

Our scientific classifications and categories are very much the artificial constructs of the scientists who devised them.

They may be rational, logical and systematic - which they are. But they are by no means sacrosanct. They could just as easily and properly be quite different than they are now.

Indeed, there has been, and in many critical instances continues to be, considerable disagreement among the scientists themselves as to just what those classifications and categories should be, and where to draw the lines between them.

Let's go into this in a little more depth so as to be better able to understand what we are talking about here.

In order for us to be able to investigate and understand reality by way of the scientific method, the usual approach to that method is to take the totality of existence, and break it down into individual classifications and categories, and then sub-classes and categories and sub-sub-classes and categories and so on. (This is often referred to as scientific 'reductionism').

In order to do this, we must first decide which particular qualities and factors, of all that we encounter in the totality of existence, constitute sufficient differences between all the 'things' we encounter in existence, so as to be able to determine just what our 'categories'and 'classifications' will be, and which 'things' belong in which one.

Earlier on in the development of scientific inquiry many of these differences appeared to be 'obvious', and many of the categories and classifications decided upon then are still accepted today as being almost sacrosanct. Yet, as science has matured, and its tools have developed and improved, what earlier appeared to be 'obvious' differences are no longer so clear. The various manifestations of life and existence actually blend into one another, at a fundamental level, and the distinctions between them become so blurred as to be dificult (and sometimes even impossible) to perceive.

Indeed, the reason we are now finding it more and more difficult to discern clear-cut  distinctions between so many of the 'things' in existence, is that such differences simply don't exist - at least not at a fundamental level. All the things in creation are simply, and basically, too much the same.

Whatever distinctions we might see between them, as 'obvious' as they might appear to be at a more superficial level, are not nearly so obvious when looked at on a more fundamental level.

So, whatever definitions we might devise so as to clarify the distinctions we see, including all the carefully formulated definitions we might find in the dictionary as to such distinctions, such definitions are, of necessity, of our own creation, and, therefore, arbitrary.

If all this seems to muddle and confuse what otherwise seemed to be pretty clear and settled - good  !

Because, what made everything seem so clear and settled was that we have accepted as "fact" the various classifications, categorizations and definitions handed down to us by our scientists, many of which were devised during the infancy of scientific inquiry, and sorely in need of a fresh look.

To overlook the FACT that these classifications and categorizations were, in actuality, a matter of, perhaps learned and well meaning, but nonetheless arbitrary, choice  on the part of those who devised them, and therefore subject to re-choosing  by us if we deem it appropriate to do so, is to engage in Erroneous "knowing". It is to accept as natural "facts" of "reality", classifications which are, in FACT, nothing more than the product of a human mind exercising its POWER of CHOICE in defining those classifications.

Why bother going into all these confusing and unsettling areas of thought?

Because to fail to do so is to permit someone else to exercise our own POWER to define "reality" for us ['Who? Little Ole Me?' The Need For 'Experts'], and to engage in Erroneous "knowing" by accepting that other person's definition as a "fact" when it is no such thing.

In short, to fail to enter into, and pass through, this unsettling and seemingly confusing area of thoughtfulness, is to remain a victim, and a perpetrator, of the Great Swindle.

Now, to the remaining key principles of the scientific method, ie., 'formulation and testing of hypotheses', which formulations are based upon, and which testing is done by way of, 'observation and experiment'.

In the general understanding in the scientific community, an hypothesis, in essence, is the same thing as a theory, only in its infant stages. A theory is an hypothesis which has managed to survive the trials and tribulations of childhood and to grow into maturity.

In the case of an 'infant' hypothesis, the trials and tribulations it must survive in order to grow into being an 'adult' theory consist of the 'testing' done by way of the 'observation and experiment' of the scientific method.

As with any other adult, a theory can get old and lose its vitality. And, as often as not (and more often than too many scientists care to have to recognize) theories, even, and especially, scientific theories, do just that.

There is no general or predictable life span for theories, but history and experience have clearly shown us that sooner or later, every previously healthy and virile theory succumbs to the ravages of old age and eventually death.

And, there are those of us, especially among our scientists, who, because of their passionate involvement in their profession, are as enamored of their theories as they are of their lovers and children. And, as a result, they find the essential mortality of their theories as difficult and painful to face up to as they do the old age and death of their loved ones.

And it is at this point that this Grand Distractor of Acceptance of Theory as "fact" has its basic root.

Because the FACT is that all  theories are tentative . No matter how well tested and widely accepted any theory might be at the moment, it is always  subject to revision, or even outright replacement by a totally new theory, as scientific knowledge and experience grow and progress.

In short, as an hypothesis is simply an educated guess, when it becomes a theory it is only, and at most, our best  educated guess under our current state of knowledge, and always  susceptible to being revised or replaced as our knowledge expands.

Such a fate has befallen every scientific theory we have had in the past, and there is no good  reason to believe that our current theories are somehow immune.

To fail to recognize this REALITY, and to assume that our current theories have any more finality to them as "fact" than the tentative educated 'guessing' they in FACT are, is to indulge in Erroneous "knowing", and to do so in an insidious and Swindlous way.

One final FACT about the limitations of science, which are inherent in its very methodology, should be noted.

As we have said, a critical aspect of that methodology is the testing of hypotheses and theories by way of experimentation, which also includes the ability of such experiments to be duplicated by more than one scientist, with similar results. (This duplicability assures both the valid testing of hypotheses, and also the validation of the testers, themselves, by way of one scientist re-checking the work of another for possible errors due to bias or mistakes).

But, such valid testing is limited by the ability of human beings to devise means by which to conduct experiments which will, in FACT, be valid .

Unfortunately, human ingenuity is often unable to come up with experiments by which to test various hypotheses in a way that would be scientifically valid, and, therefore, science is unable to say anything, one way or the other, about the validity of such hypotheses.

Consequently, there are some [many?] things in life which are simply outside the realm of science, not because they necessarily aren't REAL, but because human science simply has not yet found a way to deal with them in a scientific manner.

This is an unfortunate and disappointing FACT.

But this particular happenstance can also, and too often does, become Swindlous.

Because, it is not unusual for those things which simply do not fit within our current abilities with the scientific method, to be referred to as being 'unscientific'.

Science does not know what to do with them, therefore they cannot be made to be scientific, therefore they are un scientific (or so it is often said). This use of this term can, and does, easily lead to an inappropriate and Swindlous result. It would be better to use a different term for such situations, such as non -scientific.

Too often we make the mistake of failing to distinguish between this type of 'non -scientific', and the type of 'un scientific' we mean when we are talking about what is simply 'bad'or 'sloppy', or the outright avoidance of, application of the scientific method.

There is a big difference between the two.

If it is 'bad' science (un scientific), that is one thing, and good reason for being suspicious and doubtful of what is being said.

But too often we make the assumption that if something isn't 'scientific', it somehow can't be REAL or 'reliable', even though all that is meant is that science doesn't know what to do with it (non -scientific).

And this type of fuzzy confusion of concepts can become Swindlous.

The limitations of the scientific method are very REAL limits - on science  - not on Reality. The FACT that many aspects of nature are beyond the limits of the scientific method to be able to deal with, does not make them any the less REAL.

And, with this, we have now covered this Grand Distractor as it operates at both ends of the spectrum of the scientific method. How it induces us to see more "fact" in theories than there actually is, and how it causes us to fail to be open to seeing FACTS where they just might be, simply because the scientific method can't yet figure out how to experiment with, and thereby 'prove' them.

And with that, let's now go into the specifics of some theories which are major manifestations of this Grand Distractor today.