| Previous page of Issue |
Real Science (Part 1)
| SERIES: Real Science AUTHOR: Jim Schofield |
STRANDS: PHILOSOPHY / THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD |
ABSTRACT: This series of papers is concerned with the major flaws in the current scientific approach in isolating, extracting and abstracting formulae, and the description, and further formulation, of an already existing, and considerably more important, explanatory aspect of Science into THE major and necessary alternative. It contrasts the established and universally applauded pluralist approach, with a so-far, undeveloped holistic alternative. The main criticism of the standard scientific method lies in its assumption that Reality can always be analysed into a hierarchy of Wholes and their constituent Parts, and by this means explain the causes and motive forces that produce Reality as is. To reveal its limitations it likens the usual approach involved to that in a horticultural farm, and compares that with the state in a wholly unfettered area of virgin rain forest, and how it performs. It attempts to show, thereby, how the criticised approach studies a significantly and rigidly controlled set of Domains, and not Reality as is. How this enables Mankind to actually produce for need is addressed, as is the impossibility of dealing with real, qualitative development, and hence the actual Evolution of Reality. After the extensive criticisms, the question is posed as to how these can be corrected using what seems to be an impossible alternative – a completely holistic approach, where everything affects everything else. This leads to the definition of General Development with two different and contrasting phases. One involves slow changes within Stability, while the other, achieves its changes via quick, cataclysmic and indeed revolutionary overturns, in what are called Emergences. The full set of questions posed in these papers, it must be said, are by no means yet fully answered. |
SYNOPSIS: 1. Though the flaws in normal pluralistic scientific methods have been exposed in other recent papers, no adequate explanation of how such flawed methods could lead to the quite evident progress in their uses has been explained. 2. The “walling off” of areas for study has allowed laws pertaining to these limited regions, and their controlled conditions, to be extracted, but these are often thereafter considered to deliver universally applicable laws. 3. Clearly such “farming” of Reality can lead to effective progress, and the achievement of intended objectives. But, it lets us down if what we are studying cannot be effectively “walled off” from the wider Reality. 4. Our scientific approach is effectively “horticulture” with separate “greenhouses” for each studied Domain, and by moving products from one such Domain to another, sequences can be organised and objectives attained. 5. Thus, by such means, we are NOT investigating Reality as it is, but building every yard of our “stepping-stone” traverses through our “greenhouse city” to our final objectives. 6. The implications of this approach are NOT good! Vast resources have to be developed to achieve the many required environments, and such an approach cannot be extended indefinitely. It is comparable to living on the moon, where absolutely everything required would have to be brought in, of made within a totally isolated “Eden-on-the-Moon” 7. These alternative has to be holist! We need a Rain Forest NOT a city of greenhouses. One can be self-sufficient while the other cannot! 8. Yet the productivity of the Rain Forest is unequalled in any works of Man fighting Nature with his essential controls. 9. But, most important is the total inability of our present pluralist methods to cope with any Qualitative Change. Indeed, our science landscape is one of Change Prevention, while the other proliferates Change. 10. Finally, the conceptual failures in many important areas can be traced back to the mistaken belief that the relations we extract from rigidly constrained Domains are actually universal, and by bringing them together we can explain anything. Such is profoundly incorrect. |
| Left click to open in browser window, right click to download. |
| Previous paper in series |