PRINCIPLES

The ultimate blackart is the promise of XIII) Progress Through Revolutions . In the face of the arguments, that suggest above all, that science(#2)=(collective) progress (towards chaos), why does science progress, how does it progress, and what is the nature of its progress? askers Kuhn rhetorically to give the professorial answer as follows:

To a very great extent, the term science is reserved for fields that do progress in obvious ways. But does a field make progress because it is a science, or is it a science because it makes progress? Normal science progresses because the enterprise shares certain salient characteristics, Members of a mature scientific community work from a single paradigm or from a closely related set, e.g. they form a mob of human being who have abandoned their lifefulfillment as mere subjectivity. Very rarely do different scientific communities investigate the same problems. The result of successful mobbing disguised as creative work is Om-progress.

Even if we argue that a field does not make progress, that does not mean that an individual school or discipline within that field does not. The man who argues that philosophy has made no progress emphasizes that there are still Aristotelians, not that Aristotelianism has failed to progress. It is only during periods of normal science that progress seems both obvious and assured. In part, this progress is in the eye of the beholder. The absence of competing paradigms that question each other's aims and standards makes the progress of a normal-scientific community far easier to see. And here comes the pay-off for mobbing: The acceptance of a paradigm frees the community from the need to constantly re-examine its first principles and foundational assumptions; needless to say that implies that individuals should outsource their conscience to the collective specifically its mouthpiece, science#2, which was the SS for the Nazis and the party for the communists. Members of the community can concentrate on the subtlest and most esoteric of the phenomena that concern it. Because scientists#2 work only for an audience of colleagues , a mutual admiration society, an audience that shares values and beliefs, a single set of standards can be taken for granted. Unlike in other disciplines, the scientist need not select problems because they urgently need solution and without regard for the tools available to solve them. The social scientists tend to defend their choice of a research problem chiefly in terms of the social importance of achieving a solution. Which group would one then expect to solve problems at a more rapid rate?

We may have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth. The developmental process described by Kuhn is a process of evolution from primitive beginnings. It is a process whose successive stages are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding not so much of nature, but how to manipulate it. This is not a process of evolution toward anything but science#2 . Important questions arise. Must there be a goal set by nature in advance? Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature? Is the proper measure of scientific achievement the extent to which it brings us closer to an ultimate goal? The analogy that relates the evolution of organisms to the evolution of scientific ideas "is nearly perfect", .e.g. approaching the Spell of Plato . The resolution of revolutions is the selection by conflict within the scientific community of the fittest way to practice future science. The net result of a sequence of such revolutionary selections, separated by period of normal research, is the wonderfully adapted set of instruments we call modern scientific knowledge. Successive stages in that developmental process are marked by an increase in articulation and specialization. The process occurs without benefit of a set goal and without benefit of any permanent fixed scientific truth such as C3. What must the world be like in order than man may know how to manipulate it in his image? That is the question science#2 keeps failing to answer and thus takes it as its legitimization to go on wasting life! The ultimate answer of science#2, if left by itself would of course be the annihilation of all life an Earth. It is the ultimate challenge of c3-mislead humans for God to intervene and thus prove that they cannot just crucify his Son, e.g. the reality on earth and in the universe, but manipulate even him, and his underling order that is personally manifest in each human's substance that strive to full its life ...

Thus science#2 is ultimately nothing but the jealous hate for science#3 as is the devil in respect to God. And from the point of view of science#3, science#2 is a necessary challenge, just as the cocoon is to a pupae to turn into a butterfly, for a human being to find his or her path to lifefulfillment: JOH 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life .

In short, science#2 has falsely usurped the concept of the open-ended generative principles, OEGP by which life embodies at its cost, in a personally-neutrally distorted, generalizing way that made it sustain itself since Plato introduced it. In its c3-way it is competing with with the C3-God; in vain yet at the cost of wasting life. The time has now come to call this revolt with which science#2 pretends to lead to scientific progress with its c3-MOS what it is in its own right, a virus in the human network that forms humanity; the mental source of all crimes against humanity.

top