How does Science come to its conclusions?
When Science first started, the dynamics of sciencing was rather simple.
Rich people, who had time on their hands, dabbled in experiments.
They experimented, communicated, compared and quoted.
This was called Empiricism, Correspondence, Peer Review, and Publication.
Sciencing has since become an institution, comparable to a church.
Scientists are appointed and ousted by their own peer group.
Scientists are paid by money from taxation, allotted by ministries for education.
Together with scientists working for private money: science is 'a buyers market'.
This means that scientists work for money.
It also means that science is under government regulation.
This means that science is dependent on that regulation.
With, next to that, scientists working in/for corporations.
Corporate science can no longer be trusted.
The findings are hidden behind corporate/trade secrets.
This is especially the case in military and multinational corporations.
The government, in many nations, operates as a secret society/organisation.
There is thus no insight nor oversight for the dynamics and outcome of science.
The main regulation/control by finance is on the output.
The main control on the process is by hierarchy, by status, by funding.
For the remainder the dynamic of science is trusted to be arranged by self-regulation.
Science is a society, like any other.
Members within any society operate under explicit and tacit agreements.
The nature of such agreements is complex, and takes place in (in)conscious manner.
The following diagrams help understand the dynamics, and how organisation takes place:
Figure 5 shows the scientist, and an emerging society.
Figure 6 shows the internal cognitive levels of the scientist.
Figure 7 shows the internal levels of organisation of Science.
Figure 8 shows the complexification of this organisation of science.
Before we can address the relationship between the scientists and science we need to address the nature of communication:
Figure 1 shows the internal organisation of humans: linking cells with humanity.
Figure 2 shows the levels of information organisation, within life forms (Light > matter)
Figure 3 shows the relational interface of language, as identified by Kees van Schooneveld.
Figure 4 shows the modes of information communication (writ to computers)
We can see how the same principle, within humans, can be seen between humans:
Figure 9 shows The four main groups of social organisation (mystic > scientist)
Figure 10 shows the four main forms of 'social control' (dictatorship > Autarchy)
Figure 11 shows the dynamics of hypo- and meta system embedding/regulation (system nesting)
Figure 12 shows how societies operate as cultures; by formulating/formalising creativity/creation (art/law)
The above schematics help understand how the society of science can ne seen in relationship to other forms of society.
We can see that society is under external control; but that this control is by the internal regulation of culture.
Likewise we can see that culture is the superset of societies of humans; and thus controlled by social organisation.
And we find that societies are composed of, and created by, humans: the final regulation lies within each human.
The following diagrams help understand how the navigation in society is based on participation by every human.
Figure 13 shows the 4 Brain Halves; and the principle of integration within context
Figure 14 shows the Consciousness Activation Cascade; and how ideas are put in action.
Figure 15 shows the Cascade of Sensation and Realisation: from sensor to Brain activation.
Figure 16 shows the dynamic for/or expression and activation: the Puppet Model of (e)motion.
The basis of all these diagram lies in the integration of information in matter with/in cell division/fusion.
This is where relational organisation is defined by the dynamics of differentiation and integration.
It is the principle wherein a boundary turns out into a field, or a field into a boundary.
This (cell) dynamics of creation can be represented by the core dynamics of Vortex inversion.
We conclude that all conclusions of science stem from conclusions within individual scientists.
Scientists let their conclusions be based and determined by their social embedding.
This is where territorial forces and vegetative responses determine the outcome of science.
The Figures in this text help illustrate how this is based on the principle of "Boundary Reflection".
Boundary Reflection, is the dynamics ensuing from cell division; fusion; wherein information integrates with matter.
It is the dynamic which is seen in the emergence of different, ever more complex life forms.
It is also the 'mechanics' for expression of consciousness within each of those life forms.
This means that a body of knowledge of a culture, society or science is, indeed, operating as a organic body.