Most of the work of science is based on hearsay.
Hearsay is defined as reports from non-peergroup researchers.
Their only experience of 'the fact' is by reading papers.
Only when they repeat the described experiment themselves, will they speak from Experience.
1) own research = experience (knowledge of all details)
2) research of same lab colleague = report (known context)
3) research from other-lab colleague = hearsay (known research area)
4) research by others = myth (only the profession is known)
1) Experience, 2) Story, 3) Hearsay and 4) Myth are 4 levels of scientific realisation.
1) Experience, 2) Knowledge, 3) Science and 4) Reality are the supposedly corresponding forms of learning.
1) Individual, 2) Relationship, 3) Group, 4) Network are the commonly associated social modalities.
1) deterministic, 2) relativistic, 3) probabilistic and 4) potential are the corresponding degrees of realisation.
As a scientist, i know a lot about science; that is what I learned/studied.
As a scientist, i know that I most know ... is “I really know what I know”.
After all, science, from the word “scientia”, means ‘to know’: ‘knowing’, “knowledge”.
But how much of what I know is no more than circumstantial, hearsay?
The idea that the universe is composed of atoms is hearsay; has anyone seen one, touched one?
The idea that we ‘know’ what instruments ‘show’ is hearsay-by-proxy; we interpret symbols.
We live in a symbolic reality; what we know is only a representation for what we don’t know; hearsay as condition(ing).
In fact: for what we can’t know: our brain ‘images’ derive only from sensory cells in /on our body (surface) … (hearsay as way of life).
If I look at what I know, it is amazing how much I don’t know.
In school I was taught to believe what I was taught.
In university I was asked to read, believe and repeat what I had read.
Only token lab-tests were presented, as if ‘proof’ for … ‘the theory’.
Since I have read more books, seen more contradictions, started to distrust, and dis’believe.
I now want to explore the view that science may be mainly hearsay; if not hearsay-only.
True, there are wonderful researchers who have done wonderful work, with fantastic findings.
Yet there are as many researchers who are paid to present the views of their funder; nothing else.
And yes, I ‘know’ there are the secret corporate/military/government labs of which we never see publications.
And I ‘know’ that much of the corporate-funded research is an ‘infomercial’ and cannot be trusted.
And I ‘know’ of the financial interests of the military industrial banking cartel; and truth suppression.
But yet again, although I trust the sources and some of the authors; it is all mainly only hearsay.
I would be intrigued to research how much of what I know is hearsay; and not to be trusted.
The Maxwell equations, printed in the books, are in fact NOT the equations of Maxwell.
I know that many publications are not presentations by authors but only interpretations by others.
And then again there is the famous golden rule: “who has the gold, makes the rule”.
As a result, I ‘know’, many findings in science are suppressed, repressed; reminding of “Inquisition”.
And yes, I studied this, and discovered that “the Inquisition” still exists; relabelled, rebranded.
And yes, I ‘know’, because I read this, that the present (2012) pope is head of that “Inquisition”.
And I ‘know’ that ‘the pope’ is head of ‘the Vatican’, which was created by 6 Roman banksters.
Body of Knowledge
Yet, do I really “Know this”? No; it is information I read/got from others; it is only readwrite hearsay.
Yet, with all the information I have, I created, fed and formed, my own inner Body of Knowledge.
I became able to read between the words, between the lines, between the pages and between the books.
I was not only able to interpret, but also to interloqute, intersperse and interpose ideas in/on/of ideas.
From the information that I was fed, and ingested, and swallowed, and digested, I learned to learn.
I had ideas, the ideas about ideas, then ideas about changing ideas, and ideas for forming ideas.
I realised that my mind (organs) digests ideas in the same way that my body (organs) digest food.
And I started to recognise the cellular/organic/healthy/integral pattern/nature/coherence of ideas.
There came a time, in my past, that I no longer ingested ideas into a vacuous void of knowledge.
No, instead ideas started to embryonically logically flow forming tentative forms of information in formation.
Then came a time, in my past, when idea ingestion became idea digestion: selective filtration.
As in my body, new food/information needed to fit in with the body of knowledge already formed.
And yes, I had episodes of the mental intellectual informational childhood diseases’.
Indeed I discovered that some information was foul, even toxic; I learned to vomit information.
And yes, there were some more slyly deceptive forms of information causing mental inflammation.
But by now I know and trust my body of knowledge, and its capacity/ability for pattern recognition.
Doctor of Knowledge
I trust that that is what is meant with the scientific degree of a “doctor of knowledge”.
It is someone who does not doctor knowledge/information, but who has a healthy mind.
Because a healthy mind (the physiology of our body of knowledge) can heal itself.
And who thereby can work in the realm of ideas, the field of knowledge, and seminate/harvest ideas.
I also am well aware that our body not only ingests, but also excretes information.
And I am well aware that some people’s body of knowledge is infested with parasites.
Financial parasites, religious parasites, familiar relational parasites, and power-sick parasites.
I am well aware that this parasitical exposure, contagion, makes their mental excrement toxic.
What I am thence concerned with is the unreliability of humans; of scientists in particular.
In legal circles it is customary to demand that people/functionaries ‘swear an oath’.
In me that provokes/evokes utter distrust: it means that everything else what is said is lied.
I know that people are intentional and unintentional liars; because they cannot know all.
In science that is particularly messy, because scientist claim that they publish the truth.
They claim that what the find is researched, that data is measured, and calculations to be trusted.
Yet, most of scientist’s time seems to be spent on (in)validating findings of other scientists.
But we do know that when an experiment can be (often) repeated, it can be erroneous still.
Science as Religion
The largest problem in science is that is deals with description instead of experience.
It is said (hearsay) that people join churches because there they can experience/feel what goes on.
It does not matter for them (according to hearsay) if what is said is true or real (it is not).
‘As long as there is something there they can feel, and feel real, in feeling connected; herd mode’.
Scientists operate as a group, as a society, a community, a congregation: a herd.
Scientists are trained/selected/conditioned/’accepted’, only iff they comply with consensus.
I find that strange, because consensus agrees on what is known, while science explores the unknown.
Stranger still I find the advocated and often acclaimed notion of “Objective Science”.
I looked into that, and found that Objective Science cannot, does not, exist.
Scientists create their devices and measurement based on subjective sensations and –opintions.
Agreement on findings, called fact, are never objective but always determined by (conditioned) consensus.
And I know that the Objects of science are linguistic Objects only: models, measurements, numbers, words.
The claim that what is written is true merely reminds me of the origin of science; the inquisition.
There was a time that people told people that the writ in a book was to be trusted and taken as true.
Many people have done so; jet when the same is done by other groups with other books, it is called a cult.
In my view a story in print, be it science or religion, journalism or a diary, is never true but merely a story.
Reality is Realisation
Quantum theory (an abstraction) is formed by a group of people presenting a different view/story.
Their model states that atoms are electromagnetic, thus we and the universe are at level.
Gone is classic determinism and relativistic relativism; indeterminable indeterminism takes its place.
But still that offers no means to establish what is real, or true; it is still merely a view and a story.
By introducing the term ‘hearsay’, we change the quality of the discourse of science.
Suddenly the measures for right and wrong (true and false) are ‘legal’, not ‘scientific’.
Suddenly it is explicit and clear that we are dealing with a word game, between people.
Suddenly it is evident that ‘measurements’ are mere arguments; and most often hearsay.
There is a vast difference between experience and description (i.e. between life and a story).
It is the difference between a model ‘reality’ on paper, and real realisation in our body.
It is the difference between a passive spectator outsider, and a conscious involved creator.
It is the difference between (vital) response-ability and (lethal) irresponsibility.
There is no reason to assume that science is either real or true or both.
That assumption blinds to the fact that science is an abstraction; a herd.
It puts the concept of science in a political arena/perspective/interpretation.
Where we must understand that the outcome/result is based on human interaction.
The (in)human factor
Human interaction in fact means the animal territorial instinctual antler-banter.
Wherein humans act like animals, humanimals, and sexual territorial animal aspects matter.
When looked at from a political perspective, scientific findings have political values.
And more evident on the background are the financial machinations and manipulations.
Scientists pretend that they, as scientists are not human (which makes them inhuman?).
The term ‘scientist’ and ‘scientific’ seems to imply a chaste, aloof and reliable priesthood.
A fraternity (and small sorority) in which (as in a frat-house) all members explicitly implicitly trust each other.
Which by the way is the breeding ground for treason and deception (by disrespect of individual Freedom of Choice).
“Science as Hearsay” opens a whole range of ideas which are otherwise not discussed.
The political, financial, juridical facets of science which are so often belied and denied.
The intrinsic animal manipulative competition for fame, status and money: tenure.
With the explicit implicit understanding that there is a secret corporate twin; richer and better.
There is great benefit in contemplating the idea of “Hearsay of Science”, and hearsay in science.
It becomes clear that what is said cannot be blindly trusted; and that judgement is subjective.
It illustrates that science is a ritual, just as is the case for finance, law, politics and religion.
And it is evident that what science offers most is not experience but a ‘fact’, a model, a story; “Hearsay”.
“Science as Hearsay” helps understand that science involves the art of confabulation.
Confabulation is the psychiatrists term for the making up of ‘knowledge’, as cover-up for ignorance.
Scientists deal with the unknown, and must consistently invent new explanations, new stories.
We must understand that phase of innovative science, where we try to get to know the unknown.
The activity of getting to know the unknown is like the experience which we had as embryo and baby.
As embryo, we formed our physical body; as science (scientists as group) we create a body of knowledge.
Each individual scientist must learn to ingest and digest information; with integrity, in health.
As a group, scientists form an organism, and (must) do the same at a larger scale of being.
Just as cells in our body and embryo communicate, scientist communicate in the body of science.
That communication, exchange of information, is based on subjective experience of each scientist.
Yet as soon as that information is passed on to others it is merely a report, hearsay of a myth.
That makes science as a whole a myth composed on hearsay of reports of experience.
It is only by knowing that science as such is a myth, composed of hearsay, that we can know more.
Only then can we gauge and assess the validity and integrity of the information in/of science.
Only then can we assess and address the reliability and usability of scientific information.
Because only then will we know, (for) ourselves, if what we know by hearsay can be experienced, by us.