Skip to content

  🧪

Science

Introduction

The word "science" may be derived from the Latin word "scienta" which means in German "das Wissen, die Kunde, die Kenntnis" and translated to English "knowledge, lore, cognition". The words from both translations have no plural form. But the word science directly translated into German means "Wissenschaft" which itself can't be literally represented by a single word in English but may be described as "embodiment of knowledge", which implies a possible plural form and also fits as commonality between the German and English meanings of "scienta". So science as a "body" points to an amount of knowledge-elements and not just to a single one. Thats how the intention to introduce and unify the plural of "knowledge, lore, cognition" may have led to the wrapping by one word called "science".

This chapter clarifies about the technique to discover the processes between knowledge (the fundamental entity inside the realm of theory) and its counterpart the phenomenon (the fundamental entity inside the realm of empiricism). The processes induced by and between these two realms are regulated by an interface, which opens the world for creating a solid pre-scientific method to evaluate scientific procedures. The function of science shall be nothing else then generating facts by truth (= inference), and it is important to emphasize at this moment, that these facts themselves are not the truth even when generated by truth, because the truth is much more than the facts derived from it. The human-initiated reduction of the truth to true facts will cut the facts from truth and legitimates for creating believes (illusions) corruptedly sold as truth by just extracting the true facts from the believe. The perfect analogy for the problems with facts is the fact as the tip of the iceberg, while the whole iceberg is the truth; now cut the tip of the iceberg from the rest of the iceberg and you will have isolated the fact from the truth and by the way no truth anymore. So remember that scientific facts by itself are therefore not the truth but shall be operated by truth; and therefore serve the truth, which the scienctific method is doing by excluding possibilities, those which are safe to be excluded after their evaluation (possibilities are more than facts, because they are context-realted). Science therefore may be safely marked as "The process of truth by excluding possibilities"; so don't get fooled into those games by others like: "That's a scientific fact and everything else, which don't consider the facts marked as theory, is not valid and thus bullshit", just after someone has presented a more or less worked-out new possibility; those games shall not work anymore, because science can not judge about possibilities by just taking true facts without adressing the same context (area of validity). A possibility, which embeds true facts inside a context, must be safely excluded by empirical testing or shall be replaced by another better possibility adressing the same context and not just by any exchangeable true facts. This will distinguish between the ignorant and the truthful operation; the end (fact) never justifies the means (the possibility, which embeds the facts inside a context).

The awareness of those possibilities is, what knowledge is about, and something which is not considered in science. Science officially sadly focusses on facts, whose replaceability is a weak point of corruption; and what science mistakenly calls knowledge, are facts by definition. For inspecting possibilities, science not only needs to put the yet to be tested theory into the context of the desired question, but shall also force the main picture (status quo) into retrospection (see method of retroduction at the end of this chapter).

The first step for providing a system of examining and excluding possibilities is the unification of three selected systems, which interfere with science and is at the same time capable of regulating each other:

  1. System of Rationality
  2. Epistemology (= theory of knowledge)
  3. Information Technology

Why these three systems and not just one? Because they altogether share science as domain to test their models, so it becomes meaningful to unleash all three systems on the same object of interest and to review, if their results are complementary or in disagreement with each other.

While Rationality is in itself the technique of science, information technology uses pure logics. Between both resides epistemology, which originates from philosophy and uses also the technique of logics as interface to rational questions. If all three keep watching at science without resulting contradiction, then you have brought a solid, universal and self-maintaining inspecting and sorting framework into being, that approves the scientific scope.

You might have noticed above that not one but two interfaces (between knowledge [theory] & phenomenon [empiricism]; rationality [system of rationality] & logics [IT]) have been already indicated, one embedded inside another, and thats why the interrelation can be beautifully visualized by two nested Vesica Piscis.

Science – and its area of validity

The Hypothesis and Axiome have something for the most part in common: They both are disposition of possibilities. But the lesser part, which distinguishes both from each other, is the only significant "micro-state" that tells you, if the disposition behind it qualifies for a scientific process or not. Only those dispositions of possibilities, that are testable, qualify for scientific explorations. Hypotheses are the only dispositions, which are directly testable, while axiomes – although not directly testable – provide hypotheses by derivation, which again can be tested. So you may entitle axiomes as "indirectly" testable. The belief instead is just a claim, a proposition, which will be sold as fact and even as truth, and thus neither the scope of science nor related to it. Remember from the topic before: The true fact does not legitimate the claim of facts, even if the fact turns out to be true. Claiming of facts is not an operation of truth, if claims are stated as facts. 

graph RL   

  subgraph **Science area**
  direction RL
    A[(Hypothesis)]-->|Verification| D[Theory];
    A -->|Falsification| E[Myth];
  end  

  subgraph **non-science area**  
  direction TB
    B[(Axiome)];
    C[(Belief)];
  end

  B -.->|Corollary| A;


Rationality – the technique of science

Before diving into the science-chapters the clarification of the next lower-level terminology – namely about the most inflationary used word but only technique inside the area of scientific validity – shall be given and internalized.

An universal conceivable definition of rationality

Rationality lays the foundation for the insight by providing knowledge with a classification and frame of reference.


The translation into a schematic diagram looks precisely like this:

Rationality – its operational area and general purpose

In summarizing words

Rationality is a unique technique to create insights out of knowledge.

The classification and frame of reference will be integrated into the knowledge, because both are indispensable for assigning (declaring) its area of validity consisting of one for the model-based (systemized) theory and the other for the experimental environment.

Question:           Shall I walk at red light?

Knowledge:          Traffic regulations
Classification :    Crosswalk with Traffic light and cars
Frame of Reference: Crosswalk-situation (default routine without exceptions)

Insight:            No, there is no obvious reason to walk at red light. 
                    Also it is safer to walk at green light!   

Question:           Shall I walk at red light?

Knowledge:          Traffic regulations
Classification :    Crosswalk with Traffic light and cars
Frame of Reference: Crosswalk-situation (confused kid in middle of the crosswalk in danger)

Insight:            It it usually safer to walk at green light! But if you 
                    keep staying at the traffic light, the kid could be a victim
                    for being hit by a car.
                    So there is a risk but an obvious reason to walk at red 
                    light, in which the person could rescue the kid's life.


The case knowledge = insight does not exist in the real world and is an ideal conception. For a knowledge element to be an exact synonymous for an insight the observing entity would require to be omniscient \((n = {\infty})\) and all-encompassing in each of all existing frames of reference \((FoR = {\infty})\). This boundary case of infinity may be described as following formular:

\[ \sum_{FoR=1}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} Knowledge_{n,\,FoR} = Omniscience \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad Knowledge_n = Insight_n \]

The classification (map of knowledge) as a function of knowledge would approximate to a constant:

\[ Classification(Omniscience) = \lim\limits_{n\to\infty} Classification_n = Classification_\infty = Constant \]

So when being omniscient the classification would own an universal validity and be expressed as a unique constant (like a full-explored map of theory with its non-modifiable sections), which is crucial for perfectly adapting by assimilation. The FoR also needs be considered as the empiric environment to adapt to by solely applying the unique and certain (classified) knowledge on. Only the process of learning (adapting by accomodation) would leave the classification modifiable and expandable again but that process is trivial in the state of omniscience.

Two critical questions (one brought by the other) might rise, while discovering the figure above; one of them: Why would insights be created out of knowledge but not vice versa?

The answer helps clarify the term insight: Knowledge can not be created out of insights when the insight is already the rational outcome of the trinity of knowledge, classification and FoR. So for archieving new knowledge another element – not considered inside the figure above – not depending on the rational system but being its diverging cause (induction) or converging effect (deduction) will be needed, and thats the phenomenon. Fundamentally the empiric observation of a new phenomena is always required on the way of creating new knowledge, and that knowledge after being declared by classification and FoR would then lead to new insights; thats the way to read the scheme above, in which potential knowledge has to be verified first – previously either by induction or deduction – along with being declared and related to a phenomenon in the process of verification before capable of reinforcing its awaiting or new insight.

Another question rises about the so called phenomenon; where is it hiding inside the figure above?

Purpose of classification and the relation to the phenomenon through the frame of reference (= FoR) as interface-endpoint

The answer is intriguing at first: The phenomenon is not contained inside the figure above and won't fit unless it will be expanded into epistemology. It is connected with the FoR, because they both share the empiricism, but at the same time it is an element of the so called "declared theory" (knowledge + classification + FoR). To explain in advance (final topic): The FoR is the bridge (endpoint) enabling the phenomenon to relate to the theory (knowledge + classification) and is available to both realms (theory + empiricism) and therefore representing an even better process-interface, when more high-level knowledge obtained inside the classification specifies to less phenomena. So a perfect assignment of one or many FoR (a perfect endpoint) would be determined by concisely classified high-level knowledge only connecting to a single phenomenon; thats by the way is the purpose of classification.

This interface is not considered by conventional epistemology and shall later be implemented in detail as fruit of the whole chapter.

Mapping of Science by the Rational System, Epistemology and IT

In this topic we dive deeper by zooming-in and expanding the Rational System. This will be done by adding epistemology at first and then the terminology of IT carefully to it. Before going into the interactions between all three realms lets first list their qualities separate from each other:

Rationality Science Science (detailed) IT
Knowledge Theory By induction: New verified hypothesis; by deduction: Old verified hypothesis Definition
Classification Theory Sorting-Algorithm, by which the knowledge-elements will be sorted / categorized into models Declaration
Frame of Reference Empiricism Micro- or Macrocosmos (in general: Environment of experiment) Declaration
Phenomenon Empiricism Observable-element inside the Frame of Reference -------------
Insight In general: Rational quintessence; By induction: New declared theory behind questioned phenomenon; by deduction: New Phenomenon behind its corroborative and declared theory -------------

The analogon to IT is as follows: When the Source Code (= amount of knowledge) grows the declaration won't be obvious anymore and the distinguishing between its definition (= knowledge-element) and declaration (e.g. classification) becomes essential. The same knowledge-element may appear in different classes but be related to different phenomena, and this is the reason why the definition containing complex knowledge doesn't self-evidently provide its declaration.

Generally speaking about the Rational System, it is valid to say:

An analogy for clarifying about the Rational System

The Knowledge relates to the Classification as the Phenomenon to the Frame of Reference.


In the gold standard of epistemology theory and empiricism share its information through the process of induction and deduction. Now if the system of rationality is added to that, then by definitions presented we need to arrange knowledge & classification inside the realm of theory and FoR & phenomenon inside the realm of empiricism, while keeping the declaration-arrows (dark blue) pointing at knowledge in order to keep epistemology rational.

Rational System combined with epistemology – as commonly taught


Now another conflict rises after fusing the rational system with epistemology by looking at the deduction-process: How may someone deduce empiricism from theory, if at the same time a single element from the realm of theory depends on another element from empriricsm?

It is a logical short circuit to explain the cause with its effect. It is simply not allowed in terms of causality and a scientific time-depending process always contains causality.

For this reason another way of the fusing the rational system with epistemology is the introduction of the "declared theory". Instead of dividing by theory & empiricisms we focus on declared theory & phenomenon, in which between the process of induction and deduction takes place.

The difference lies in a greater declaration of theory and thus in its complex fingerprint and its unmistakable specific relation to a single phenomenon .

That means that the verification of a hypothesis must now identify as true-declared theory – instead of insolently speaking of "true theory" – induced by / deduced to the phenomenon and synthesized to an insight.

Rational System combined with epistemology – now sorted from an IT's point of view. Another specification has been created for the theory (now becoming a "declared theory") by the frame of reference decoupling from the phenomenon


Diving deeper into the framework for mapping of Science

Now considering our analysis above of the rational system, information technology and common epistemology and its fusion altogether has lead to reconsidering epistemology and will consequently generate an framework for mapping of science-contents.

For this we look at two figures again and precise its deviation further.


The contradiction between both figures lies again on the FoR with two different tasks we need to make complementary when fusing into one figure. The FoR is not only a knowledge-declaring element but also an interface-endpoint, that the induction-/deduction-process flows into/from. Bringing both natures of FoR unambigiously together will fuse into the following and completed figure:

Final fusion of the Rational System, Epistemology and IT


Retroduction – The third fundamental mode of reasoning?

While reading about the offical meaning of induction and deduction and expressing it as two sides of the same coin and even advancing it by combining with other valid systems, I came across the introduction of a third kind of process, which has been later adopted into the debate: Retroduction. In short, It is a way of saying, that induction is not capable of creating new knowledge (inference of a rule) and deduction is not capable of discovering new phenomena (inference of a result) without considering a hypothesis (inference of a case) in between. So to solve this, they "adopt" a hypothesis in between – as new destination of both processes – to justify the evaluation of a still persevering theory by just working backwards from what is known to the phenomenon (induction & deduction together). This provisional adoption of a hypothesis, to which both induction & deduction are instead now heading, shall be called retroduction.

I don't see how retroduction differs from the analysis on this chapter, that would make such a terminology necessary? The "declared theory" is always a theory declared by the case, which is in our model the Frame of Reference (= FoR). The case is therefore a synonym for the hypothesis, the FoR and the interface-endpoint, through which the declared theory synchronizes with the phenomenon logically. This is only possible, because this interface-endpoint does not only belong to the declared theory but also to the realm of empiricism, which is also inhabited by the phenomenon. But the difference between the official methods of reasoning and the method presented on this chapter is, that the result is independend from the case, because the case does not declare the phenomenon; instead the phenomenon is existing by its own, but appearing in specific cases. The rule instead is in itself case-specific, always heading for accurate prediction of phenomena, which does not mean, that phenomena themselves are case-specific; they are just disclosing themselves in specific cases, even when from the rule's point of view the phenomenon is modeled as specific outcome. There is truth in the detail about the phenomena, but a rule is just the modeling, an image of this truth; thats why the phenomenon never subordinates to the rule. That means as a whole, that the rule is the only quality, that depends on the case and this consquently means for retroduction, that while it supplies the system with cases by asking the right questions the rule gets more and more forced to be evaluated in retrospect and this evaluation proceeds, but not by changing the direction of the deduction & induction process towards the case (not the official arrows pointing to the inference of the case, but the same arrows pointing to the different realms explained in this chapter), which in the best case will bring a change of paradigm. Its like saying, we now instead induce & deduce to infer a FoR by first adopting the FoR. This doesn't take the necessity of a third method of reasoning, because both methods of reasoning always consider the case, which is the FoR, and wether be it the cause or the effect in the process of reasoning will not change the direction of these induction & deduction arrows between declared theory and the phenomenon, either entering or exiting through the FoR as explained in this chapter. So the term retroduction is trivial when it is already a synonym for generating or infering of cases, always necessary and included as cause or "adopted" effect as being the interface-endpoint of both reasoning methods without changing their process-direction (unlike the official method of reasoning); and by the way: Generating cases to challenge the current state of art by true phenomena shall not need any justification.

I have a hard time to agree on the official story, when the initiation of both processes (induction & deduction) already implies the "human" as initiator of cases, so it would be trivial to create a new term for including a kind of "super-induction" and "super-deduction" with its own logic, only to explain how to get free from circling between "usual" induction & deduction, when you have no challenging cases anymore. Out of reasoning itself yon creative idea will be born, that solve the apparently endless circling around the solution, because reasoning – in whichever mode of reasoning – doesn't compulsively exclude creativity. Following an idea is a decision, and that decision – wether reasonable or not – shall be in any case either thrown out or perfectly carried by going through and mastering this dual process-nature of science for reaching the same goal, the solution, which creates another but new feedback circle as knowledge grows; not even once a word about "retroduction".

But again: The answer is only as good as the question, which implies the answer; two sides of the same coin. If the question is bad, then induction & deduction won't compensate for a better answer. So change the question, and you will be happy after the induction & deduction of its answer. Now call the justification of asking a better question "retroduction" and you get a picture of this comedy.

In other words: The official term "retroduction" has been created to give the narrow but "justified" induction & deduction process a new degree of freedom (from old circle to new circle of induction & dedcution), which will be fed by "adopted" hypothesis only justified by creativity about facts. Period.

To get the original idea of retroduction on your own look for "Collected Papers of Charkes Sanders Peirce" and more simplistic RAMESES II Project

Conclusion

Comparing the three single systems (Rational System, Epistemology and IT) with their joint fusion leads to following three insight:

The induction- / deduction-process can not directly request a theory (knowledge + classification) but only access the endpoint to the "declared theory" (knowledge + classification + FoR), an endpoint called Frame of Reference (FoR), which then points to the theory. Thereby the FoR becomes an obligation in the scientific process of induction and deduction, which is nothing new, when the FoR stands as synonym for the word "case" from methods of reasoning; the second news are, that the "declared theory" implicates the strong linkage between the rule and case, because the rule is always case-specific (no rule without case), and that makes the third method of reasoning (retroduction) obsolete, for the other both methods will always point to the case in every process (retroduction implicit present). The third insight concerns the phenomenon (result), which is independent from the case. This independency must be always considered in the thought-process, before corruption sneaks into the process. The fact, that induction involves result & case, stays true, but this does not mean, that the phenomenon (result) needs the case for being a result. The knowledge (rule) instead requires the case for existing as "declared theory".

Considering the above-mentioned for discovery & recovery will make scientific theory incorruptable, caused by considering the uncertainty between theory and declared theory, between general and specific and by being transparent, when sharing scientific values. Yes, science is about reproduction of the phenomenon and its theoretic classification, but this implies optimizing the interface in between by considering the FoR, the hypothesis or in other words the "retroductional" evaluation-element intrinsicly contained inside the induction & deduction process (not the other way around as officially stated), which perfects the interface and narrows the gap between theory and empiricism. Only then shall science confidently talk about knowledge and insights, which indeed will then reflect the truth about the phenomena.

Hereby the introduction to the Science-chapter ends. Don't hesitate and feel free to contact me for rising questions, spotted ambiguities and feedback.

Credits Contact Privacy Statement