“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

Those are my views on your book. You may take it it or leave it as you see fit. Neither here nor there for me I am not invested in any of it.

I'm really not interested in your particular views. I didn't come hear to try to persuade you. You don't even have to be here if you don't want to be. I won't be offended if you leave.

Right back at ya. In your comeback post you said you reduced price to stimulate inyerest, how has that worked for you? After 3000 posts same arguments and sane response.

I see. Your ground breaking ideas are being held back by the 'higher ups'.

When the merits of the arguments are not good enough, claim a conspiracy.

Einstein's ideas on Relativity initially got little traction as being too far out with no observational and experimental evidence. Today it is mainstream science.

You don't just write a book or paper and demand acceptance. You start at the bottom and work your way up.

There arr no 'higher ups' who decide as an agency. You have to work to get a consensus about your ideas.

You are not getting past us here, you not going to make it through a footfall peer review.

You would need controlled experimental proof that can be repeated by anyone.

Downstream you claimed one of the ideas was proven by using a hose cat, laughable.

I don't have any advanced degrees, but for a masters or PHD you do a written thesis and then defend it orally.

I know what it is like as an engineer to get up in a room full of people and defend a position and sell an idea. It can be brutal if you are not prepared to answer questions.

There is no pope of science, you have to convince enough people of your ideas to get acceptance.

The onus is on you to convince us, not on us to understand you.

 

[peacegirl]

We are taught to think that the people higher up in status or rank are infallible and what they say is the only thing that can be said.

Speak for yourself.

I was taught to be cynical and skeptical, particularly of those in positions of authority.

We are taught to think that the people higher up in status or rank are infallible and what they say is the only thing that can be said.

Speak for yourself.

I was taught to be cynical and skeptical, particularly of those in positions of authority.

This statement was a generalization. It was not directed at you personally.

 

[bilby]

This statement was a generalization.

But it's not generally true. So it's a bad generalisation.

If it's true of you personally, then you have my sympathy.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

Those are my views on your book. You may take it it or leave it as you see fit. Neither here nor there for me I am not invested in any of it.

I'm really not interested in your particular views. I didn't come hear to try to persuade you. You don't even have to be here if you don't want to be. I won't be offended if you leave.

Right back at ya. In your comeback post you said you reduced price to stimulate inyerest, how has that worked for you? After 3000 posts same arguments and sane response.

I see. Your ground breaking ideas are being held back by the 'higher ups'.

Yes, to a degree because he couldn't get his foot in the door. He could not reach the higher ups because we live in a hierarchal system where it's hard to present your case unless you are credentialed and already known. It's a huge dilemma for an autodidact, as he was.

When the merits of the arguments are not good enough, claim a conspiracy.

What merits of the argument are not good enough? Shouldn't you know what the argument is before passing judgment?

Einstein's ideas on Relativity initially got little traction as being too far out with no observational and experimental evidence. Today it is mainstream science.

Yep, and that will happen in this case but how long it will take is not up to me. This knowledge disrupts the entire status quo. It's a complete paradigm shift for the better.

You don't just write a book or paper and demand acceptance. You start at the bottom and work your way up.

Who just wrote a paper and demanded acceptance? You didn't even read the first page where he explained that it took him years to put what he discovered into the kind of language others would understand. I can't win with this group.

There arr no 'higher ups' who decide as an agency. You have to work to get a consensus about your ideas.

There are gatekeepers who hold a degree of power over anyone who is not one of them. They are called "academicians and professors." It's an easy way for them to weed out the cranks, but sadly, in some cases the baby may be thrown out with the bathwater.

You are not getting past us here, you not going to make it through a footfall peer review.

I have people reviewing the book. I'm not depending on anyone here. I know it's a lost cause.

You would need controlled experimental proof that can be repeated by anyone.

The debate over free will and determinism cannot be replicated like a typical science experiment. That is why careful observation, as part of epistemology, is so important here. These principles can be tested in a simulated environment but it wouldn't be necessary because the two-sided equation he provides is foolproof, similar to mathematical equations that allow astronauts to reach their destination --- are foolproof.

Downstream you claimed one of the ideas was proven by using a hose cat, laughable.

A hose cat? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't have any advanced degrees, but for a masters or PHD you do a written thesis and then defend it orally.

This is what I'm talking about regarding gatekeeping. Someone outside of the system will have a very hard time even if what they have is genuine.

I know what it is like as an engineer to get up in a room full of people and defend a position and sell an idea. It can be brutal if you are not prepared to answer questions.

The author would have spoken in front of anyone. He actually did speak at a university. He did everything he could but he was ahead of his time.

There is no pope of science, you have to convince enough people of your ideas to get acceptance.

True. And the subject matter is hard enough as it is let alone trying to convince the world that man's will is not free and why it holds the key to lasting peace.

The onus is on you to convince us, not on us to understand you.

I can only do so much. I have given my all and I have nothing left in my toolbox. I even gave the first three chapters and no one, not a single person, has even read it or asked a relevant question. It is true that if his propositions are wrong, then his conclusions would be wrong as well, but his propositions have not been proven wrong, and until then, it would be refreshing to see anyone even a little bit curious. It's shocking to me that no one has even opened the cover. They just can't believe some unknown on the internet with claims such as his could be onto something. Here is the link again. I'm not staying here if this type of feedback is all I get, ad nauseum.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[peacegirl]

This statement was a generalization.

But it's not generally true. So it's a bad generalisation.

If it's true of you personally, then you have my sympathy.

It's not true of me, but it is true generally speaking. We live in a judgmental society, and if you don't have the "right" credentials, you are not considered worthy of their time.

 

[pood]

@peacegirl it is simply not true that no one read the first three chapters, and you know it. People have read them, and explained to what is wrong with them. This has happened at numerous message boards for 25 years.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl it is simply not true that no one read the first three chapters, and you know it. People have read them, and explained to what is wrong with them. This has happened at numerous message boards for 25 years.Tk

This has to be a joke. You don't like his claim regarding the eyes. This is all what it's about. Stop playing games and admit that you are angry because if he is right, your WORLDVIEW, comes to an end.

 

[pood]

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking his claim about the eyes. It has to do with the fact that his claim is WRONG, and spectacularly so.

 

[southernhybrid]

No offense to you personally, Peacegirl, but out of morbid curiosity I went to Amazon to read the free sample of the book. Imo, it was horrible, difficult to understand the author's point and boring. I could barely finish one page. Then I read the 2 reviews. One person really liked the book and the other one said something like it was a terrible book with absurd ideas. There is no way I could mange to read almost 600 pages of a book like that, even if it was free.

You keep telling us that what is in the book will bring everlasting peace or something like that. That makes no sense at all. Humans evolved as animals who are often prone to violence and war. Of course not all of us have those tendencies, as we are each genetically different. And, we each have different influences in our lives and some people suffer from psychopathy, a brain disorder that leaves one without empathy, often leading to violence and cruelty. There is no effective cure for that.

The first thing I learned while studying to become a professional nurse was never to judge my patients and to provide all of them with the highest quality of care possible. I did my best to do that for the 42 years I worked as an RN, but perhaps my greatest reward, outside of things like watching severe wounds healed, etc., was the appreciation I received for advocating for my patients.

I've worked with nurses who were judgmental and didn't always provide quality of care. I know that because I also worked in QA for years and had to evaluate their care. Why is it that some medical professionals are caring and nurturing while some are like the character of Nurse Ratchet in the old movie, "One flew over the Coukoo's Nest"? I won't even get started as to the arrogance of some doctors. How is a book going to change a person's character? It makes no sense to me? How is someone's viewpoint regarding free will going to bring us peace?

I think I mentioned way earlier in this thread that the idea reminded me of my ex husband's religion. Bahai's believed that world peace would be accomplished by the year 2000. That didn't happen, so they also have a belief if it didn't happen by then the world would struggle for more decades before establishing the so called "Most Great Peace". It's just a fairy tale, and in my opinion, what you are claiming also sounds like a fairy tale, not a scientifically based concept.

Of course there are people who lack academic credentials who are very smart and sometimes invent things, but you're not taking about someone who invented something useful. It's more like you're describing someone who has decided that after his own research, without anyone else checking how he came to his conclusions, is making an extreme conclusion. That is not how science works. It has to be tested and examined and tried out again and again. And, sadly, some scientists are biased. I've read about that. That is why science needs a lot of people checking and rechecking results.

That is how we develop new medical treatments. For example, when I was a young nurse, heart failure was always treated with Lasix, a strong diuretic and Digoxin, a medication that strengthens the heart beat. Both have many potential side effects but were somewhat effective. As time went by, new medications were developed that were better tolerated and even more effective. I've been out of practice for too long to tell you exactly how its treated now, but my point is that a lot of science isn't static. It changes as more information is gathered and studied. Of course, as a former nurse, I'm more interested in medical science than in other areas of science, but it seems to me that the concept of free will isn't a science. it's related to philosophy and now that we have science, I don't see much need for that, other than to enjoy what I call mental masturbation. We may enjoy discussing and arguing about these topics but all it does is gives us some mental stimulation without accomplishing much of anything. At least that's how I see it. I still agree that we should try not to judge others harshly. Even our psychopathic president can't help who he is, but someone like him should not be in charge of a country. He should be in a place to protect us from him. No book is going to change a psychopath.

I sincerely hope you will find better ways to spend your time and read a lot of other books to help enrich your life. I don't think your obsession with this book is healthy.

 

[peacegirl]

No offense to you personally, Peacegirl, but out of morbid curiosity I went to Amazon to read the free sample of the book. Imo, it was horrible, difficult to understand the author's point and boring. I could barely finish one page. Then I read the 2 reviews. One person really liked the book and the other one said something like it was a terrible book with absurd ideas. There is no way I could mange to read almost 600 pages of a book like that, even if it was free.

You barely finished one page? What page was it southern bird? And you listened to a horrible review when it was never purchased? If this is what you use to judge a book, I beg you not to read it.

You keep telling us that what is in the book will bring everlasting peace or something like that. That makes no sense at all. Humans evolved as animals who are often prone to violence and war. Of course not all of us have those tendencies, as we are each genetically different. And, we each have different influences in our lives and some people suffer from psychopathy, a brain disorder that leaves one without empathy, often leading to violence and cruelty. There is no effective cure for that.

I understand that everyone is genetically different but we all are born with a developing conscience. To say that some people are cruel and violent no matter what the environmental conditions contribute is being very shortsighted. So instead, why not question rather than tell me you know better than the author.

The first thing I learned while studying to become a professional nurse was never to judge my patients and to provide all of them with the highest quality of care possible. I did my best to do that for the 42 years I worked as an RN, but perhaps my greatest reward, outside of things like watching severe wounds healed, etc., was the appreciation I received for advocating for my patients.

I think that's wonderful. You have a lot to be proud of! Nursing is tough but the rewards can be great.

I've worked with nurses who were judgmental and didn't always provide quality of care. I know that because I also worked in QA for years and had to evaluate their care. Why is it that some medical professionals are caring and nurturing while some are like the character of Nurse Ratchet in the old movie, "One flew over the Coukoo's Nest"? I won't even get started as to the arrogance of some doctors. How is a book going to change a person's character? It makes no sense to me? How is someone's viewpoint regarding free will going to bring us peace?

The book doesn't change a person's character but it does change the environment where a person's character either blossoms or festers if there is hurt involved. People growing up in unfavorable conditions are often angry and they take it out in many ways. It's no surprise.

I think I mentioned way earlier in this thread that the idea reminded me of my ex husband's religion. Bahai's believed that world peace would be accomplished by the year 2000. That didn't happen, so they also have a belief if it didn't happen by then the world would struggle for more decades before establishing the so called "Most Great Peace". It's just a fairy tale, and in my opinion, what you are claiming also sounds like a fairy tale, not a scientifically based concept.

It IS scientifically based or I wouldn't be going through this. Please don't compare this to your husband's bahai religion. This is not a religion; it has no biases; and even though it sounds like a fairytale, it is not.

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could appear like a fairytale; otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand it much better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader friendly as possible. There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and extending the principles in a more cohesive fashion, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand, it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace, reading many things over and over again. When you have finally grasped the full significance and magnitude of this work and further realize there has never been and will never be another like it because of what is undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

Of course there are people who lack academic credentials who are very smart and sometimes invent things, but you're not taking about someone who invented something useful. It's more like you're describing someone who has decided that after his own research, without anyone else checking how he came to his conclusions, is making an extreme conclusion. That is not how science works. It has to be tested and examined and tried out again and again. And, sadly, some scientists are biased. I've read about that. That is why science needs a lot of people checking and rechecking results.

I am not against people checking his claims through other means, but they won't even get to that point. They are so cocksure he has nothing of value that there is no convincing them. I am speaking for people here only.

That is how we develop new medical treatments. For example, when I was a young nurse, heart failure was always treated with Lasix, a strong diuretic and Digoxin, a medication that strengthens the heart beat. Both have many potential side effects but were somewhat effective. As time went by, new medications were developed that were better tolerated and even more effective. I've been out of practice for too long to tell you exactly how its treated now, but my point is that a lot of science isn't static. It changes as more information is gathered and studied. Of course, as a former nurse, I'm more interested in medical science than in other areas of science, but it seems to me that the concept of free will isn't a science. it's related to philosophy and now that we have science, I don't see much need for that, other than to enjoy what I call mental masturbation. We may enjoy discussing and arguing about these topics but all it does is gives us some mental stimulation without accomplishing much of anything. At least that's how I see it. I still agree that we should try not to judge others harshly. Even our psychopathic president can't help who he is, but someone like him should not be in charge of a country. He should be in a place to protect us from him. No book is going to change a psychopath.

It is true that science is not static. We need science. The only thing that changes is the environment which has a huge impact on how one's personality and character are developed. You are incorrect to think that the discussion over free will and determinism is unimportant. Why do people care about it after thousands of years then? Because it affects how we treat one another and how our criminal justice system works. It appears that you have made up your mind that this work must be a fake. It's okay. I still wish you all the best in life!

I sincerely hope you will find better ways to spend your time and read a lot of other books to help enrich your life. I don't think your obsession with this book is healthy.

I am not obsessed. I know what this man has. I have read many many books, probably more than you. Thanks for your opinion but opinions don't mean much. Just like the saying goes: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

 

[peacegirl]

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking his claim about the eyes. It has to do with the fact that his claim is WRONG, and spectacularly so.

Says the person who believes bees can identify faces.

 

[pood]

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking his claim about the eyes. It has to do with the fact that his claim is WRONG, and spectacularly so.

Says the person who believes bees can identify faces.

Bees recognize human faces.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

As somebody just posted it is not about like or dislike, it is about the science.

The book makes no sense in terns of proven science and offers no repeatable experiments to demonstrate principles.

The book is not well written regardless of the truth of it. It sounded like he thumbed through philosophy and science and in isolation thought he made a ground breaking discovery,

Again Einstein. He did not work in isolation. He had peer reviews over the course of developing relativity. Peers to help find errors and problems in the theory.

Theoretical science and probably professional philosophy as well is a very competitive area. You have to compete with peers to advance your ideas and you have to be able to defend yourself.

Science debate on the forum is generally informal. Professional competition is another dimension. I would not debate on a more formal science forum, I am not up to it.

I would say your father’s ideas today would be under experimental cognitive psychology. You should be able to find videos of experiments in perceptions in cognitive psychology. That will give you an idea of what it takes to support a claim in modern science.

After all the years you have to consider your dad’s book is without merit.

 

[peacegirl]

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking his claim about the eyes. It has to do with the fact that his claim is WRONG, and spectacularly so.

Says the person who believes bees can identify faces.

This is so funny to me because training a bee to see patterns (possibly) is not true recognition. It’s like the lever experiment. This is so far out it’s laughable that you think this proves light is bringing an image to the eye. How desperate can you get?

 

[steve_bank]

Pattern recognition is common in many species. It is a function of brain, aka neural net.

In higher order species facial recognition is part of flight or fight. A horse has to decide whetherr to run or fight depending on reading facial expressions.

Crows are known to remember individual humans, and to be able to pass the sense of a threat to other crows.

Caught on video. A car ran over a baboon. When the car drove through the baboon's group area they threw rocks at it.

Had not heard of it before, bees can be trained to recognize faces through a reward process, like giving a dog a treat to reinforce behavior.

Us humans train ourselves.....operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Operant conditioning originated with Edward Thorndike, whose law of effect theorised that behaviors arise as a result of consequences as satisfying or discomforting. In the 20th century, operant conditioning was studied by behavioral psychologists, who believed that much of mind and behaviour is explained through environmental conditioning. Reinforcements are environmental stimuli that increase behaviors, whereas punishments are stimuli that decrease behaviors. Both kinds of stimuli can be further categorised into positive and negative stimuli, which respectively involve the addition or removal of environmental stimuli.

Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning in both mechanism and outcome. While classical conditioning pairs stimuli to produce involuntary, reflexive behaviors (like salivating at food), operant conditioning shapes voluntary behaviors through their consequences. Actions followed by rewards tend to be repeated, while those followed by negative outcomes diminish.

The study of animal learning in the 20th century was dominated by the analysis of these two sorts of learning,[1] and they are still at the core of behavior analysis. They have also been applied to the study of social psychology, helping to clarify certain phenomena such as the false consensus effect.[2]

Repetitive TV ads are conditioning. When one sees the image of a fast food burger one wants to go get one.

Not much different then Pavlov conditioning dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell.

In Ivan Pavlov's famous experiment, dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell. Initially, the bell was a neutral stimulus, but after repeatedly pairing it with food (an unconditioned stimulus), the dogs began to salivate in response to the bell alone. This learned response is called classical conditioning

We do it to ourselves.

Pavlov's experiment is a prime example of demonstration of a theory. Lacking in your father;s book.

Peacegirl, perhaps you were conditioned from when you were young and impressionable by your father. Day in and day out listening to your father claim it was bias that held him back?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

As somebody just posted it is not about like or dislike, it is about the science.

This is science. It's not the scientific method that you're thinking of, which I already explained cannot be done. These were astute observations. Science can't prove through the scientific method that light carries the image or the wavelength (so to speak) through space and time over long distances. It remains a theory. But try to debate them, and they would tar and feather you if they could.

The book makes no sense in terns of proven science and offers no repeatable experiments to demonstrate principles.

That's all you keep saying. It's like you're not hearing me.

The book is not well written regardless of the truth of it. It sounded like he thumbed through philosophy and science and in isolation thought he made a ground breaking discovery,

WTF! You have no clue what he knew and what a voracious reader and philosopher he was.

Again Einstein. He did not work in isolation. He had peer reviews over the course of developing relativity. Peers to help find errors and problems in the theory.

This knowledge doesn't need affirmation by a peer, because the knowledge is as valid as two plus two equals four, and we don't need validation for that. And please don't tell me that 2 plus 2 is not four. I don't want to hear it.

This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition, and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet.

Theoretical science and probably professional philosophy as well is a very competitive area. You have to compete with peers to advance your ideas and you have to be able to defend yourself.

This is not about competition. I am only asking people who are interested in this topic to read the book. Determinism isn't even the discovery; it is the gateway that leads to the discovery.

Science debate on the forum is generally informal. Professional competition is another dimension. I would not debate on a more formal science forum, I am not up to it.

I would say your father’s ideas today would be under experimental cognitive psychology. You should be able to find videos of experiments in perceptions in cognitive psychology. That will give you an idea of what it takes to support a claim in modern science.

Sapolsky and Harris are both philosophers that deal with this subject matter. The author did say this is a psychological law of our nature, which could fit into a category of cognitive psychology as well. I have no problem with that.

After all the years you have to consider your dad’s book is without merit.

Completely ridiculous. It's not without merit. All you're doing is grasping at straws to discredit him, when you haven't even attempted to open the cover .

 

[peacegirl]

Pattern recognition is common in many species. It is a function of brain, aka neural net.

In higher order species facial recognition is part of flight or fight. A horse has to decide whetherr to run or fight depending on reading facial expressions.

Crows are known to remember individual humans, and to be able to pass the sense of a threat to other crows.

Caught on video. A car ran over a baboon. When the car drove through the baboon's group area they threw rocks at it.

Had not heard of it before, bees can be trained to recognize faces through a reward process, like giving a dog a treat to reinforce behavior.

Us humans train ourselves.....operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Operant conditioning originated with Edward Thorndike, whose law of effect theorised that behaviors arise as a result of consequences as satisfying or discomforting. In the 20th century, operant conditioning was studied by behavioral psychologists, who believed that much of mind and behaviour is explained through environmental conditioning. Reinforcements are environmental stimuli that increase behaviors, whereas punishments are stimuli that decrease behaviors. Both kinds of stimuli can be further categorised into positive and negative stimuli, which respectively involve the addition or removal of environmental stimuli.

Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning in both mechanism and outcome. While classical conditioning pairs stimuli to produce involuntary, reflexive behaviors (like salivating at food), operant conditioning shapes voluntary behaviors through their consequences. Actions followed by rewards tend to be repeated, while those followed by negative outcomes diminish.

The study of animal learning in the 20th century was dominated by the analysis of these two sorts of learning,[1] and they are still at the core of behavior analysis. They have also been applied to the study of social psychology, helping to clarify certain phenomena such as the false consensus effect.[2]

Repetitive TV ads are conditioning. When one sees the image of a fast food burger one wants to go get one.

Not much different then Pavlov conditioning dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell.

In Ivan Pavlov's famous experiment, dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell. Initially, the bell was a neutral stimulus, but after repeatedly pairing it with food (an unconditioned stimulus), the dogs began to salivate in response to the bell alone. This learned response is called classical conditioning

We do it to ourselves.

Pavlov's experiment is a prime example of demonstration of a theory. Lacking in your father;s book.

Peacegirl, perhaps you were conditioned from when you were young and impressionable by your father. Day in and day out listening to your father claim it was bias that held him back?

it wasn't even bias really. Like I said, he couldn't get his foot in the door, and when he did talk to Durant, and a few professors, his knowledge was beyond the framework of their thinking at that time. One professor said he did have a discovery but it would take thousands of years to come to fruition. He may have been right at this rate. He was truly ahead of his time. I understand operant and classical conditioning, but distinguishing between human faces is not what dogs or bees can do. They need other cues that tell them who you are, such as your voice or your gait or your smell, or even the sound of your car as it turns the corner which is an association, but they cannot identify you from a picture. a cardboard image, or even a computer without their sense of smell or hearing. This can easily be tested.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl

As somebody just posted it is not about like or dislike, it is about the science.

This is science.

No, it’s not.

It's not the scientific method that you're thinking of, which I already explained cannot be done.

Then it ain’t science! Though there is not one “scientific method” either.

 

[steve_bank]

It is very much competition for recognition in the 'marketplace of ideas'.

The book fails scientifically and logical and philisphcaly.

Anyone can iere an observation and make a claim.

Think about what you said. He made a astute overvaluation but it can not be proven scikentfically?

Astute by what objective criteria? Your personal opinion?

The method is

1. Make hypothesis.
2. Test hypothesis.
3. Accept hypothesis, done.
4. Reject hypothesis, done.
5. Modify hypothesis.
6. Go to # 2.

To you

Hypothesis is eradication of evil by a revolutionary idea?
Test hypothesis how?

I am onditioned to approach a problem in a step by step p[narcoses.

First step is identify the problem, in this case that would be the existence of evil, without a definition of what that means. You have to define exactly what that means.

Next step is to precisely define the proposed solution and how it eliminates evil as defined.

Next step is show the proposed solution denseness proves the hypothesis.

In syllogism form

p1...
p2...
p3...
Conclusion - prposed silution works

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

As somebody just posted it is not about like or dislike, it is about the science.

This is science.

No, it’s not.

Yes it is whether you think so or not.

It's not the scientific method that you're thinking of, which I already explained cannot be done.

Then it ain’t science! Though there is not one “scientific method” either.

Yes it is. Observation is part of epistemology and can be used in scientific inquiry.

Can careful observation be called science?​

Yes, careful observation can be considered a form of science. It is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method, which involves making observations to formulate hypotheses and conduct experiments. Observations can be qualitative or quantitative and are essential for deriving wider truths and theories. They are not only about making observations but also about documenting them accurately to ensure the integrity and reliability of the data.

scienly.com
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=5be9...y9zY2llbmx5LmNvbS93aGF0LWlzLXNjaWVuY2Uv&ntb=1