What I mean by "radical empiricism" or "the scientific method" is to put on a pair of blinders so that one can see only what is in front of one's eyes ... yes, horse blinders. What scientists do not wish to see ... above all else ... is their own reflection in the faces of the other people, i.e. the non-scientists.
In those faces of nameless others they might perceive (and their perception is very good indeed) the unmistakeable evidence of their evasion of the mundane aspects of living which they have forsaken. In the eyes of others they see this ... "Why don't you do something? You are the one who can think.". And yet they do nothing. Despots rise and fall. People are butchered by the hundreds of millions and scientists ... do nothing.
When you look upon the world you see the marvels produced by science. Passenger jets ply the air above you, skyscrapers rise in defiance of gravity, suspension bridges span immense chasms and ... total mediocrity (and often outright malevolence) rules it all. He rides to the presidential palace in a limousine ... the end result of thousands of years of science and technology ... servants and sychophants make straight his path ... that he might rape and beat to death two teenaged virgins before breakfast then on to the torture session with those pesky resistance fighters ... then on again to the nuclear test site to see the new bomb demonstrated ("and they'd better get it right or I'll have their heads ... and their wives will give me head too") ... then a good night's sleep with more virgins in wailing. Aaaahhh! What a life! Thank you, scientists.
This too is the product of science. That is ... its abdication.
A scientist is a coward.
With his trusty blinders he need never notice that the application of intellect to government and such would do as well as in that other realm of things and stuff that just sits ... without opposition ... minding, absolutely, rules cast forever at the beginning of time. How dependable! The rules of the realm of men stretch and skew. They will not bend to reason. Or so they say ... these scientists. To wear the blinders ... that is the answer. What cannot be seen does not exist. This case is solved by blindness ... one disease cured by another.
The reader should not take the foregoing lightly for it is certainly true in the most part. There are indeed those few scientists who buck the trend but not so many as to kill the trend. When I look upon the world, I see what has not been done ... and it is apalling. All that they would need to have done is ... think ... about the nature of government, discussed it objectively amongst themselves and settled upon such commonalities as can be easily observed ... resulting in a mere "suggestion" of the form that government should take. They wouldn't have had to take up the sword. Others would have done that. Those others only lacked an objective goal ... not the will to fight. The thing would have been accomplished overnight ... everywhere there would be the neverending "peace of rationality" ... established once and forever in a single generation.
But it did not come to pass.
Scientists are cowards.
They seek to be left alone. To dicker with matter ... to be lauded by their brothers in abjuration. And not see ... what they have not done.
The Mechanics of "The Scientific Method"
The chief rule of the scientific method is that no subjective evidence has value. That is, opinion is worthless in the realm of matter.
This is true.
And ... most importantly ... an observation of physical reality is only "an opinion" and hence, must be thrown out as unreliable ... no matter how many instances are reported and by whom reported.
This is not true.
Dispassionate reports of phenomena are the first indicators that something exists which is worthy of study. This was true of "rocks falling from the sky" two centuries ago and true of "hundred foot waves on the ocean" last century ... both scoffed at by scientists. No matter how many reported instances collected, they regarded it as mere opinion and therefore unworthy of attention, i.e. they disregaded statistical inference. By which I mean, the phenomena was inferred objectively by the reports (but not proved). Hence, rather than scoff, they should have devised objective experiments designed to catch the act as it occurred. There was meat on the bone yet mainstream science discarded it. It was an opportunity to be "haughty" as is their wont ... those who are better than the rest ... those others who merely "saw" but did not "understand".
This is how the world is lost. The one sees but deos not understand. The other understands but does not see. No intercourse adjudicates the difference.
The astute reader realizes that the scientific method subverts induction in favor of deduction. With blinders installed upon the face, vision to the right and left is impaired. The "method" insures that we see well only in the direction of deduction ... we reason from the general to the specific utilizing such over-reaching concepts as have been left to us by nameless "others" who wore no such blinders.
We proceed to further heights of induction by ... going backward ... we bump into new ideas with our butts instead of our heads which are busy about being burried it the butt before us also facing south. By the scientific method, we are to move forward by facing the rear. No one leads ... all follow ... marching rearward and downward to arrive at the ultimate understanding of all that lies above in a manner most consistent with cowardice.
Clearly, nature did not put our heads on top for no good reason. We are to encounter first with our perception, then reasoning upon it ... induce a new idea ... then deduce what follows from it as a check upon the new idea. If it works out to predict nothing known not to occur ... we can accept the new idea tentatively as a new truth and use it as a new tool of deduction. But induction itself always remains a "best guess" ... a statistical inference. Tentative. Imperfect. Prone to miscue. But, in the long run, all that we may aspire to do.
Induction then demands that we pay attention to "the people" when they report objective events and be mindful that there may be something lurking that we do not fully comprehend. Yet, there still may be nothing new and the whole thing might then be explained by new insight into old concepts. What we do not know with infinite certainty ... we cannot throw away. Rather, store it in a safe place till at length the thing is enlightened ... and mark it as such without predjudice.
What is to be done ...
Those few scientists who understand what I am talking about ... and they do exist ... must break free of their vassalage and establish a new direction. They must divert the mainstream back to rationality which includes the world of men as the context for studying the world of matter. Those who prove the soundness of their judgment by predicting the behavior of matter should then venture into that other world and advise the "unthinking hoard" about what they should or should not do in the sphere of wordly events. The opinions of responsible scientists should not be hidden in arcane journals. Cowards hide in such wise.
When sufficient numbers come out and lead from the front ... the people will listen to them ... and in time the cowards will be displaced by a more honorable set. There is a beginning even now. I am not the only one who sees this same thing.
And this is a good thing because the world will be fixed or fail this century. Our time is up.Alien Ethics