On the Value of
Anecdotal Evidence
and Induction to Science

T   
here is no place for anecdotal evidence in current mainstream science. It is overwhelmingly rejected as having no value whatsoever. Tenured professors in any scientific field cringe at the very mention of it. It is anathema to them. Yet, it is these same professors who accomplish little or nothing of scientific value. Why? Why are the most public representatives of science those who do nothing to advance the cause of civilization? Why do their mouths represent the brains of the true scientists who are actually doing the work? How did it come to this?

Anecdotal evidence

This is evidence presented second hand. Someone sees something, reports it and some action is taken in response to it. Let's say your house is on fire. You call the fire department and report and they send out a truck toot sweet to put it out. Seems pretty straightforward. Their response is based on anecdotal evidence, i.e. you saw it but they didn't ... but they expect to see it, so they come. Obviously, if they never saw a fire when they came, they would give up and would no longer respond to a fire report. The fire department has an expectation of confirmation with a few false alarms sprinkled in (hoaxes).

Reporting phenomena to the scientific community most often involves something which is not an emergency and secondly, most often the phenomena is gone before they could possibly get there. Hence, they are left with only a report and nothing to actually see. These are things like UFOs, Bigfoot, rocks falling from the sky or giant waves in the ocean. For such reports, the scientist looks back on his rules of science and his experience and determines that the phenomena reported cannot exist and therefore he needn't trouble himself about it. Thus, "It won't be there when I go to investigate so I won't bother to go look at it or even entertain the matter as possible because the present extent of our knowledge prohibits it.".

This is the easiest thing to do ... the downhill path. Often it is the right one. Those who take the other path however, are the ones who have to opportunity to advance the cause. They must also take the brunt of scorn from the downhill people who will treat them badly for debasing science by NOT FOLLOWING THEIR NOSES ... EXCLUSIVELY. Peripheral vision is forbidden by mainstream science. Why?

For this we can blame Galileo and Newton

Observe Galileo and his counterpart Kepler. Galileo is the experimentalist ... the deductive fellow, firmly earthbound soundly rational and ... a coward. He achieves much but in the end is willing to flush it all down the toilet under pressure from ... literally ... murderers. Kepler on the other hand is an almost full blown nut case. He is all but entirely an inductive mind, looking for the "music of the spheres". He endures, he perseveres in the face of great adversity and comes up with a substantial addition to science. If Kepler were put on the rack, he wouldn't have given in. Rather, it would have been just another day at the office. It is lunacy that drives courage (the induced idea that one's life has greater value than one's body). For Galileo, and all "empiricists", the body is life. The mind is only a dubious abstraction. For deductionists, the world is only a physical thing. For inductionists, it is the secondary information conveyed by matter that is most significant (mind, spirit, etc.).

Hence, for Galileo, life is more important than freedom. For Kepler, freedom would have been more important than life ... if ... he were given the same opportunity of choice given to Galileo.

This is not to say the Kepler is better than Galileo. Rather, both have assets and liabilities. Combining the assets of both would remove the liabilities. Both are needed.

Mainstream science is "only Galileo". There is no Kepler among tenured professors of science ... in principle. If he was there ... they'd have kicked him out long ago ... along with his acheivements. If you keep your nose to the grindstone, you are accepted. If you stick your neck out, you are condemned by "non-achievers".

Newton ... another case in point

Newton was also another nut case but ... most importantly ... he did his nut work in private (bible babble, etc.). So, he is considered the patron saint of deductionist philosophy. He gave to mainstream science the mantra ...

"I frame no hypothesis"

Where and why comes this most sacred credo?

Newton was a burn out. He spent much of his early years trying to figure out the universe rationally, i.e. deductively from postulates he had earlier formed by the forbidden process of induction. He couldn't do it and so gave up saying, "The subject is barren". There are only a handful of people who know exactly what this means from personal experience (including me). Because he burned out, he said "I frame no hypothesis" ... but you can be sure that he framed at least a couple hundred and discarded them upon reflection as inadequate for one reason or another.

Understand that the chief mantra of modern science is based on failure, i.e. the acceptance of failure as the norm. Hence, modern science sees that nothing final is to be learned about the universe even though only a finite number of hypotheses are possible. Thus, we can't know in principle ... such principle stated by the noble Newton ... the father of physical science ... the burn out.

As Galileo had Kepler so too did Newton have a counterpart. He was Leibniz ... the inductionist (the metaphysician). Both of these men made sincere attempts to understand the universe as a whole. Newton in private ... Leibniz in public. Leibniz is responsible for such deep remarks as "For the generation of all things, one principle is sufficient" and "If one could look inside the brain, it would look like a mill" (a general translation). Leibniz was rejected by the scientific community in most respects which favored Newton. When the two got into heated priority claims over calculus, it was Newton who won and the rancor came mainly from the Newtonian camp.

Deduction is easier than Induction.

Consequently, there are far more deductionists (empiricists) than inductionists who, by dint of superior numbers, rule the scientific roost and determine the definition of science ... and ... that definition excludes churning out wild hypotheses. (Except if those wild hypotheses are framed and totally steeped in scientific jargon, i.e. so nobody can understand them.) However, the reader should now understand that only the inductionist can open the door to new concepts that lie above those framed by Newton (and a select few others who did do some induction at the beginning of the endeavor known as "physics").

From then on, only deductive discoveries have been made.

The only serious exception I can recall are the inductive discoveries of Bohr and his followers. However, Bohr, et al, did induction by "backing into it", i.e. they were backed into a logical corner and more or less deduced their way into an inductive principle because no option was conceivable. Hence, reluctantly, mainstream science (Newton's minions) has come to accept the Uncertainty Principle albeit without any depth of understanding because they backed into it rather than by inducing it without experimental evidence as might have been done by Leibniz. Recall, it was Leibniz who first considered the properties of objects that were indiscernibly different, a highly inductive idea not at all empirical yet now a part of statistics at the quantum level.

Empirical science is a close system. They expect to come to an understanding of existence by experiment alone, i.e. with half a mind. The metaphysical (inductive) is to be expunged from science as non-empirical and thus, unscientific. Thus, Leibniz and Kepler types are to be thrown out in favor of reverse-induction (climbing the mountain of truth bass-ackwards ... without looking in the "up" direction).

If you are a scientist, you would reject all the above ... publicly ... but, privately, you know exactly what I mean.