Philosophy of Science
I had to develop a new and better way of looking at the world and reality, because the one that I had gotten from my society wasn’t working for me. It was working against me.
I don’t have a lot of respect for philosophy and haven’t seen much value in it, because philosophy is typically used to deceive people. Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Behaviorism, Determinism, Scientism, and Atheism are philosophies or dogma, NOT science. They are religions, NOT science. They have to be taken on blind-faith as being true, because there can NEVER be any observational evidence supporting their major premises or hidden assumptions which claim that the non-physical does not exist. In contrast, every observation and experience of the non-physical FALSIFIES Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Atheism, and their derivatives.
Science is observation, or it should be.
There is NO observational evidence supporting the major premises or hidden assumptions of Materialism, Naturalism, and their derivatives. These philosophies and their philosophical arguments are used to trick us and deceive us; consequently, I have typically found philosophy to be unreliable and unsound because their arguments usually don’t match with reality and are seldom based upon observational evidence.
An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true. Falsified premises cannot produce a sound argument.
Materialism, Naturalism, and their derivatives will NEVER be logically sound and will NEVER be philosophically sound because they will NEVER have any observational evidence supporting their major premises which claim that the quantum, or the spiritual, or the supernatural does not exist. Every observation and experience of the quantum, the spiritual, the supernatural, the transdimensional, and the non-physical FALSIFIES Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Atheism, and their derivatives. In other words, repeated verification of Quantum Mechanics, Action at a Distance, or Supernatural Mechanisms FALSIFIES Materialism, Naturalism, and their derivatives. Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Behaviorism, Determinism, Scientism, and Atheism cannot be true, because their premises are demonstrably false.
When it comes to philosophy, some have claimed that it is best left ignored. However, I see it differently. When it comes to philosophy, you absolutely MUST KNOW how these people are using philosophy to trick you and deceive you. If you don’t, then you are going to be tricked and deceived. Billions of people have been tricked and deceived by the Materialists, Naturalists, Darwinists, Nihilists, and Atheists; and, they don’t even know it. I used to be one of them. I used to be a Materialist, Naturalist, Nihilist, and Atheist.
Remember, when it comes to philosophy, your premises have to be flawless and perfect, or your conclusion is going to be wrong.
The Essential Philosophy of Science
The fundamental concept that you must understand about the Philosophy of Science is to know what Affirming the Consequent is, how it works, and what it does to the Scientific Method.
Affirming the Consequent is a logic fallacy, and it is the logic fallacy upon which Traditional Science, Materialism, Physicalism, Naturalism, Darwinism, and Atheism are based. Affirming the Consequent is the way that these people do science; and, they don’t even know it, because they don’t understand the Philosophy of Science.
By affirming the consequent, you can prove anything to be true, including Materialism, Naturalism, Atheism, and the Theory of Evolution; but, the process is nothing more than trickery and deception, which billions have fallen for over the millennia.
In my humble opinion, affirming the consequent is the most interesting and useful thing to know about and understand, when it comes to Science and the Philosophy of Science.
I discuss Affirming the Consequent in great detail in most of my books because its antithesis, Negating the Consequent, is the core foundation of my science and the way that I use the scientific methods. Verification uses affirming the consequent. Falsification uses negating the consequent. Negating the Consequent is philosophically and logically sound; whereas, Affirming the Consequent is not. Consequently, I use negating the consequent in all of my scientific arguments and while using the Scientific Method in order to eliminate everything that is false, so that I can increase my chances that my conclusions and interpretations of the evidence will actually be true.
Remember, if you successfully eliminate everything that is false, then ONLY the truth will remain. I use the scientific methods and negating the consequent to eliminate everything that is false, in the hope that ONLY the Truth will remain.
Mark My Words
—
Source
The Ultimate Model of Reality: Psyche Is the Ultimate Cause
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071NC9JK6
Science 2.0: I Upgraded My Science
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0771K6WTX
Syntropy in Defense of Quantum Mechanics: The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07BPT3W8R/
Web Page:
https://philosophy-of-science.com/philosophy-of-science/
The Official Website:
https://philosophy-of-science.com/
References
Slife, B. D. & Williams, R. N. (1995). Science and Human Behavior. In What’s Behind the Research? Discovering Hidden Assumptions in the Behavioral Sciences, (pp. 167–204). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
https://mypsyche.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Science.pdf
https://philosophy-of-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Science.pdf
Gantt, E. (2014). Logical Arguments. In Psychology 353 – LDS Perspectives in Psychology, (pp. 8-11). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
https://philosophy-of-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Logical-Arguments.pdf
Gantt, E. (2014). Leveling the Playing Field – Why Science is Not a Trump Card. In Psychology 353 – LDS Perspectives in Psychology, (pp. 50-58). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
https://philosophy-of-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Verification-vs-Falsification.pdf
Rychlak, J. F. (1981a). A Philosophy of Science for Personality Theory (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
My Amazon Page:
https://amazon.com/author/science
Science 2.0: I Upgraded My Science