Scientific Methods I Use
Robert A. Herrmann
A science is a branch of systematized knowledge that is or can be made a specific object for rational study. When the term "science" is used it must be either directly or indirectly qualified. You have such disciplines as political science, library science, science of mathematics, various theoretical physical sciences, various laboratory sciences or various experimental sciences, etc. Scientists tend to learn their specific scientific trade within different science-communities. These science-communities have different accepted procedures.
After individuals enter a science-community, they learn what constitutes the community's "scientific methods" by emulating other established members of the community. Members of a specific science-community demonstrate their knowledge of the required scientific methods, not by listing a set of procedures that their research or articles must follow, but by simply mimicking the research methods or methods of presentation accepted by the specific science-community. To state that some logical investigation of systematized knowledge is not "science" has no meaning unless the "science" is directly or indirectly specified and it is shown that the investigation does not follow the required science-community rules. I follow a science-community's exact procedures and tailor my research methods and presentations accordingly.
The most basic factors that are common to all such disciplines we call "scientific" are the notions of language, hypotheses, theory building and the use of a fixed logic, which is mostly classical logic. I mention that Marx attempted to alter the customary use of classical logic by requiring a dialect form of logic, which was, in practice, rejected by most scientists that considered themselves Marxists. Today, there are those scientists that firmly believe that "intuitionistic" logic, that contradicts the canons of classical logic, should replace classical logic within scientific discourse.
There are accepted scientific theories within specific scientific disciplines that contradict the requirements of other scientific disciplines. For example, some accepted theories yield predictions that cannot be verified directly or indirectly within any laboratory. Some accepted theories are not falsifiable, even theoretically. These theories are accepted since they satisfy criteria such as "simplicity" or "explanatory power" while they contradict the requirements of other science-communities. Indeed, in my experience, few scientists would accept all of the restrictions that some philosophers would place upon their methods. After enough investigation, it would be possible to specify other specialized "methods" associated with a specific science-community. But, these specialized methods need not be accepted by other science-communities and, as illustrated, may even contradict their canons.
Please recall that scientific theories or models can be interpreted in different ways. One rule associated with those science-communities that use mathematical models for model building is the strict concept of the logical interpretation of a mathematical structure. This is the process of assigning terms or names from a specific discipline to the abstract entities within the mathematical structure. One differential equation can model the behavior of hundreds of totally distinct natural-systems. Logically, the scientific merit of a mathematical model is independent from these interpretations. Every paper that I have written that applies a mathematical structure, such as the MA and GGU models, to cosmogonic or cosmological studies, or to areas of particle physics satisfies every aspect of observational-science and, as such, can be interpreted in terms of a purely "physical" language and, in some cases, in terms of a theological language. The same can be said for cosmological theories written by other individuals. It is a fact that such a dual interpretation is often possible.
Consider a list of all individuals who have constructed theories or models relative to cosmogonic or cosmological studies, certain areas in particle physics or other activities discussed below. One would need to include in this list such individuals as Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Wheeler, Feinberg, Newton, and thousands of others. This list needs to include all physicists who investigate the cosmological aspects of the General Theory of Relativity, or the particle physicists who develop or publish articles relative to the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds theory, plasma or inflationary cosmologies, or (super)string theory. Call this list the (C) list of individuals. You should also include those individuals working at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute located at one end of the campus of my alma mater the Johns Hopkins University.
All of the members of (C) use certain methods, processes and professional procedures to study and answer specific questions. Further, they often publish in certain types of professional journals. The methods, processes and professional procedures that I use are exactly the same as those used by most individuals in category (C). I also publish my technical results in the exact same type of professional journals. Further, the models I construct predict or explain more natural-system behavior than the models constructed by many individuals in category (C). Hence, I can with complete confidence make the following statement.
Due to the cosmogonic, cosmological, solar system studies, the apparent relativistic alterations in physical behavior and other such areas in which I have written or published, I would be considered as a member of category (C). If the disclosures or published work of the individuals that comprise category (C) are considered as "scientific," then my disclosures or published work in these areas are also "scientific."
Relative to my logical constructs, the "logic" utilized is the exact same logic used by individuals in category (C). This is classical logic. This is the same logic used to construct many theories discussed within the discipline known as "theoretical biology." Indeed, if biologists who construct models in such areas as chemical evolution or similar models in theoretical evolution, and publish in such journals as the Journal of Theoretical Biology are classified as doing "scientific" work, then cosmologists in category (C) should also be considered by the biological community as doing "scientific" work since category (C) individuals use the exact same methods.
The methods used to construct the GID and GGU-models are as follows: (1) Observable physical behavior is described. This behavior forms the physical hypotheses. They are not like the many unobservable hypotheses assumed in quantum theory. (2) These hypotheses are mathematically modeled. Hence, the symbols used carry the names associated with the modeled physical behavior. This is the standard interpretation. (3) The standard model is embedded into a nonstandard model and new entities and relations closely associated with the standard named entities are rationally predicted. These are given names that are modifications of the original names. For example, if symbol L represents the original modeled general language, then the predicted entity *L is termed as a "higher" or "hyper" or even "ultra" language, depending upon application. (4) Deep analysis allows for a comparison to be made between the behavior of L and *L. For example, the general language, as represented by L, is a subset of the higher-language *L and is not equal to it. Indeed, *L is "infinitely greater" in "size" than L.
It is exceptionally important when discussing the phrase "science" to separate, at the very least, the term into the two very active branches, "theoretical" or "laboratory" with various degrees of overlap. Further, one must state the specific discipline. Gauss stated that the queen of all sciences is mathematics. This refers to science as "systematized knowledge." In general, under the definition above for a scientific discipline, the GID and GGU-model are highly scientific in character since the method employed is the most rigorous, fixed and systematized known to the human mind.
Some papers that appear under this "free pre-print" listing use a theological interpretation of a mathematical structure. Please note that such a theological interpretation can be replaced completely with the concept of initial (physical) conditions although such initial conditions might be considered as somewhat unusual in character.
Relative to the GID-model interpreted of the General Grand Unification model (GGU-model), the basic hypotheses are verified billions of times a day. Further, this model is so highly scientific in character that whenever an individual conducts a scientific experiment and the experiment verifies an inductive or deductive statement, then this also verifies the interpreted GGU-model.
Last revision 15 JUN 2018.
Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.