Episode 1254: Believe the science - Whose science?

Believe the Science? But whose science?
So Joe Biden says “You have the fact’s but we have the Truth”
Let’s first address Wokness before we actually discuss science
Wokness has taken over many of the sciences under the guise of social justice but is that science?
The term "wokeness" is often used to refer to an awareness of social justice issues and a commitment to addressing systemic inequalities. When it comes to science, it is important to distinguish between the core principles of scientific inquiry and any potential biases or influences that may arise in its application. Science MUST be based on objectivity and evidence-based reasoning, science does not any never will allow societal influences and biases guide their final determination. Why? Because Wokness isn’t science.

One of the concerns raised by some critics is that the influence of wokeness, or any other ideological framework, may lead to the distortion or suppression of scientific research and discourse. They argue that an excessive focus on social justice concerns within scientific fields can undermine the principles of rigorous inquiry, impartiality, and the pursuit of truth.

Wok zombies argue that in the name of promoting inclusivity and diversity, certain ideas or perspectives may be privileged or marginalized based on their alignment with specific social justice goals, rather than their scientific validity. This can potentially lead to a narrowing of scientific perspectives and discourage open debate and dissenting opinions. That is code for “we don’t care what the science determines we will trump it with our emotional influences or else!
Its is very important to note that many proponents of incorporating social justice concerns (Wokness) into science argue that it is necessary to address historical biases and systemic inequities that have influenced scientific research. They believe that scientific knowledge and practices have often been shaped by societal biases and that taking these factors into account can lead to more robust and inclusive scientific outcomes.
However, it's important to note that "wokness" or being "woke" is not a scientific discipline or a framework rooted in the scientific method. It is more closely related to social and political activism, emphasizing the awareness and advocacy for social justice issues. While it may draw on certain social science theories or concepts, it does not encompass the rigorous methodologies and systematic approaches of scientific disciplines.

Science, on the other hand, is a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding the natural world, exploring phenomena, and developing explanations based on empirical evidence. Scientific disciplines rely on rigorous methodologies, peer review, reproducibility, and the accumulation of evidence to generate knowledge and understanding. They aim to be objective, neutral, and focused on discovering truths about the natural world.
So it suffices to say – lets dismiss wokness as spoiled children that need to stop leeching off their parents and get out of their parents basement and get a job. Problem solved and now lets deal with real science.
So we hear over and over again that we should believe in the science but is that really what they mean or do they mean believe in their unproven hypothesis and if we don’t then we must be either dismissed as idiots or cancelled as conspiracy theorists. So in essence it isn’t science they seek but compliance to unproven hypothsis and so let me explain why if its science they seek we will discuss the following:
1. Principal of evidence
2. Principal of non-contradictiont
3. Principal of causation
4. Principle of sufficient reason
5. Principal of integral good
Once we are done discussing these pricipals which are the basis of real science, if there is a single piece of evidence that proves their theory wrong that means their entire hypohsis is wrong and should be dismissed. Agree? Okay good because that actually comes from science.
1. Principal of Evidence
The principle of evidence, also known as the principle of evidence-based reasoning, refers to the concept of using empirical evidence to support or justify beliefs, claims, or conclusions. It is a fundamental principle in fields such as science, medicine, law, and critical thinking.
The principle of evidence states that when making decisions or forming judgments, one should rely on the best available evidence rather than personal opinion, anecdotes, or unverified information. It emphasizes the importance of using reliable, verifiable data and information to support arguments and make informed choices.

In scientific research, the principle of evidence requires researchers to gather data through rigorous experimentation, observation, or other systematic methods. The collected evidence should be objective, measurable, and capable of being replicated or tested by others. By basing conclusions on the evidence, scientists strive to minimize bias and enhance the credibility of their findings.

In legal contexts, the principle of evidence guides the presentation and evaluation of evidence in court proceedings. Legal systems often have rules and standards for determining the admissibility and relevance of evidence. The principle of evidence helps ensure that the evidence presented in court is reliable, probative, and contributes to the establishment of the truth or the resolution of legal disputes.

Overall, the principle of evidence promotes critical thinking, rational decision-making, and the pursuit of reliable knowledge by prioritizing the use of sound evidence over personal biases, unsupported claims, or unfounded beliefs. It serves as a cornerstone of many disciplines and is essential for advancing understanding and making well-informed choices.

If the evidence does not support a theory or hypothesis, it raises questions about the validity or accuracy of the theory. In scientific and rational inquiry, when evidence contradicts a theory, it often requires a reassessment or revision of the theory. This process is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge.

When evidence conflicts with a theory, several possibilities may be considered:

Reevaluation: The theory may need to be reevaluated in light of the new evidence. This could involve examining the methodology used to gather the evidence, considering alternative explanations, or revising the underlying assumptions of the theory.

Modification: The theory might be modified to accommodate the new evidence while still maintaining its core concepts. This could involve making adjustments or refining specific aspects of the theory to align it better with the evidence.

Abandonment: In some cases, if the evidence consistently and convincingly contradicts the theory, it may be necessary to abandon the theory altogether. This typically occurs when a more comprehensive and supported explanation emerges that better accounts for the evidence.

Further investigation: Sometimes, conflicting evidence may be an indication of gaps in knowledge or limitations in the research methodology. In such cases, further investigation may be necessary to gather additional evidence or to refine experimental or observational techniques.

It is important to note that scientific progress often involves the refinement or rejection of existing theories based on new evidence. This iterative process helps to ensure that our understanding of the world is continually updated and improved. However, it is crucial to approach conflicting evidence with skepticism and to evaluate it critically before drawing definitive conclusions or making significant changes to established theories.
2. Principle of non-contradiction
The principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle in logic and philosophy. It states that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.

In simpler terms, the principle of non-contradiction means that something cannot be both true and false simultaneously. For example, if we have a statement like "The sky is blue," the principle of non-contradiction tells us that the sky cannot be both blue and not blue at the same time and in the same context.

This principle is an essential foundation for logical reasoning and rational discourse. It allows us to identify and resolve logical inconsistencies and contradictions in our thinking and arguments. Without this principle, logical reasoning would be undermined, and rational communication would become extremely challenging.

Logical reasoning is a systematic process of using valid and reliable principles and rules of logic to reach conclusions or make inferences based on given information or premises. It involves making deductions, inductions, and evaluations to draw logical and well-supported conclusions.

Logical reasoning relies on the principles of logic, which provide a framework for evaluating arguments and determining their validity. It involves identifying patterns, relationships, and logical connections between statements or propositions. By following logical rules and principles, logical reasoning helps to ensure that conclusions are sound and coherent.

There are two primary forms of logical reasoning:

Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning starts with general principles, known as premises, and applies logical rules to reach specific conclusions. It follows the structure of "if A, then B" and proceeds from the general to the specific. If the premises are true and the logical rules are valid, the conclusion reached through deductive reasoning is necessarily true. For example:

Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: John is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, John is mortal.

Deductive reasoning is a type of logical reasoning that involves drawing conclusions based on known premises or statements. It is a top-down approach where specific conclusions are derived from general principles or premises.
In deductive reasoning, the conclusions reached are considered to be logically certain if the premises are true. This is because the process of deduction follows a strict set of rules and principles. Here are some key characteristics of deductive reasoning:
Premises: Deductive reasoning starts with one or more premises, which are statements or propositions assumed to be true. These premises serve as the foundation for the logical argument.
Logical structure: Deductive reasoning relies on the logical structure of the argument. It follows a specific pattern known as syllogism, which consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
Validity: The validity of a deductive argument is determined by whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If the conclusion logically follows from the premises, the argument is considered valid. However, it is important to note that validity does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. It only ensures that the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises.
Soundness: A deductive argument is considered sound if it is both valid and all of its premises are true. A sound argument provides both logical validity and true premises, ensuring that the conclusion is true.
Here's an example of deductive reasoning:
Premise 1: All mammals are warm-blooded animals.
Premise 2: Whales are mammals.
Conclusion: Therefore, whales are warm-blooded animals.

In this example, the conclusion is derived by applying the general premise that all mammals are warm-blooded to the specific premise that whales are mammals. As long as the premises are true, the conclusion is logically certain.

Deductive reasoning plays a fundamental role in various fields, including mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. It allows for the construction of logically coherent arguments, helps in problem-solving, and facilitates the development of theories and hypotheses.

Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions based on specific observations or evidence. It proceeds from the specific to the general and relies on the principle of probability. Unlike deductive reasoning, the conclusions drawn through inductive reasoning are not guaranteed to be true, but they are considered likely or reasonable based on the available evidence. For example:

Observation 1: Every swan I have seen is white.
Observation 2: Every swan my friend has seen is white.
Conclusion: Therefore, all swans are white.
Inductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning that involves making generalizations or drawing probable conclusions based on specific observations or evidence. It is a bottom-up approach where specific instances or examples are used to infer broader principles or patterns.

In inductive reasoning, the conclusions reached are considered probable or likely, rather than certain. The strength of an inductive argument lies in the degree of support provided by the evidence. Here are some key characteristics of inductive reasoning:

Specific observations: Inductive reasoning starts with specific observations or examples. These observations could be empirical data, specific instances, or patterns identified through observation or experimentation.

Patterns and generalizations: From the specific observations, inductive reasoning attempts to identify patterns or regularities. These patterns are used to form generalizations or hypotheses about the broader population or phenomena.

Probability: Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Instead, it assesses the probability or likelihood of the conclusion being true based on the available evidence. The strength of an inductive argument depends on the quality and representativeness of the evidence.

Cogency: An inductive argument is considered cogent if it is strong and has true premises. Cogency refers to the argument's strength and the truth of the evidence supporting the conclusion. A cogent argument provides a reasonable basis for accepting the conclusion as probable or likely.
Here's an example of inductive reasoning:
Observation: Every crow I have seen is black.
Conclusion: Therefore, all crows are black.

In this example, the conclusion is based on the specific observations of individual crows being black. While it is possible that there could be non-black crows, the conclusion suggests that based on the available evidence, it is likely that all crows are black.

Inductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, where observations and experiments are used to draw general conclusions and formulate hypotheses. It also plays a role in everyday reasoning, decision-making, and problem-solving. However, it is important to note that inductive reasoning is not as logically certain as deductive reasoning, as the conclusions are based on probabilities rather than strict logical validity.
Logical reasoning is an important tool for critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making. It helps to evaluate arguments, identify fallacies or errors in reasoning, and construct well-supported and coherent arguments. By employing logical reasoning, one can enhance their ability to think critically and make more informed and rational judgments.
3. Principal of causation
The principle of causation, also known as the principle of cause and effect, is a fundamental concept in philosophy and science. It states that every event has a cause, and that cause leads to a particular effect or outcome. The principle of causation asserts that there is a causal relationship between events, where one event is responsible for bringing about another event.

Key aspects of the principle of causation include:

Cause and effect: The principle recognizes that events in the world are interconnected, and that one event can be considered the cause of another event. The cause is the factor or event that produces or brings about a specific effect or consequence.

Temporal order: The cause precedes the effect in time. In other words, causation implies that the cause must occur before the effect can happen. This temporal sequence helps establish the directionality of the causal relationship.

Regularity: The principle of causation assumes that causal relationships are consistent and reliable. It suggests that similar causes will produce similar effects under similar conditions. This notion of regularity forms the basis for scientific inquiry, where researchers aim to identify and understand causal relationships between variables.

Contingency: Causation is contingent, meaning that not all events have a necessary causal relationship. While some events may be causally connected, others may be coincidental or have multiple causes. Determining causation often involves investigating the context, mechanisms, and evidence supporting the relationship.

It is important to note that the principle of causation does not imply a simplistic one-to-one relationship between cause and effect. In complex systems, causation can involve multiple factors and interactions. The identification and analysis of causal relationships often require rigorous scientific methodologies, such as experimentation, statistical analysis, and the consideration of potential confounding variables.

The principle of causation has significant implications in various fields, including science, philosophy, law, and everyday reasoning. It helps us understand the mechanisms and connections between events, predict outcomes, explain phenomena, and guide decision-making processes.

4. Principle of sufficient reason
The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a philosophical principle that states that everything must have a reason or explanation. It asserts that for every fact or occurrence, there must exist a sufficient reason that explains why it is the way it is and not otherwise. In other words, there is an explanation for every event, state of affairs, or proposition.

The principle is often attributed to the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, although similar ideas can be traced back to earlier philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas. Leibniz formulated the principle as a fundamental metaphysical principle, arguing that there can be no true fact or existence without a reason or explanation.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason suggests that the world is ordered and rational, and that there is a causal or logical connection between events and states of affairs. It implies that events do not occur randomly or arbitrarily but are grounded in underlying causes, principles, or explanations. The principle can be applied to various domains of knowledge, including metaphysics, epistemology, and science.

Epistemology the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space:
"they would regard the question of the initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religion"
abstract theory with no basis in reality:

It's important to note that the Principle of Sufficient Reason does not imply that we can always know or discover the reason for every fact or occurrence. In practice, it is often challenging or even impossible to determine the precise reason for certain events. However, the principle asserts that there must be an explanation or sufficient reason even if it is not readily available or currently understood.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason has been influential in philosophy, particularly in metaphysics and the philosophy of science. It has sparked debates and discussions regarding the nature of explanation, determinism, free will, and the limits of human understanding.

Acquinas vs Biden
St. Thomas Aquinas, a renowned Catholic theologian and philosopher, made significant contributions to various fields of study, including philosophy of science. While he did not write extensively on what we would consider modern science, his philosophical framework and principles have influenced subsequent discussions on the relationship between faith, reason, and scientific inquiry.

Here are a few key aspects of Aquinas's thought regarding science:

Compatibility of Faith and Reason: Aquinas emphasized the compatibility of faith and reason, arguing that both are valid paths to truth. He believed that faith and revelation provide certain truths that cannot be attained through reason alone, while reason and natural philosophy (which included scientific inquiry at the time) can uncover truths about the natural world.

Natural Theology: Aquinas advocated for the use of reason to understand and explore the natural world. He developed arguments for the existence of God, known as the Five Ways, which draw upon observations and logical reasoning to support the belief in a Creator. Aquinas saw the study of nature as a means to understand and appreciate God's creation.

The Orderliness of the Universe: Aquinas recognized the order and intelligibility of the natural world. He argued that the regularity and consistency observed in nature could be attributed to a divine plan and governance. This notion of a designed and orderly universe aligns with the idea that natural phenomena can be studied and understood through scientific investigation.

Role of Empirical Observation: Aquinas acknowledged the importance of empirical observation in the study of the natural world. While he considered philosophical reasoning and deductive arguments essential, he recognized the value of observation and sensory experience in acquiring knowledge about the physical world.
Biden Approach
Make science what ever you need the outcome to be and if the outcome do not support the hypothesis than just lie.
Overall
So speaking as an Accountant and a Traditional Catholic who do I point to?
The father of modern accounting is Italian Luca Pacioli, who in 1494 first described the system of double-entry bookkeeping used by Venetian merchants in his Summa de Arithmetica, Geometria, Proportioni et Proportionalita.

St. Albertus Magnus, (1200-1280) also known as Albert the Great, was a prominent figure in the history of science and philosophy during the medieval period. He made significant contributions in various fields and played a crucial role in bridging the gap between the knowledge of ancient Greek philosophers and the emerging scientific thought of his time. Here are some of his notable contributions:

Natural Science: St. Albert made substantial advancements in the study of natural science. He emphasized the importance of observation and empirical investigation as a means to understand the natural world. His extensive works covered topics such as botany, zoology, mineralogy, and meteorology. He compiled and classified a vast amount of knowledge from different sources, including ancient Greek and Arabic texts, which helped lay the groundwork for future scientific developments.

Aristotelian Philosophy: Albert the Great was deeply influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle and played a significant role in promoting Aristotelian thought in medieval Europe. He studied and commented on various works of Aristotle, including physics, metaphysics, and ethics. His writings on Aristotelian philosophy helped shape the understanding and interpretation of Aristotle's ideas, making them more accessible to scholars of his time.

Experimental Method: St. Albert advocated for the use of experiments and observations as a means of acquiring scientific knowledge. He recognized the importance of combining theoretical understanding with empirical investigation. His emphasis on experimentation helped pave the way for the development of experimental methodologies in later centuries.

Contributions to Chemistry: Albert the Great made notable contributions to the field of alchemy, which was considered a precursor to modern chemistry. He investigated various chemical processes and substances, including metals, minerals, and medicinal compounds. While his understanding of chemistry was influenced by the alchemical practices of his time, his work contributed to the growing body of knowledge that eventually led to the development of modern chemistry.

Influence on Later Scholars: St. Albert's teachings and writings had a significant impact on numerous scholars who came after him, including his most famous student, St. Thomas Aquinas. His emphasis on the compatibility of faith and reason, his approach to natural science, and his integration of Aristotelian philosophy influenced the intellectual climate of the medieval period and shaped the development of scientific and philosophical thought.

Overall, St. Albertus Magnus made substantial contributions to the advancement of science and philosophy during his time. His works and teachings played a vital role in preserving and transmitting knowledge from the ancient world to later generations and helped lay the foundation for future scientific developments.

So science has been turned into fraud because there hypothesis fails constantly and they use wokness to explain it away. As a Traditional Catholic follow the facts and it will lead you to the truth and let the chips fall where they may. As Christ said:
John 14:6: Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 8:31-32: Jesus said, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

John 18:37: When Jesus stood before Pilate during his trial, he said, "For this purpose, I was born and for this purpose, I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."

Throughout his ministry, Jesus emphasized the importance of truth and often used it as a contrast to falsehood or deception. His teachings and actions consistently emphasized the pursuit of truth, both in terms of understanding the nature of God and living in accordance with God's will.