Theory

The word 'theory' has become like a chewing gum in the mouths of scientists. Unfortunately however, like many other words, it seems to enjoy a lot of definitions. Some of them are ireconcillable. Then you know that when someone uses a word that embody two contradictory meanings, he can always use it to justify anything. He just has to switch back and forth whenever it suits him.Scientists often have an habit of DESCRIBING instead of DEFINING a word. There is often some winks and nudges; you know you know,...no I don't know! Here it goes: we begine by hypothesis, which is something like an 'educated guess'. Then the hypothesis is tested. If it pass several tests, then the hypothesis is awarded a lable 'theory'. Also in science, hypothesis are not realy proven. Rather, the competing hypotheses are falsified. Science is a last man standing battle. There is no science truth.So? Is theory a myth or a proven fact? It is this chameleon nature of science that makes it harvest to best from both universe. It is in the business of ever testing and never proving anything. 'Theory' is both a fact and a myth. The follower of science religion just has to remove the right weapon at the right time. When debunking suggestions, 'theory' is a well understood and well proven fact. But then they still want to keep trying to research on it and prove it!! When they want more offerings to be used to build shrines like Large Hardron Colider, Very Large Telescopes etc, suddenly, 'theory' is a wild speculation and there is infact no science truth!Another problem with this modern science redefinition of the word 'theory' concerns consistent usage. Hypothesis is promoted to theory after a repeated tests? How about the words; law of nature or principles of nature? Are they just some other types of perfumes for spraying the word 'fact'? Thats problematic. Here is perharps better definitions:SCIENTIFIC LAW: An hypothesis that has passed objective tests over and overSCIENTIFIC THEORY: Set of scientific laws posited to explain a nartural phenomenon.THEORY: set of ideas posited to explain a natural or supernatural phenomena.So why should we categorise scientific explanation as to be based on theory? Simple! Laws of nature are ideas and not facts. They are gross generalised statements about the facts we observe. When we see a stone fall to the ground, we have not just proven that EVERY stone released that way will ALWAYS have to fall down. Then we can never get to prove so no matter how many stones we releas and gawk at them as they fall down!! It sucks for those who fear the unknown that we can never realy get to prove ANYTHING! 'Proof' is a misnomer that belongs squarely in the toilet.IMPORTANCE OF THEORYIn wikipedia article talking about 'soul', it says somewhere"the problem with scientifically proving a soul is that there is no good definition saying what a soul is"This problems comes because the proponents of 'soul' rarely posit soul to explain a natural phenomenon. In other words, they donnot try to form a theory of soul. A theory allows for an indirect verification. We can indirectly verify that galaxies are moving away from us by simply forming a theory of Doppler shift. Or rather, by explaining the redshift using Dopple effect, we add the weight to the idea that the universe is expanding. Similarly, when we form a good teleological theory of origin of life, we add weight to the idea that God exists. However, people still fight you if you try to form a theory of God. Say what? God is beyond understanding!! Nonsense! Even the stones are beyond understanding! This 'beyond understanding' joker card is what priests were trained to releas when they are cornered! Over the time, the sheep begun to fall in love with 'beyond understanding' until they forgot to love God himself. It is just the same way dogs will begine to salivate at bells when you keep ringing them often before you give them food.So generaly, the snake oil pedlers of religion donnot try to explain anything. What point do 'beyond understanding' realy make? So a lack of scientific theory is often taken to be a supernatural explanation. Guess what? I chew peyote and saw a pink elephant. It cannot be explained by science!! Then of course he will form enemity with anyone trying to explain the pink elephants. He wount want anyone remove him off the blissfull ignorance. But does it make sense? Can we rely on a lack of understanding as a basis of forming beleifs?There is one other reason why forming an understandable models of such ideas as soul, heaven or even God is desirable. Well, it is possible that a soul is beyond understanding. However, what else can we say or do about it if it is this latter case? The only thing we can conclude given such a premise is the premise itself. My case is analogous to comparing Dawrin's evolution theory with a magical, inexplicable creation hypothesis posited by many Christians. If it is the latter case, then so what? What else can we do apart from closing the bibles and saying amen? Doesn't it makes perfect sense to explore the former possibility instead of raising our hands and surrendering to ignorance?PTOLEMAIC THEORIESWhen laymen are told of a science explanation, they are usualy never told of myriads of possible and equally valid explanations that are ruled out via Ockam's razor or are just brushed aside because the priests of science donnot find them that sexy. Albert Einstein knew so much of this nature of theories. Thats why alongside Minkowsky he rose to become a great brewer of whiskys such as Minkowsky spacetime. So there are theories termed Ptolemaic theories in (dis)honer of an ancient greek philosopher who could explain how the stars revolves around the sun with a geocentric model!Like I said, science donnot realy prove anything. Lets look at the following explanation as to why a boat floats and yet if you stand on a piece of wood, you sink with it. An even more ancient 'Ptolemy' concocted an amusing explanation. The water simply fear your legs! When they see your legs, they shy away off beneth the wood and then the wood sinks. He then advices the swimers to build something that covers the legs. Then they built it an voila! It floated. That was the first boat and what his theory predicted was not only confirmed but it helped in the technology at then.The question is do you think Archimede's explanation of boyancy disproved the above explanation? Not at all! Archimedes theory explain more than the other theory and that is all! It also explains why a metal with no man inside will float if shaped like a boat.

"Thanks for your kind opinion stated, dear Movella......Much love...Drekx x

Or, as Sirians would say in their language; dramu kas....!! ❤️

https://ancestoraltars.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/green-candle-..."

"Thanks for that Drekx. So I think I am finally starting to understand the great blue light. I guess it is like evolutionary information coming directly from Logos that can be programmed with information packets depending on the particular planet or…"

"Trump speech in Michigan.....President Trump spoke about some of his plans, when he wins in 2024.......👍🏻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjRUnr77G04"

Spiritual Blogs

Theory

Comments

Featured Blogs

Calm In The Midst Of The Storm

Book: ASHTAR – A Tribute Compiled by Tuella

The Fiery Forces Of Creation Are Sweeping The Earth - June 22th, 2022

Interdimensional Being: Where Do You Consciously Reside?

Note: this page contains paid content.

Latest Activity

New Forum Posts

If You Are Distracted - Do This Every Day With Mooji

An Important Update on Ronna Herman's Health

Blessing The Earth With Loving Kindness

The Untold Story Of Mount Shanta And The Lemurians

Note: this page contains paid content.