Truth in Science

The 3 ages of evolution of human thought

Classic Economics today is not a science because it does not follow the epistemological limits of all sciences.

For one thing, if we consider 3 stages in the evolution of human thought:

– The mythic age of  religions, often corrupted by fetishe go(l)d memes or weapons (go(l)d churches and inquisitions, which consider ex-votes and military power as proofs of the grace of god.)

– The A-ristotelian age of simplex logic with a single ceteris paribus cause or point of view.

– The complex view that studies all the perspectives, scales and interrelationships of all systems.

Complex science must deliver all the points of view, with higher information; ‘simplex  sciences’ does cceteris paribus analysis with apratial information and mythic science does not make the cut to be considered knowledge.

But unfortunately as we shall prove in our studies of classic economic theory and its authors, its statement mostly belong to the mythic or A-ristotelian lesser forms of knowledge:

– Either to biblical religions as the founder fathers of this discipline, merely translated the racist memes of the $elected and its go(l)d fetish ( ‘money is the intelligence of god’ calvin, expressed by the founder of classic economics, adam smith as money is the invisible hand of god, greed is good.)

– Or they sponsor the point of view of the corporations of selfish memes of metal, weapons, money and machines, which the biblical culture founded, where most economists work today.

Thus we shall in this section try to ‘upgrade’ the ‘mythic’ or ‘A-scientific’ state of mind of the human reader, evolving the concepts of truth to include all the possible information about the system we study.

Definition of truth in complex sciences.

In that sense  Complex sciences widens the knowledge provided by ‘ideologies’ proper of the mythic, religious human state of mind prior to the development of Aristotelian, simplex sciences. And further on advances A-science or Simplex Science in the jargon of ‘complexity’; by considering in its analysis of events and systems in time and space, not only the perspective of the system, but that of its relative i±1 cellular and social scale, and that of the other ‘external’ points of view which interact with a system.

Thus complex sciences ‘define’ as truth, the whole information of a system and all its interaction with its lower, cellular and higher social scales and all other systems of its ecosystem or super organism, which means to study all the 10-dimensional elements of the system. And it measures the truth of other ‘theories’ about any system, depending on the quantity of ‘points of view’ or ‘dimensional perspectives’ it studies.

For example, in the case of classic economics, which only considers the point of view that favours ‘company-mothers of machines’ and its profits, the ‘quantity of informative truth’ it delivers is so limited it fails to ‘forecast the future of its species’, to ‘help mankind’ to create a better world, and reduces the future to that which is positive for corporations and its offspring of machines. How much truth is that?

If we consider the eco(nomic)system as a whole, made of the interaction of Human super organisms (nations, civilizations) and Corporations, the super organisms of machines, unified by world-stock, the digital, financial brain that delivers prices, credit and profits to those corporations, we can easily calculate the total ‘probability’ of truth of classic economics:

1 or 100 would be the total truth; 50% would be the truth of one of both superoranisms (the super organism of machines or ‘mechanocene’ age in terms of time). Of the 10 dimensions of those systems, economics ignores the i-1 dimension (the planet earth, gaia, and its resources, being destroyed, under the influence of those machines). So that reduces further 1/3rd the 50% of true information deliver by classic economics for a total of 2/3 x 1/3=2/9=22% of ‘truth’ or rather ‘anti-truth’ as the future of corporations and machines – the mechanocene – is a non-future for the human kind in a planet terraformed to serve its ‘robotic’ evolved population.

Truth thus is contrary to subjective ideologies which cater to a single point of view, or species, or ‘organic social class’ (informative, neuronal, head; re=productive, working class/body and energetic environment, in which the organic system preys).

It is thus clear that when valuing any theory the first question to understand is where it comes ‘from’ that point of view, what is its origin, which in social sciences unfortunately tends to ‘follow the money’ and in the present ill-designed system in which financial and industrial corporations monopolize the production of that essential ‘oxygen’ of the eco(gnomic)system, it means ‘follow the corporation’.

Only then by evaluating the proportion of the total information a theory studies,  we can establish a ‘scale’ to judge the potential truth or in/form/ations delivered by any mental structure or language in any of its forms – including religions, sciences, ideologies, art works, linguistic statements, equations, etc.

Complex sciences represent basically an epistemological evolution of Simplex sciences, defined in ‘3 dimensions’ and from a single ‘perspective’.

In physical sciences, it does not so much include new information but ‘organizes’ the knowledge different sciences have of any system, by laying down the rules of interaction between the different scales of the system, studied today by different sciences:

time-dim-ension

In the graph we can see how each ‘scale’ of a system is studied by a different science. What complexity does is to lay down the rules of interaction of those species and sciences, by considering how ‘the future of a system’ is created, departing from a central i-point of view, which will interact through networks of energy and information, with the upper and lower scales of reality.

 

Thus n Complex sciences we consider the ‘interrelationships’ between 3 scales of any structure of the Universe, its i-1, cellular/atomic scale, its i-ndividual, molecular rate, and its social/cosmic state.

But in social sciences, given its limited perspective due to the ‘anti-quantum paradox'(the social observer is included within the larger system it describes as a citizen-cell, which often serves the informative, neuronal castes that direct the system, so it cannot be completely objective), complex sciences does establish an objective ‘rule’ to measure the truth and highlight the perspective of the system.

For social sciences obviously it only matters, the 3 scales of human existence, the cellular, i-ndividual and social.

Thus we can consider always of those 3 scales an i-scale from where a certain point of view or perspective develops – a mind with its own languages that perceive from its distorted ‘spherical point of view’ the absolute information of the Universe, selecting that which is useful and closer to it.

‘Objective, Euclidean view’, which does not ‘prime’ as more important any point of view or perspective, as opposed to ‘spherical’ Subjective, curved point of view’, define thus the difference between a scientific and an ideological perspective, in Human Social sciences, as it defines in physics the two fundamental ‘motions’ of the Universe, lineal and rotational inertias.

Truth in social sciences.

Moreover, once we adopt an i-perspective, which in history and economics according to our ‘credo’ that sciences and all other human actions, informations and energies must be biased in favour of the human ‘survival’ goal of our species, it is easy to define what would be a complex, human-centered, positive perspective for mankind – that of history and the values of verbal languages – and hence what kind of ‘ideas’ and ‘information’ must be presented for educational purposes and actions that direct the world.

Economics as it is today expressed is not such point of view, it is the point of view of corporations, whose goal is to re=produce &  evolve machines and weapons and terraforrm the Earth to its image and likeness, creating the Financial-Media/Military-Industrial Complex System, a global super-organism of machines.

This is how Classic Economics is created. And now it comes of course the ‘cuckoo paradox’ of people who are doing something without even be aware they are doing it – the ‘subconscious hypothesis’ – the rather obvious truth according to experience that people do ‘things’ without knowing its purpose, as ‘parts’ of a whole organism – in this case most humans are not AWARE that what they do re=producing, working on factories, consuming, vitalizing machines is to be the catalyzer of its evolution, an ‘enzyman at work’, and the vitalizer of its mechanisms ‘a consumer’.

And the way economics is taught, the things that are taught, and the goals that are put forward for economists, are to be blamed of that.

And so in this web we have a ‘lot’ of ‘historic’ articles about the relationship between the cult ‘ure’ founder of economics, the jewish->calvinist->Anglican culture of Biblical origin, and the ‘memes’ and ‘doctrines’ and idol -ogies of earlier economists translated to the science with digital languages.

In epistemology of complex science we would say that ‘classic economics’ has of all the range of points of view to be considered in a ‘true science’ of economics (the human individual, social and ‘ecological’ scales that it should maximize delivering the goods needed for humans to thrive) and the mechanical points of view of machines and corporations, economics should include ‘history elements’, the human welfare, and the individual freedoms and thriving of humans maximizing their ‘drives of life’ as a priority and goal.

But since it is merely the praxis of corporations in their reproduction and evolution, sales consumption and renewal of its off-spring of machines, and its digital language of money, nothing but that matters to the economist: to increase a ‘number’ called GDP that measures the value of the goods produced, overwhelmingly machines and weapons.

A proper economic point of view, that of man at individual and collective level is what a true economic, humanitarian discipline would ‘serve’.And to that aim of course it should ‘come from ethics and biology’, from the rules to the betterment of a human society and the laws that maximize the existence of man, its goods and needs – all this resumed in a simple mandate: to maximize the welfare, the WHealth, the good life of most of mankind…

But this goal is not the goal of present economic$, which merely aim to multiply the most expensive objects of the eco(nomic)system, weapons, machines and financials – money itself) and maintaining it in the hands of the elite that owns corporations – with utter disregard of the goals of the humankind – not ‘our subject’.

So Economic$ and its truths are merely the point of view or ‘ideology’ of the industrial corporation and its owners, and the financial corporations and its owners, who preceded them, in the ‘religious’ age of ‘capitalism’.

How this ‘ideology’, ‘biblical capitalism’, came to be a ‘respected science that guides’ and designs the future of mankind, of course is both the most censure, and most pressing question of science today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: