Many of the errors in the present scientific method can be traced back to the myth of real world linearity, the idea that if you can make a logically consistent scale, that this scale can measure real world things. And yes, when it comes to measuring things like people's feelings, most scientists admit this flaw. But when it comes to things like the speed of light, they pretend measurement differences never happen. They do.

Of course, they might be right when they say that perhaps scientists are just that prone to measurement error. I myself think this is a patently stupid assumption. In general, scientists are some of the most careful people on the planet. So how can they as a rule make measurement errors? The answer is simple. Nothing in the real world is linear, even though we pretend some things are. This pretending includes relatively unimportant things like clothing and shoe sizes. But it also includes some important things like the potency of medicines and the speed of light. And since the foundation of science is measurement, problems with measurement are a serious fly in the ointment of scientific truth.

In the first step of the present scientific method, scientists posit a hypothesis. Supposedly, for this hypothesis to be deemed viable, it must be testable. Indeed, scientists used to ridicule any system wherein there was no way to test this system's claims. Today though, scientists regularly and frequently claim things are true which they have no way to test. String theory. M Theory. Multiple universes. The list of untestable things science claims are true is long.

Am I saying these things don't exist? No. To say that, I would need a way to test for them. I am not even saying they are not possible. But this is science we're talking about, not an amateur Internet opinion blog. So for a hypothesis to be considered scientific, shouldn't this hypothesis refer to observable, measurable natural phenomena? If it doesn't, then shouldn't this prevent scientists from claiming this hypothesis is scientifically true? And yes, it may pose an interesting possibility, perhaps even what appears to be a logically likely possibility. A scientifically unprovable hypothesis may even yield consistent, useful results. But this usefulness proves only that this hypothesis is useful, and not that it is literally true. So shouldn't untestable ideas be considered the defining quality of pseudo-science?

Did you know that in 1972, a committee decided to stop measuring the speed of light. They'd so frequently measured differences in this speed that these measurements challenged accepted theory. Rather than own up to this and revising this theory though, they simply declared all measured variations in the speed of light to be null and void. Similarly the idea that measurements show light is both a particle and a wave. The Copenhagen Interpretation explains this as relating to the wave-function collapse. This proclamation by popularity ignores the problems of using classical methods of measurement to measure something in the quantum sense. But the theory is so loved that it has all but annihilated all comers for the past eighty plus years, some of which on first look seem to be closer to the truth.

The point of course is that science should not just proclaim truth. It should be based on measurable, empirical evidence. How does this happen then? In part, it happens because scientists treat ideas as if they are facts.

In 1935, when Ludwik Fleck wrote his monologue, The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, he raised a question science has yet to admit let alone address. Science treats ideas and facts as if they are philosophical equivalents. The thing is, a fact is a measurement—and an idea is an interpretation. Moreover, a fact is visible. An idea is not.

Saying the speed of light is fixed is one thing. This is an idea. Saying this fixed speed is a fact is quite another. To say this is a fact, ongoing measurements must agree. Enter the Myth of Sum-ism problem.

For the most part, the present scientific method assumes the unstated philosophical position that the world exists in measurable, discrete units. They also assume that reassembling these measurable, discrete units will result in things which are wholly equivalent to this thing in its natural state. Even quantum physicists treat the world like this, albeit their theories blur the line. In truth though, you can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Or stated more scientifically, in the real world, there are no naturally occurring things which, when dissembled, can then be reassembled to equal their natural state.

So what does it mean then when science claims it has accurately measured something? If sum-ism is false, then it means this claim cannot be entirely true. According to science though, to measure something, this thing must be separated from confounding influences. But in the real world, this is not possible. Your shoe size—and the state of your foot—vary constantly. Enter the problem of translating variables back into real world situations.

Imagine you've been asked to hold a large piece of cardboard up to the night sky. Now imagine this cardboard has one small hole in it, and through this hole you can see a star. Now let's say you know most of the night sky constellations, and that I ask you to identify this star. Could you do it? In truth, unless you could see the other stars around it, identifying this one star would at best be a guess. And yes, you might guess correctly from other things. But you could not know for sure.

This situation is what the current scientific method is like. It makes exploring single points the norm. In other words, science believes the best way to get valid results is to eliminate all but the relevant variables. Indeed, the gold standard of lab work is a research project in which you pare down what's being tested to a single variable. Certainly doing this does make the results clearer. Unfortunately this renders the results all but useless in real world situations—nothing exists in isolation in the real world. In other words, in the real world, everything affects everything else. And after all, isn't the point of science to know the nature of the "real" world?

This leads to a greater problem, as least as far as scope, the myth of a separation between science and philosophy. To wit, if you ask most scientists to divulge the philosophical beliefs which affect their research, most scientists will vehemently deny such beliefs exist.

In effect, this means they believe that they, and the present scientific method, function independently of any such beliefs. Ironically the creators of their method called themselves, "natural philosophers." In other words, science and philosophy were once considered indelibly integrated viewpoints in the search to know the natural world. But despite their denials—sum-ism, single point truths, truth without testability, and equating facts and ideas are all philosophical viewpoints. Each and every one of these philosophical beliefs will strongly bias a scientist's work.

This points to the next problem with the current scientific method, the myth of scientific open mindedness.

Obvious human failings aside, scientists generally assume the scientific method is unbiased. Yet the entire system begins with a step that severely narrows the field of acceptable data. What I mean by this is that the present scientific method requires you to start all research with a hypothesis. Unfortunately this "educated guess" so biases the scope of the research that it makes this research the equivalent of looking for lost car keys under a streetlight because the light allows you to see where you're looking.

In effect, by requiring a guess at the onset, the entire search gets biased right from the start. And here is where science's unstated philosophical assumptions come into play. By denying that it makes assumptions as to what makes something true, science overlooks the effect that these mind-closing assumptions have on discovering the true nature of the real world.

This then leads to the final problem in this list. By no means is this list comprehensive or complete. Ironically, science itself rarely admits to this kind of incompleteness. Yet this incompleteness is the main problem with the current scientific method.

One way to declare the depth of a truth is to say it is always true. Notably, science rarely says things like this. They're too busy fudging their answers. Indeed, one way science does this is to claim logically consistent numbers prove truth. However, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem states that "any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."

In effect this means any system of mathematics (or any system based largely on a system of mathematics) must be able to list all its axioms or be considered incomplete. Currently, only the most trivial of formal systems of mathematics can meet this test.

Not surprisingly, philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein proved the same limitation exists for anything expressed in words. Enter the present scientific method's grand flaw, its use of numbers and words. To wit, as presently practiced, neither words nor numbers can be said to be exact in the real world sense of this statement. So by design, science's mandate is doomed from the start, in that it cannot achieve the very things it claims it can do.

So what would a true scientific method look like? Let's make a bulleted list.

• A true scientific method should guarantee discoveries.
• A true scientific method should include a way to accurately measure real world things in real world situations.
• A true scientific method should limit its claims to those things which it can test empirically.
• A true scientific method should never proclaim something as true when there is still unexplained, contradictory evidence.
• A true scientific method should define facts and ideas in such a way as to allow scientists to delineate between these two things in an absolutely precise and clear fashion.
• A true scientific method should treat the real world as one interconnected whole. This would include interdisciplinary cooperation in such a way that the work of all scientists would need to be consistent with each others work or else be seen as flawed and in some way, untrue.
• A true scientific method should require every part of its scientific experiments, including all measurements, to directly and consistently translate to the real world.
• A true scientific method should honestly and openly state it's philosophical assumptions. So while these biases are unavoidable, at least they should be disclosed as part of the scientist's field of personal knowledge.
• A true scientific method should begin with an unfettered field of inquiry. This means no hypothesis should exist until sufficient observations have been made.
• A true scientific method should comprehensively define the scope of any claimed truths. Moreover, this scope should be complete within the stated realm of inquiry. This means a true scientific method should result in scientifically complete claims. And while at first this may seem to be an impossible goal, still, to be considered a true scientific method, this method should meet this requirement.

To begin with, keep in mind, this is merely an introduction. As such, it will probably leave you with more questions than it answers. At the same time, if you're interested, you can find more detailed descriptions elsewhere on the site. This said, in all, constellated science can roughly be broken down into four sections of learning.

[1] Learning to identify the four kinds of evidence—feelings, facts, stories, and ideas—the four truths defined by the All Possibilities Map.
[2] Learning the four ways to arrange this evidence—as single points, as linear continuums, as fractal continuums, and as tritinuums.
[3] Learning the four meanings which emerge from this evidence—the two questions, the four answers, the four truths, and the four states of truth.
[4] Finally, learning the four ways to constellate these meanings—[1] internally—to the other parts of this map, [2] internally—to the same points within other maps, [3] externally—to other, unmapped observations, and [4] externally—to other maps' observations.

All good science must begin by defining its terms. In constellated science, terms are defined entirely by their relationships to their complementary opposites. An already existing example which uses complementarity to define terms would be Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2. Here the complementarity exists in the physical state on each side of the equals sign.

Constellated science goes far beyond this in that each truth must simultaneously be the complementary opposite to three other truths. Moreover, this extreme level of complementarity must exist for all truths employed. In effect, each primary term must simultaneously be the complementary opposite to the other three. Thus all truths must be defined by all four kinds of evidence; facts, feelings, stories, and ideas.

Something to keep in mind whenever you begin a new map is, there is an ideal order in which to gather the four kinds of evidence. Again, this order parallels what naturally happens to us in the physical world. Here, [1] movement catches our attention, [2] we zoom in to take a snapshot, [3] we connect a series of snapshots to make an animation, and [4] we zoom out, looking for the essence of all similar animations. This means we humans have a natural way to collect evidence. This way is:

Step One: Sense Momentum—the Spiritual Step. In this step, you honor your intuition (feelings).
Step Two: Sense Position—the Materialist Step. In this step, you gather measurements (facts).
Step Three: Sense Position Changing—the Empirical Step. Here you gather sequential observations (stories).
Step Four: Sense Momentum Frozen—the Rationalist Step. Here you look for logical patterns which have arisen in all the other evidence (ideas).

Note that evidence gathering in the current scientific method occurs in an order which is counter to human nature. They begin with step 4, then step 2, then step 3, and if used at all, then step 1. In part, this is why the current scientific method fails so often. It begins with the ending, and in doing so, closes the mind.

Finally, why call these four steps, "the Four Certainties?" One of the main drives in human nature is to predict future suffering so we can avoid it. Everything from science and religion to the weather report and astrology are rooted in this drive. We want sure and certain knowledge that we will be okay. Thus the four kinds of evidence are the four kinds of certainty we seek.

If you boil the act of measurement down to its essence, there are only two kinds of measurements—quantity and quality. Both kinds of measurement generally employ some variation of a scale, and for most situations this works fine. Problems arise when the bar is raised to the level of scientific research, especially when scientists claim they can use scales to measure nonlinear qualities like personality, life experience, and medical prognosis. In truth, the scales science uses in these situations are probably about as accurate as newspaper astrology. Pain scales, neuroticism scales, and "chances I will live" scales all fail as far as being good science.

Constellated science acknowledges this difficulty and shuns scale-based measurements. It then avoids this dilemma by requiring all measurement situations be tipping-point based. Indeed, the thing which defines something as being measurable is that it can be put into a tipping-point based situation. Admittedly, this requirement results in many things being unmeasurable. If you can't create a tipping-point based situation, you can't measure this thing. This said, the things you can measure can be measured with 100% accuracy. Thus constellated science uses a far more honest approach. It admits what it can't scientifically measure and requires 100% certain outcomes for things it can measure.

In constellated science, there are four ways to arrange evidence—as single points, as linear continuums, as fractal continuums, and as tritinuums. As the foundation of logical geometry, these four forms are also known as geometries one through four. By definition, each of these geometries differs only in how it connects evidence to other evidence. Here the first geometry—single points make no connections to other evidence, the second geometry—linear continuums, identify a direction in which to move from one evidence towards one other evidence, the third geometry—fractal continuums, connect one evidence to one other evidence, and the fourth geometry—tritinuums, connects three instances of evidence to each other.

Know that as a system, logical geometry includes two more forms, the fifth geometry—crossed continuums, and the sixth geometry—quadtinuums. Together these six geometries comprise the entire nature of all possible patterns in all possible minds. This then is why I say logical geometry defines IQ. IQ has nothing to do with learning data. IQ is the ability to recognize patterns.

Finally, while some of this terminology may at first seen strange, it's actually relatively obvious. For instance, tritinuums are triangles of continuums, and quadtinuums are quadrants of continuums.

Without a doubt, the hardest thing to do in all of constellated science is to come up with the two sine qua non questions. Know there are tricks though.

The first trick is to start by giving your research a rough name. Then make a list of all of the qualities you associate with this name. Next use the four answers from prototype map to divide this list into four sublists. Look for things that have to do with visibility, and things that have to do with change. Then look for things that by definition, change, and things that by definition do not change.

At this point, you should have four quadrants of related evidence, some of which will be facts (material evidence), some of which will be stories (empirical evidence), some of which will be ideas (rational evidence), and some of which will be feelings (intuitive evidence). From this constellation of evidence, you should be able to derive your questions.

There are four meanings which emerge from the evidence in any map, [1] the two questions, [2] the four answers, [3] the four truths, and [4] the four states of truth. Here the map-making process begins with assigning the two questions to the axes in a blank map. The rest of the meanings begin to emerge as you answer these two questions. The two questions lead to a map's four answers. Adjacent answers lead to a map's four truths. And adjacent truths lead to a map's four states of truth.

The thing to see here is how these four steps form a closed sequence of symmetrical, complementary opposites. In other words, each step is predicated on the complementary nature of the prior step. This guarantees a map will contain no logical inconsistencies, loopholes, or accidental relationships. Either this progression of complementary opposites remains unbroken—or the map is incomplete.

There are four ways to constellate the meanings which emerge in a map, [1] internally—to the other parts of this map, [2] internally—to the same points within other maps, [3] externally—to other, unmapped observations, and [4] externally—to other maps' observations. You do this by contrasting and comparing the way these meanings are geometrically arranged. In the process, you uncover previously unseen relationships, and the more relationships you find, the more you discover about the nature of this evidence.

Know this contrasting and comparing process has a name. It's called, Outcome Constellating. As opposed to the act of creating maps, which is called, Process Constellating. Moreover, Outcome Constellating serves two purposes. One, it reveals the real world nature of whatever a map contains. Two, it uses all previous discoveries to test the validity of this and all other maps.

Finally, constellated science defines “discovery” as the act of connecting single points in meaningful patterns, and “scientific patterns” as those which omit none of what's been observed. In essence, constellating your observations and findings means two things. One, looking for meaningful geometric patterns in these observations and findings. And two, looking for meaningful geometric patterns which connect these findings to other maps.

So far, we've talked about constellating in the sense of finding patterns in what you observe. For instance, we talked about finding the pattern of stars we call the Big Dipper—as opposed to only seeing one of these stars. This form of constellating is known as process constellating. Here you constellate in order to make maps from the what you've observed. Know there is a second kind of constellating, the kind which happens after you make maps. This kind of constellating is known as outcome constellating. Here you constellate in order to find parallels between your new map and already existing maps. This, in fact, is what we did a moment ago when we looked for parallels between questions in finished maps. Moreover, this functions the same way a mathematical proof does; as a way to double check your work.

Finally, let's go through the list we made earlier, of the current scientific method's flaws. How many of these flaws does constellated science overcome?

• A true scientific method should guarantee discoveries.

Constellated science defines "discovery" as the act of connecting single points in meaningful patterns, and “scientific patterns” as those which omit none of what's been observed. By this definition, every map will guarantee discoveries, as every map reveals previously unseen connections. This is simply an inherent part of every map.

• A true scientific method should include a way to accurately measure real world things in real world situations.
  

All tipping-point based measurements, by their nature, directly translate to the real world. Scaled-based measurements, by their nature, never do. So since everything in constellated science is based on tipping-points rather than on scales, all results are clear, certain, real world results.

• A true scientific method should limit its claims to those things which it can test empirically.
  

Constellated science states that things which cannot be expressed as tipping-points cannot be defined let alone measured. In effect, things which cannot be described as tipping-points cannot be treated as scientific evidence. At the same time, since omitting evidence is not allowed, discovering these tipping-points is one of the main functions of the science.

• A true scientific method should never proclaim something as true when there is still unexplained, contradictory evidence.
  

By requiring that all known evidence be constellated into a single map, constellated science forces researchers to explain and resolve contradictory evidence. This means, whatever it proclaims as true cannot contain unexplained or contradictory evidence.

• A true scientific method should define facts and ideas in such a way as to allow scientists to delineate between these two things in an absolutely precise and clear fashion.
  

Constellated science defines facts as "visible unchange" and ideas as "invisible unchange." This makes discerning between these two kinds of evidence straight-forward and certain. One is visible. The other is not.

• A true scientific method should treat the real world as one interconnected whole. This would include interdisciplinary cooperation in such a way that the work of all scientists would need to be consistent with each others work. If not, then this work should be seen as flawed and in some way, untrue.
  

Conventional science treats all things as if they can be broken down into component parts. Even the quantum theories do this when they use conventional physics to define their truths. Constellated science treats all things as aspects of one thing; the natural world. So while you can focus on one facet of a diamond, you can never forget the diamond. This forces inter-cooperation between all areas of research, as constellated science disallows the currently common practice of disregarding unexplained or contradictory evidence.

• A true scientific method should require every part of its scientific experiments, including its measurements and its results, to directly and consistently translate to the real world.
  

In constellated science, all results must translate directly to the real world. Results which do not meet this criteria are seen as incomplete. What insures this the requirement that all measurements be tipping-point based, as opposed to conventional science's norm—scale-based measurements.

• A true scientific method should honestly and openly state it's philosophical assumptions. So while these biases are unavoidable, at least they should be disclosed as part of the scientist's field of personal knowledge.
  

Conventional science acts as if all things are either true or false, moreover, that if you look long enough you can know all things. Constellated science openly aligns with Descartes in stating that you cannot know a thing is false. You can only know if something is true or that know you cannot know. Conventional science also acts as if it can decide which evidence is relevant and which is not. For example, it routinely dismisses all spiritual evidence and any evidence which is generally seen as pseudo-scientific. Constellated science believes that disregarding any measurable evidence, including spiritual evidence, invalidates the results. And yes, this means there is much to learn with regard to making spiritual things measurable. Nonetheless, all evidence must be included.

• A true scientific method should begin with an unfettered field of inquiry. This means no hypothesis should exist until sufficient observations have been made.
  

In constellated science, no hypothesis is made until a map is finished, at which point many hypotheses emerge. In a sense then, constellated science is inductive rather than deductive, albeit, at some point the process becomes deductive as well.

• A true scientific method should comprehensively define the scope of any claimed truths. Moreover, this scope should be complete within the stated realm of inquiry. This means a true scientific method should result in scientifically complete claims. And while at first this may seem to be an impossible goal, still, to be considered a true scientific method, this method should meet this requirement.

If you take few moments to explore the way the four evidences are defined, you quickly see there in nothing in our world which is not accounted for. Know this holds true for all of constellated science's maps. Because logical geometry underlies all constructs in constellated science, all constructs, by design, must cover the entire scope of the map topic.

What you see above is the five-step sequence with which constellated science makes and tests its discoveries. Here the thing to pay attention to is that once you identify the two "sine qua non," work questions, the discovery process occurs all on its own. Moreover, every element in a map must be logically consistent with every other element, including that every element must be paired with its complementary opposite. Indeed, this consistency is where the discoveries lie; in the previously unseen connections between pairs of complementary opposites.

This map—the "all possible truths" map—is the most important map of all. I say this because all other maps are in some way a subset of this map. This makes this the map to go to when you're stuck and can't come up with a question, especially if you look for variations of and parallels to this map's answers.

To me, the most amazing thing about the "all possible truths" map is that it defines the full scope of all possible minds. And if this was all it did, it would be incredible. But as you're about to see, it does so much more.

In this map, I've delineated the nature all possible arithmetic operations—what makes them different, and why are there only four. So what can we discover about arithmetic from this map? For instance can we see why children get stuck at learning multiplication, or why learning division is even harder? For that matter, why must we start with addition and not subtraction? Aren't they simply the same thing only in reverse? Finally, remember, it took me two years to come up with the two sine qua non questions.

The key to understanding the arithmetic operations is to notice that two operations are entirely visible and two are partially invisible. Here you can see addition and subtraction from beginning to end. But multiplication and division are only partially visible. This means there is a part of these two operations which you cannot see. This part is what makes them so hard to understand. Add to this that two operations involve another mind obstacle—negation—and you begin to see why kids begin learning arithmetic by learning to add.

In this flow chart lies the secret to managing your body weight, both for losing weight and for maintaining this weight loss. That it is the complete opposite to every current advice just goes to show the potential these maps hold for seeing through bullshit.

Clearly, this map shows why current advise about diet and exercise leads to obesity. And why the very opposite advice can lead to being naturally thin.

To me, one of the worst things science has ever done is to make brokenness the defining quality in personality. This brokenness includes the four conditions which together define all social distractions—Autism, OCD, Asperger's, and ADD. The thing is, these four "conditions" affect people's entire personality. In other words, nothing in their personalities is unaffected. Thus a more accurate way to describe these four conditions would be to call them, minority personalities.

Admittedly, learning to meditate is hard, mainly because we're told to "be," not "do." We try. But it's hard to accomplish something for which you're been given no meaningful definitions. To wit, no one ever tells us what "being" and "doing" are. Enter the Map of Being and Doing.

Can you see how easy it is to get yourself to focus on being? Simply focus all your attention on sensing change. This means anytime you find yourself focusing on something that is not changing (on facts, or on an idea), simply allow yourself to keep observing until these facts and ideas change.

And if they don't? Then you're doing, not being. Keep observing—without judgment—until you once again notice change.