The Myth of the "Scientific Method"

The promise of the present scientific method is truly amazing. The reality, though, is that scientific discoveries arise more out of brute force efforts than from anything intrinsic to this method. Indeed, wonderful though scientific discoveries are in the rare moments when they occur, the process that leads to these discoveries more resembles educated monkeys trying to paint Rembrandts than anything that can be called, "science." Ironically, this makes all sciences, "soft sciences," in that they so rarely make discoveries. And main the source of this scientific softness is that different scientific disciplines are not required to agree.

In this section of the site, I'll be introducing an alternate scientific method. This method requires far more scientific rigor than anything previously thought possible. For one thing, regardless of discipline, all claims and conclusions must directly correlate to all other claims and conclusions. No contradictions or omissions allowed. More important, all claims and conclusions must directly translate to the real world. In other words, conjecture cannot be claimed as scientific truth.

Have you ever wondered why we haven't amended the scientific method? After all, it fails to make discoveries more than 99% of the time. Could it be that dogmatic scientists maim and ridicule dissenters?

An Introduction to Constellated Science (a more rigorous scientific method) 2013 (ongoing)

When I describe logical geometry to someone who has never heard of it, most people tell me it sounds like something Malcolm Gladwell wrote. It's not. Logical geometry is the marriage of shapes and words or more technically stated, geometric arrangements of logical words and phrases. In truth though, it's more like mental Legos which we use to learn, live, grow, and love.

A First Look at Logical Geometry (the marriage of shapes and words) 2013 (coming soon)

On Scientifically Defining Fractals (the science underlying everything on the site) 2013

If I toss a coin—and after it lands—ask you what the result is, as long as you can see it, you'll be one hundred percent certain of the outcome. Amazingly, if you extend this simple truth to all real world measurements, you end up with the same certainty about all your results. The trick of course is to design the measurements so that they are tipping-point based. Sometimes this is easy. Sometimes this is hard. But anytime you can manage to do this, you get sure and certain results. Why then would any science-based endeavor use any other method?

Hardening Up the Soft Sciences (getting real about real world measurement) 2013 (coming soon)

In 2008, constellated science was nothing more than a hunch, mostly based on the idea that linearity does not exist in the real world. What does exist is fractal patterns, including in our minds. We learn to interact with the real world one fractal at a time. So why does science still seek linear descriptions for the world and everything in it? Even fifth graders know nature contains no straight lines. And yes, in theory, linear descriptions have much to teach us about the world. But when it comes time to use these teachings, they must be fudged in order to be useful.

On Having Scientifically Credible Sources (trusting linear vs. fractal proof) 2008


  • Can you make a new discovery?