Science consists of a body of knowledge and the process of how that knowledge is developed. The process of science involves asking questions and generating testable explanations and methods to prove the results which are shared publicly so they can be evaluated by the scientific community.
Scientific knowledge is always evolving as new and better methods and tools gather more and more data.
However, knowledge is only a step towards understanding something, the next step is using that knowledge to actually knowing it by the How to Think method and then gaining wisdom.
This step in the evolving process of knowledge is what I call The Science of Knowledge.
The Science of Knowledge should be a new science. It is almost unknown in the scientific world of facts and data. Not to be confused with the book written in 1794 by the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte with the same title.
Science without wisdom, we might say, is a problem. The quest for wisdom has become a new goal besides that of knowledge. It is important to gain wisdom from science for the future of the world.
Wisdom is taken to be the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others. It includes knowledge, understanding and technological know-how, converted into a knowing to live a certain way.
However, the science of today is, a kind of method devoted only to the pursuit of knowledge.
Think about taking a book off the ledge of the bookshelf. You don’t know that book yet, but you have the intention of learning some new knowledge.
This process of learning something new and how to learn it into an absolute knowing is part of the Science of Knowledge.
One of the ways that helps science evolve is when the inquisitive mind thinks of new possibilities and comes up with a new idea or a new method that hasn’t been used or thought of before.
Knowledge can only stretch the mind slightly but adding imagination goes much farther.
That inquisitive mind that stretched beyond the facts and data that exists in scientific knowledge is using this process.
In this example it was the imagination of the mind that thought beyond the data to come up with a new idea. This is called thinking outside the box.
We can think of this process as a science of the mind, an invisible force that uses Imagination. It was Einstein that said “imagination is the greatest power in the universe”.
Using your imagination is the first step in creating new knowledge. The next step is describing a new process or theory using your ideas and diagrams and then offering it to the scientific method to test and prove the new idea or theory.
When it has been accepted, then adding that theory into the knowledge of science.
The final step is knowing the new idea by using it and getting wisdom by thinking the right way. The Science of Knowledge uses the principal of How to Think, not what to think.
How to Think uses your discernment about all information. It means you don’t blindly follow someone else’s thinking or beliefs.
It doesn’t matter if it’s your teacher, your parents or a religious figure. You will still question all information and knowledge and run that past your internal filters. Does it make sense, to be true? Is it testable? Is it based on fear principles or on empowering principles?
If the knowledge passes this test of discernment you are ready to accept the knowledge as being true, or at least for the time being. The scientific method uses falsification to prove a theory.
The Science of Knowledge then is an examination of the thinking process and the ways that could be used to make that process better.
When we understand the How to Think method we gain knowledge faster and that leads to knowing and converting knowledge into wisdom.
The How to Think method can also be used with the Law of Attraction to allow you to manifest what your mind desires. This way of thinking is described in my book Attracting Abundance.
A new method to test a theory
Karl Popper the philosopher of science argued that science cannot verify theories but can only refute them, and this is how science makes progress.
Scientists are forced to think up something better, and it is this, according to Popper, that drives science forward.
Karl Popper, 1902-1994, is best-known for the principle of falsification, a means of distinguishing pseudo-scientific theories, like astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis, from genuine ones, like quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Popper pointed out that theories make predictions that can be empirically tested.
But scientists can never prove a theory to be true, Popper insisted, because the next test might contradict all that preceded it. Observations can only disprove a theory, or falsify it.
One can sum this all up by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability’
But falsification is a mere guideline, a rule of thumb, sometimes helpful, sometimes not. Now, some physicists and philosophers think it is time to reconsider the notion of falsifiability.
Could a theory that provides an elegant and accurate account of the world around us even if its predictions can’t be tested by today’s experiments, still “count” as science?
As theory pulls further and further ahead of the capabilities of experiment, physicists are taking this question seriously. The new Science of Knowledge and the how to Think method provides some insight…
“We are in various ways hitting the limits of what will ever be testable, unless we have misunderstood some essential point about the nature of reality,” says theoretical cosmologist George Ellis. “We have now seen all the visible universe (i.e. back to the visual horizon) and only gravitational waves remain to be tested further.
We are approaching the limits of what particle colliders will do or if they can ever be feasible to build, for economic and technical reasons.”
For instance, infinity and zero is needed to complete mathematics, but it occurs nowhere in the physical Universe.
Mathematics has been used as support for theories instead of using it as a tool to prove testable evidence.
Scientists are rethinking the fundamental principle that scientific theories must make testable predictions. Maybe a new method of gaining knowledge is needed?
Nicholas Maxwell wrote Karl Popper held the view, that science proceeds by assessing theories impartially in the light of evidence, no permanent assumption being accepted by science about the universe independently of evidence.
But this standard empiricist view is unrealistic. If taken literally, it would instantly bring science to a standstill. Science would be drowned in an ocean of empirically successful rival theories but in practice, these rivals are excluded because they are disastrously disunified.
Two considerations govern acceptance of theories in science. Introduction to empirical success and unity.
But in persistently accepting unified theories, to the extent of rejecting disunified rivals that are just as, or even more, empirically successful, science makes a big persistent assumption about the universe that the universe is such that all disunified theories are false.
The assumption is that the universe has some kind of unified dynamic structure and it is physically understandable in the sense that explanations for phenomena exist to be discovered.
But this untestable (and thus metaphysical) assumption that the universe is understandable is seriously problematic.
Science is obliged to assume, but does not know, that the universe is understandable.
Much less does it know that the universe is this way or that way. What came before the Big Bang? What exists outside of the Universe and where is the hidden dark matter of the universe?
Science needs a new criterion in order to think outside the box and catch up with scientific data. We will stay stuck in a 3rd dimension reality of science instead of moving into a 4th and 5th dimensional thinking.
I feel that science is at a crossroad where it must make a new decision. How they think about gaining wisdom and thinking outside the box, will or will not bring in a new era of science?
Please add a like or maybe leave a comment.
Erik has a BSc degree and is a retired professional photographer who is now a published Author of many books. His passion is understanding how life and the universe works. He is currently blogging about the science of the Big Bang and the science of cosmology. Erik is helping his tribe with questions about the universe. His goal is to help find a theory of everything (TOE). In order to do that, he is trying to prove light has mass and that the fabric of spacetime is a false theory. We are welcoming questions and answers that you might have about the universe.