Article 48

The Differentiation Of Science From Non Science (Nonsense).

Having previously shown that Brexit was treated as a subject for belief/counter-belief debate by all political parties, media commentators and the voting public, instead of being treated as a knowledge-only policy in need of knowledge-only implementation; that this latter approach would have terminated debate long since, as it would all political issues which are invariably treated as subjects for belief/counter-belief debate without ever recognising the absence of debate-terminating knowledge, which alone would enable implementation of a knowledge-only solution to a knowledge-only problem: I now exemplify the ubiquity of this absence of knowledge by showing that some other belief-only policies are open to recasting as knowledge-only alternatives as I have shown Brexit to be; that those which can not be thus recast, must be rejected as belief-only policies unfit for implementation; and that others must be suspended until the necessary cause-effect knowledge is acquired and applied in their implementation. However, before these benefits can be realised, it must first be recognised that the foregoing requirements have been been ignored from time immemorial; that my new classification of existing and future policy-options must now be generally accepted in order that belief-only options may be recast as knowledge-only, rejected as belief-only, or suspended until their beliefs can be reality-validated to positive knowledge or reality-refuted to negative knowledge by the cause-effect experimentation in,or direct observation of, reality, as promulgated by this website which not only differentiates the knowledge/belief dichotomy definitively, but also those of truth/falsehood, wisdom/folly, right/wrong and good/bad, and which thus also differentiates the practical reliability of cause-effect craft and scientific knowledge from the impracticality of belief; and draws attention to the ease with which non-science (nonsense) is currently passed off as science in a general failure to differentiate science from non-science (nonsense) despite the ease with which the general public differentiates craftsmanship (knowledge) from botched work (absence of craft-knowledge).

As to the science/non-science, issue, my readers will recall with respect to response to Covid-19, that commentators often refer to whether or not politicians are following ‘the science’, while other commentators excuse any failure to do so, by reporting that scientists themselves are not in agreement. However, I hope my readers can now recognise that scientists never disagree with science as here defined as knowledge which has been reality-validated by cause-effect experimentation; that where they disagree is where there is universal disagreement i.e. in all areas of belief and opinion as herein definitively differentiated from knowledge by their validation or refutation by reality; that recognition of available knowledge or of its absence, is capable of terminating all belief/counter-belief disagreements and the debates to which they incessantly give rise; and that where self-styled scientists argue belief against counter belief and vice versa, they are not acting as scientists. Thus, I have shown in previous articles of this website that politicians, media commentators and the voting public are invariably engaged in debating belief/counter-belief in the absence of debate-terminating conclusive knowledge; that none of these debaters recognise the need to acquire conclusive knowledge; and that were they do so, much of what is now implemented as self-styled expert policy would not be implemented were knowledge to replace belief as I herein advocate. Before proceeding, from this point onwards, I recall for my readers that the debate of opinion/counter-opinion is merely the debate of belief/counter-belief supported by partially selected facts/counter-facts, evidence/counter-evidence and news/false-news, no set of which is debate-terminating conclusive knowledge.

Thus, having recast Brexit as a knowledge-only policy to the potential benefit of UKIP, I intend to confront the belief-only Scottish National Party (SNP) with a recasting of the current case for remaining in the UK as a knowledge-only policy, again for potential promulgation by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). As to our UK governmental response to the Covid 19 pandemic, I have previously recorded that the Cygnus investigation of belief/counter-belief produced nothing useful; that the attempt to isolate the non-infected from the infected rather than the reverse was counter to all previous practice and ill-advised in apparently having ignored the previous practice which would at least have isolated the infected from the non-infected in the hospitals themselves and would have emphasised the need to supply adequate levels of PPE therein; that while much was heard about whether or not politicians were following the science, the only recognisable science in the whole affair was and is that which produced the vaccines; that meanwhile overseas travel from areas of infection was unrestricted and/or patchy for far too long; that the age-distribution of infection and death-rate was largely ignored in policy-formulation which continued to be belief-only; that no attempt was made to separate the Covid death-rate itself from death by under-lying conditions and from old age itself; and that we must be much better prepared to apply knowledge instead of belief for the next pandemic which could well have a higher and more equally distributed age-related death-rates; but that this will not happen without active recognition of the need to differentiate knowledge/belief dichotomy as advocated in this website.

Again, with respect to global warming, I have already noted that policy has thus far been belief-only in that it is believed to be caused by our increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by our increasing combustion of fossil fuels since the start of our industrial revolution; in that these increasing emissions are believed to be the sole cause of our planet’s increasing temperature, of its melting polar ice caps and of its high altitude ice; in that this anthropogenic melting in turn is believed to be causing global sea levels to rise to the detriment of low lying coastal areas and their inhabitants; and in that it is believed we should terminate all combustion of fossil fuels and rely on non-fossil energy sources whatever the additional costs might be. Yet again, the mining of coal suitable for the production of coke as required for the production of steel in the UK has recently been banned. However, I here state that these terminations exemplify the category of belief-only policies which must be rejected as unfit for implementation or must be suspended until the necessary cause effect knowledge is acquired and applied to them (c f opening paragraph of this article. Indeed, this website has already recorded that the onset of sea level rise vastly predates our industrial emissions carbon dioxide.

As to whether the belief in anthropogenic global warming should continue to be implemented as policy or rejected as unfit for such implementation, I have previously cited our knowledge that the Channel Islands were earlier part of what is now mainland France; that at least some of the Hebrides were part of mainland Scotland; that a city, formerly on the Nile Delta and trading with Ancient Athens, is now beneath the Mediterranean Sea; that two cities formerly at the mouth of the Indus are now beneath the surface of the global ocean. Again, perhaps to top all that, the Sunday Telegraph of 21/3/21 reported that cave paintings were accessed through a sub-sea tunnel from an entrance 37 metres beneath the Mediterranean Sea by Henri Cosquer who dived through a 120 metre tunnel (in 1991) which led to a huge chamber partially above sea level the walls of which were decorated with some 500 paintings of 11 different species including horses, deer, bison and a lion, penguins, auks, seals and jellyfish, now recently dated to two discrete periods – 30,000 and 19,000 years ago – which tells us that sea levels have risen by at least 37 metres since then, though this conclusion was not mentioned in the Telegraph article, no doubt out of respect for the current belief in sea level rise being due to our more recent industrialised combustion of fossil fuels. How much more reality-refutation of belief to negative knowledge will be needed for suspension of our current responses to the belief in anthropogenic global warming, and how much more will be needed before it is concluded that this belief is unfit for implementation as policy (cf., opening paragraph)? Again, I recall reports that the Thames was subject to freezing in winter from 1300 to 1800 sometimes to the extent of bearing the weight of crowds of ice-festival attendees. 26/3/21.