Thursday, November 30, 2006

Theory of Science by Philosophy Principles

1. The Breakthrough - Pursuing a 'Scientific Discovery'

When I saw that a special synthetic cord was performing so well on a self-watering potted plant I realized that the device called 'wick' had trespassed the boundary of knowledge allowing an enhanced hydrological functioning far beyond of what happens to oil lamps. Then, I figured out that a special interface to connect saturated zone with the unsaturated hydraulic zone for a reliable and continuous water supply since the plastic composition of the fibers was resistant to microbiological degradation. Initially I understood that such cord made of synthetic material could not work anymore on oil lamps portraying an important gap for a new hydrological functioning ready for a deeper exploration.

Why did it happen?
First, I had to help my wife care for her African Violet plants that were not doing well regarding their watering regime. There was around 20 plants and some of them were perishing due to problems associated to watering being excessive or scarce. After two months of trials the problem was solved easily by immersing each pot to a large bowl of water soaking the rooting compartment and afterwards raising it to get rid of excessive (saturated) water. Such operation repeated every three days were providing enough water content to reestablish a vigorous green physiological response preventing malfunctioning and getting rid of excessive water at the rooting system.

The soaking operation was working out for the plants but it was not that practical with large numbers. It was becoming a burden to repeat each three days since the plants were recovering in quality and quantity. Suddenly I decided to make the watering process an automatic operation employing what was knows as a 'wick watering' commonly used as a temporary option to people going away on vacation. I employed some special cords that I had brought from the US during my PhD and the result was so splendid that I tested the material to check if the cord had artificial fibers. The cords I employed would fail on oil lamps and then I started to realize the features of a new hydrological functioning I had bumped to by doing a sort of advanced gardening at home. I had no difficulties to design some simple home experiments since I lived in a house plenty of room to gather precious information that later were used to file many patents.

Second, I was a PhD in Soil Science/Spatial Applied Hydrogeology graduated at Pennsylvania State University, USA accumulating so far 14 years of education in Agricultural Sciences. Also, my college was in Animal Production while my master was in Animal Nutrition where I ran experiments on balance of nitrogen and energy. I was just playing an advanced gardening at home. Just by chance, Bill Clinton was the speecher of my commencement on May 10, 1996 when he was delivering his first speech for reelection. Well, all politicians say the same thing, but I do recall when he said that some of us would be creating new jobs or technology never dreamed before. As matter of fact, its seems that I found out a huge hydrological gap in science and technology with a high potential to bring outstanding changes down the line to many industries related to fluid moving on porosity.

Third, I am a person that just enjoy learning and exploiting new boundaries of knowledge never dreaming of getting rich or famous, but aiming that my scientific curiosity could pay itself. My PhD was accomplished in 3.5 years with honors and some hardship since I was getting doctorate in Soil Science but my background was Animal Nutrition MSc and Animal Husbandry BSc. Also, there was another important discovery during my training on higher education. I figured out that scientists are not learning about Philosophy of Science even though their titles say that they are PhD. Graduate programs at top universities enrolling PhD students do not require them to attend classes on Philosophy of Science and it can easily be checked around like I did that time. Schooling myself about Theory of Science I figured out that Philosophy is the academic discipline to provide insights how science works. We could almost conclude that PhDs are near illiterate on the functioning of science since they do not learn deeply about Philosophy of Science to master the boundaries of knowledge and existence for a coherent scientific practice. The truth is that scientists are not learning enough about Philosophy of Science to justify their titles as Ph. D.

2. Theory of Science

'What can I know and I how do I know that I know it?'
The ultimate step in science is understanding and comprehension.
A PhD is not a person that knows everything but the exact boundaries of knowledge dividing that part that humans already know and the other part that is unknown. It is important to be honest to admit where the boundary is laying.
Theory of knowledge is very important because very frequently people are assuming that they do know about some subject when evidence may prove otherwise. I just figured out that experts behind wicking devices have no understanding on Hydrology background not even to gauge fluid conduction by Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity.
Knowledge boundaries is highly dependent on our senses to understand the functioning of nature and it gets more difficult when the dimension is too small or too large, too close or too far away, too long in the past or not part of our present yet.

'What really exist in the universe? '
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist'.
It is intriguing how short scientists and public in general understand the boundaries of existence. Science only works with existing objects which can be dealt in one way or another. What does not exist there is nothing to talk about or even to prove. Whenever a scientist say that something does not exist it is a real violation to principles of science. What does not exist cannot have any sensible word that fits to it in case it does not exist. There is no way to describe what does not exist. A good PhD never talks about things that does not exist because science only deals with existing objects.

"What is the best way to setup my thinking in order to make it as clear as possible?'
Albert Einstein said that 'God does not play dice'. Nature has a different profile because randomness is not uniform in time and space since the hydrological cycle easily can prove it when rainfall brings continuous random droplets that end up packing together in the drainage structure leaving the watershed always by a unique point downstream. Over time continuous recharge of a watershed makes a drainage structure that carves a concentrating structure of discharge and life may have been born on such wonders of nature functioning where chaos can have a variable structure on natural phenomena.

History of Science
It should portray human evolution toward science and nature. The quantification system is modeling the outcome of science in the last 300 years pushing science to benefit the economic system favoring most development toward profit. The problem of such profile is that Nature endorse neither quantitative systems nor the economy. In few words there is a side effect to the poor as starvation for not having enough food while there is a strong consequence for the wealthy as obesity for not controlling food intake in balance with energetic requirements.

Who is more intelligent man or woman?
Quantitative evaluation can provide numbers that screen a different gender result in performance while the qualitative system allows us to give simple words expressing a difference, like 'better'. Just as analogy I could do the same analytical evaluation regarding the dexterity between my right and my left hand typing over this cold keyboard under my fingers. It is possible to set innumerous experiments to gauge the differential performance between my right and my left hand regarding their skills to perform many tasks. I am a right-handed person and it should provide results not favoring my left hand. Can I conclude that my right hand is better than my left hand? Why does it happen this way? Was I supposed to have two right hands or have both equally skilled? My conclusion is that Nature neither endorse the quantitative nor the qualitative system, making better or worse very subtle toward the principles of nature. My brain trains more one side to perform mechanical tasks that requires just one side to accomplish it and my mind saves time and energy training just one side instead of both.

When I read an scientific paper comparing the physiological response to push a button between a monkey and a pig about their intelligence I wonder myself who is more intelligent: the monkey, the pig, the scientist doing the experiment, or the reader reading the article. First pigs never had buttons on their mud during their evolution, neither had monkeys any button to press on the trees to get their bananas. If man is intelligent since apparently it came from apes, perhaps we should eat more bananas and gobble less pills.

In the eyes of Nature functioning Man and Woman are not comparable and should blend together to complement their physiological tasks and guide humans toward eternity. People trying to measure it are not skilled in the philosophy of science to understand the core principles of Nature functioning. Consequently they may end up bringing conclusions on the difference between Man and Woman that nature neither agree nor care about.

If we could conclude that man is more intelligent than woman regarding scientific production, then woman could indeed blame man for the junk that so frequently violates principles of science.

3. Is it worth to pursue a 'Scientific Discovery'?

It is not easy to answer this question since the personal reward is complex to evaluate considering the outcome toward the hardship of a huge challenge. Financially it may bring rewards, but after 9 years in the project I have not yet score a penny. So, working a long time involved in a project hard to have economic response is a challenge to most dreaming scientists belonging to our modern economic society that constantly brings bills for paying.

Toward the eyes of Nature it may not be worth it because humans are spoiling their existence and not helping much nature working by itself handling our evolution. Man always dreamed about harnessing nature but the truth is that man is collecting the consequences from its endeavors messing with a complex mechanism beyond our limited comprehension.

Scientists that do understand nature functioning can start concluding with their sense that modern life is not making life better from some simple logical conclusions below:

1. Food had always been the most important factor for survival and growth since man always ran after food. Nowadays the food is excessive and the food industry is chasing humans at every corner making it hard to run away from food. I am providing this insight that it is easier to provide food than producing it abundantly and ask people not to eat excessively.

2. Man always thought as being clever to develop machinery to make all the hard work. After so many machineries developed to make almost everything man is realizing that as consequence our muscles are going flaccid. Nowadays it becomes complicated to convince obese people that machinery was developed but human muscles are not supposed to be retired and a continuous body fitness is part of maintenance to keep their strength and fluid dynamics. I am developing another insight that it is easier to develop machinery than to develop it and demand people to continue working their bodies.

3. In our evolution human appetite was developed by Nature to be strong making us eat wildly during our journey from the past chasing food whenever we could reach it. Then, human appetite was tuned to make us highly voracious during times when food had always being scarce. I have this other insight that our appetite entrapped in our DNA is still the same very wild that should not be unleashed.

4. Life principles are based on continuous survival and when we die we can take with us neither fame nor wealth in the recycling process. It is much more important to pursue a balance in life caring for our survival and then extending it toward a healthy end. I think that the most accomplishment of my adventure pursuing this 'scientific discovery' was to have the opportunity to understand such subtle fundamentals to my own good like having BMI as 23.5, very low consumption of alcohol, and a perfect body fitness. If lucky I may enjoy along life for having a good body maintenance.

5. When an infertile person receive a medical treatment and become able to procreate it sounds like a magic of human knowledge. I think that we are spoiling an important mechanism in human evolution dealing with quality control. We are just putting back to production what nature is discarding like it has been doing since the beginning. It is like going to an assembling line of a manufacturing industry and fire all people at quality control letting all products, good or malfunctioning, reach the end of production.

I will always be wondering myself how wise can man be for violating nature rules.

Are humans really intelligent?

1 comment:

Chuong said...

Your writing is very inspiring. Thank you for sharing your ideas.