Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Rational Scientific Method

The Rational Scientific Method is how intelligent beings can objectively and rationally explain phenomena and arrive at rational conclusions about reality. Using this method is how we can achieve an understanding of the world around us. There have been multiple formal presentations of the method, but they all follow the same essential principles. I have provided them below.

The Rational Scientific Method

by Monk E. Mind, posted at http://independent.academia.edu/MonkEMind/Papers

Hypothesis, Theory, and Conclusion: A Rational Scientific Method of Inquiry
In science, a definition is a limitation, or restriction on the use of a word. Scientific
definitions are rational, non-contradictory, unambiguous terms that are
consistently used, and narrowly defined by the person who is making the
hypothesis. We use adjectives to modify nouns (objects) and adverbs to qualify
verbs (concepts/phenomena).
Science in general and physics in particular, is about the physical... those things
which have physical presence. What is real. Things that exist. To exist means to
have shape, and location. That is, an object with a location. Something,
somewhere. We visualize objects, and we explain concepts. WE DO NOT
EXPLAIN OBJECTS. We point to them. We explain phenomena. Herein lies the
problems with mainstream science’s un-scientific method of inquiry.
The Scientific Method is hypothesis and theory. The conclusion is left to each
individual to make. The hypothesis includes the statement of facts, the key terms,
and the objects. The hypothesis describes the phenomena, or, illustrates the
objects, defines the key terms, then makes assumptions (a statement of facts -
not the facts themselves). Assumptions are not true or false. One does not define
objects, one illustrates them. The theory explains the hypothesis. Everyone must
decide for themselves. Each individual forms a conclusion that the theory is
either possible, or, it is not possible.
Science is about explaining. Science, in general, and Physics in particular, is
about physically present objects. Understanding the difference between objects,
and concepts allows one to rationally make a conclusion about the Key Terms,
and the statement of facts at the hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method.
Proof is for math. Science never proves. Science is about physical reality. Math
describes abstract dynamic concepts whereas science illustrates static physical
objects, and explains phenomena.
A hypothesis stands on its own. It matters not whether who agrees. The
hypothesis should illustrate the objects, define the Key Terms, and present a
statement of the facts (the assumptions). The theory then would explain the
phenomena of the hypothesis. There is no correctness or incorrectness of a
hypothesis (it is an assumption). It is either rational or not. If it is rational, we
accept the assumption of the hypothesis. Predictions and observations are
opinions, and extra-scientific.
Hypotheses are assumptions, and theories explain the hypotheses. We form a
conclusion that the theory is either possible, or it is not possible.
We describe objects in the hypothesis. We explain concepts in the theory. We
never explain objects, we illustrate them or point to them. This is why in science it
is crucial to understand the difference between objects and concepts, nouns and
verbs, adjectives and adverbs, and hypothesis and theory.
We can say: I see a field of corn. The corn stalks wave in the wind. I have a dust
particle in my eye. BUT...fields, waves, and point particles, are concepts in math
which do not exist in physical reality, and should not be presented in the
"Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as
mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact." -- Einstein
The mathematical physicist uses ambiguous or contradictory terms, and even
does that inconsistently. He, or she, confuses objects with concepts, nouns with
verbs, adverbs with adjectives, and hypothesis with theory.
Reality does not depend on human perception, or observation. It is because the
human senses are limited and flawed, that science must be as objective as
possible. The scientific method is observer independent as much as possible. A
rational Key Term never invokes an observer. Although our senses are limited,
there is no limit to our intellect.
One must apply rationality, reasoning, and critical thought at the conceptual
stage in the hypothesis.
Precision is precious. Defining key terms is critically important. Understanding
the difference between concepts and objects is essential in dealing with science.
In science, one must be able to visualize the concrete object. Objects must be
illustrated in the hypothesis. The objects are the ‘actors’, the KEY TERMS make
clear the meaning (of the script) and the statement of facts sets the initial ‘scene’
for the theory. The dynamic concept(s) in the theory is/are describing the
phenomena of the hypothesis. The hypothesis is a photo (static), the theory is a
movie (dynamic).
Each person takes away their own conclusion as to whether the ‘story’ was
possible or not.
Most important are the KEY TERMS, and these words have meaning as defined
by the theorist. In science, one can only use objects which can be illustrated in
the hypothesis. If it can not be illustrated or visualized, then it is not real, it has no
physical presence. What is not physical, has no place in science.
Science, especially Physics is conceptual. Technology (mostly trial & error)
is empirical.
Planes that fly, microwaves that heat, and GPS devices that measure your
position, work primarily because of technology through trial and error…not
because the theories that they are supposedly founded upon are ‘correct’.
The problem lies in the confusion between objects and concepts. There is no
good way to discuss General, or Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or
String Theory until the point, line, and plane can be defined and understood.
Math attempts to describe dynamic concepts by moving numbers. Physics is
about reality. What exists, that is physically present objects with location, and
that are made up of matter. These are static, and can be photographed, or
illustrated. But we must be able to define what ‘exist’ means.

Universe: matter (atoms) and space (nothing)
Concept: the relationship between two or more objects
Object: that which has shape
Space: that which does not have shape
Exist: matter + location
Location: the set of static distances from one to all other objects
Motion: Object + 2 or more locations

Theoretical physics, Newtonian physics, ToR and QM don't explain anything,
they describe. These theories predict, or describe, but do not explain. It is not
interesting that Newton tells me an apple falls at 9.8 meters per ft per second per
second. I want to know why. I can point at an apple and say. “Look it is falling
real fast.” So what? What is the physical medium that attracts objects to each
other? That is the question for science. Math 'predicts' how fast something falls to
the ground, but says nothing about why.
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not
understand it myself anymore.”—Albert Einstein
Ptolemy ‘predicted' to a high degree of accuracy the position of the planets in the
solar system. Except that he had the earth in the center. That does not help
explain why the planets orbit in elliptical paths and don't fly out into space.
What about these 'predictions'? If I observe an apple fall a few times, and
measure its speed and distance traveled, I can 'predict' how fast an apple falls.
What does that tell me? It does not tell me when an apple is going to fall. Now
THAT would be a real prediction. Something that already happened
(consummated event) is described and should then be explained. Something that
we have observed happen repeatedly can lead us to think that there is a high
degree of probability that it will happen that way again, but that is not really a
prediction. It's an educated guess.
Belief, truth, evidence, and proof are not part of the scientific method. The SM is
observer-independent. Experiments, and observation are extra-scientific.
Science (especially theoretical physics) is conceptual. Technology (mostly trial &
error) is empirical.
Here’s the root of the problem with the currently taught Scientific Method: It all
revolves around simple misunderstandings of basic physical reality, brought on
by the inability to determine the difference between an object and a concept, and
the inability to precisely and consistently define terms upon which a theory
At the root of relativity and Quantum Mechanics problem is Euclidean geometry.
Because the point, the line, and the plane are not defined, or, are defined
ambiguously (using abstract concepts instead of objects) they do not represent
actual physical reality! A rather shaky basis on which to form the physical ‘laws’
of the universe such as SR, GR, and QM.
With the Rational Scientific Method :
Hypothesis: We define our key terms, and make a statement of the facts (the
assumptions). We assume in the hypothesis stage. If the assumptions are
rational, then we can proceed to the theory.
The objects of the hypothesis are described or illustrated (a photograph-static).
Theory: explains the hypothesis; phenomena, such as motion or process, (a
Conclusion: possible or not possible? Everyone decides for themselves.
If the KEY TERMS of the hypothesis are ambiguous, circular, synonymous, or
contradictory, then the theorist should throw out the hypothesis, or present
precise, rational definitions of KEY TERMS upon which the hypothesis depends.
The theory is where we present a ‘movie’ or series of illustrations of the
phenomena, or process, involved in explaining the hypothesis. Then, and only
then, can we form our conclusion.
If we conclude the theory is irrational, and therefore not possible, we throw the
theory out.
If we conclude that the theory is possible, then we publish a paper, or stand
around the water cooler telling people about it, or simply move on to the next
thing on our agenda. If we conclude that the theory is possible, but not the
complete explanation, we form another hypothesis based upon the theory, and
build upon it. The flat earth becomes the round earth, which becomes the oblate
Once the theory is presented, science is done! The conclusion is left up to
each individual.


This document can be found on the Rational Science facebook group.

The Gaedean Scientific Method

Science is the body of papers accumulated over the years that follow the ‘scientific method’. The ‘scientific method’ is a rational way of presenting explanations. This rational way of presenting explanations consists of three steps: 1) hypothesis, 2) theory, 3) conclusions. Each step is based upon the one prior. If an explanation has been given in accordance with the scientific method, then it is a scientific explanation and a rational explanation – thereby an explanation which one has good reason to believe. Finally, we will then conclude by explaining what the scientific method is not.

Step 1: Hypothesis
A hypothesis is comprised of a) exhibits, b) definitions, and c) a statement of the facts/assumptions.

a) Exhibits
  • Exhibits are objects and only objects.
This is because you ‘need to be able to visualise’ what is being referred to later in Step 2: Theory.
  • Exhibits are evidence.

b) Definitions
  • Define the key terms which make or break the theory.
  • Definitions are limitations placed on a word’s utility or extent.
This is because by defining as many differentiating qualities about a concept as possible one may reduce the breadth of the word being used and zero-in on the description with the most necessary precision. A perfect definition is one that has been refined to the point where everyone interprets exactly the same thing.
  • Only define concepts not objects.
  • Instead of defining objects, point to the image and name it.
Object is a word which is a category including only those words which represent shapes. The objects should be exhibits.

c) Statement of the Facts/Assumptions
  • Describes an object or tells us what happened in an event.
  • Addresses all necessary how questions, and does not address why questions.
In order to understand conceptually how this is done, the following digression regarding fact hood must be made: 
  • Fact/Truth = The Universal Movie
Visualise a movie consisting of movie-frames/photographs of the entire universe:
  • Every frame contains every single object in existence.
  • Each object is distinct from one another, with definite location.
  • There is no real movement in such a movie, and it would be perceived only due to memory of past frames when the movie is played.
  • Therefore, each fame contains only shapes. The universal movie is an endless collection of frames with shapes arranged inside.
Such a movie would be fact hood. An uninterrupted sequence of locations of every atom in the universe.
  • Statement of the facts consists of the selection of the clips from the Universal Movie/Fact necessary to keep in mind for the theory in question to be understood.
In the following diagram, the clear frames in B are objective evidence/exhibits/evidence, and the filled in frames are subjective testimony from the observer concerning the event or object in question. The frames can be judged to be objective only in as much as they correspond perfectly with regards to the locations of objects in fact, and not with judgements.
A= Universal Movie/Fact/Truth
B= Statement of the Facts/Assumptions and Evidence: Subjective testimony (filled in frames), and objective declaration/exhibits/evidence (clear frames).
  • The Statement of the Facts is not truth, or fact, but opinion which may be ‘relatively objective’ (‘true’) or subjective (false). However, ultimately, the Statement of the Facts is always subjective.
  • The Statement of the Facts is an opinion of what the facts were, presented in the form of an assumption, but is not fact itself.
  • They are your opinion about what you saw, not what you thought you saw or wanted to have seen.
  • An exhibit, is fact or evidence, when pointed at and named, it is a statement of the facts.
  • Fact is neither theory nor knowledge, and is not established democratically.
  • There is no observer of fact. It cannot be observed. Observation implies subjectivity, so in trying to understand fact, “kill the observer," i.e. do not invoke observer-dependent concepts.
  • Rates, ratios and relations may be components of the statement of the facts.
  • You must be able to take the statement of the facts at face value, and if they do not appear logically invalid or inconsistent then they may be rejected as grounding for your theory.

Step 2: Theory
  • A particular version of how or why events happened.
  • Speculation about some of the missing frames of the Universal Movie.
  • Possible clips of the Universal Movie inferred from assumptions and reasoning.
  • Must be visualisable.
  • Must follow from the assumptions and evidence, i.e. is logically valid.
The following diagram shows that theories fill in the blanks in order to infer how or why events in the assumptions occurred.
  • Do not become fact if accepted by the majority.
  • If accepted by the majority, theories become assumptions in the statement of the facts, i.e. they undergo a Kuhnian ‘paradigm shift’ and are taken for granted.

Stage 3: Conclusions
  • The verdict and opinion on the theory. Conclusions are only objectively: possible or not possible.
  • Synthesises inferences.
  • Tells us what experimentation or data we may need to verify the theory.
  • Multiple opinions may be formed and debated over given that both parties forming these opinions accept the theory.

Example of the Entire Scientific Method from p.57
Hypothesis (assumptions)
  • Exhibits: Earth, Sun, space
  • Definitions: object, motion, space, mass, planet
  • Statement of the facts: The Earth goes around the Sun. 
Theory (explanation): 
  • The reason that our planet orbits the Sun is that the Sun’s mass warps the space around it. The Earth is a little ball rolling around an enormous roulette.
Conclusions (opinions):
  • 1st opinion: The Earth touches space and we should be able to run an experiment to verify warped space.
  • 2nd opinion:  Warped space is a mathematical abstraction and is beyond experimentation.

What the Scientific Method is not

1)      The purpose of the Scientific Method is not coming about with a description, but an explanation.
Contrary to the historic development of science, a proper theory which consists of mathematics is not a theory at all because mathematics only has the power to describe – and then only quantitatively. With the RSM, we hypothesize objects to explain phenomena.

2)      The Scientific Method, after the hypothesis, is observer free
That is to say, the theory is not an observation or description, but an explanation. The theory is not acceptable just because you can observe it to be true, in which case it is self evident, the theory is acceptable because it offers a rational explanation. This is the definition of objective.

3)      The purpose of the Scientific Method is not for facilitating prediction.
A prediction is a description about a consummated event in the future. We make predictions when we think we know, based upon experience, that an event will occur. The fact that we can explain why an event will occur inherently facilitates prediction in the future, but prediction is not the purpose of the scientific method itself, the purpose of the scientific method itself is associated with the past, namely the mechanisms and causes (i.e. objects) which may be invoked as explanations for an event.

4)      The purpose of the Scientific Method is not for facilitating experimentation or tests.
The results of experimentation or tests only have a place in the hypothesis as evidence, they themselves may never be the theory itself, or ‘proof’ that your theory is correct. If evidence proves a theory, then there is no theory.

5)      The purpose of the Scientific Method is not to give us knowledge of the truth.
The purpose is to explain and fill in the gaps in the hypothesis stage. Whether you accept it as truth or not is your opinion, a matter of debate, and confined to the conclusions stage. The same goes for being a ‘proof’ that your beliefs are true. If the truth or proof is so clear as a result of your engagement in the Scientific Method, then there would be no need for theories in the first place, but pure hypotheses which can be accepted at face value.


  1. We must also distinguish between science and technology.

    Technology depends on science but science of everyday things within the reality we actually live in depends upon technology to certify to its (science) validity.

    What about the science of say socalled quantum mechanics, how does technology realize a feature of the socalled science of quantum mechanics when quantum mechanics is about the realm of sub-atomic world, while we are as we are into technology in the realm of the macroscopic world -- we don't exist, live, and operate in the microscopic world of sub-atomic dimensions.

    Particle physics can find confirmation in technology, but quantum mechanics?


  2. "The Rational Scientific Method" seems neither rational, nor scientific, nor a method.

    To be a method, the STEPS should be described. What is "Step 1"? The word "step" isn't even used in "The Rational Scientific Method." It first appears in the introduction to "The Gaedean Scientific Method" where it seems to say that the "GAEDEAN method" "consists of three steps: 1) hypothesis, 2) theory, 3) conclusions." It's anyone's guess what the steps are in the "Rational Scientific Method."

    In the "mainstream" scientific method, Step #1 is to "Ask a question." Step #2 is to do research into possible answers to the question. Step #3 is to construct an hypothesis answer to the question based upon the research. Step #4 is to TEST the hypothesis with experiments. If it fails the experiments, you go back to Step #3 and revise the hypothesis. Only when you pass all experiments do you go to Step #5 which is to publish the "theory" that answers the original question.

    It appears the both the "Rational Scientific Method" AND " The Gaedean Scientific Method" skip those first two steps and go straight to creating an hypothesis.

    It appears that the hypothesis is really a BELIEF, which is then justified with exhibits, definitions of terms used, and a statement of facts and/or assumptions.

    Somehow, the hypothesis is then turned into a "theory" Step #2 is to create a theory based upon the exhibits, the definitions and the assumptions. How the "hypothesis" differs from the "theory" is not clear. There's a diagram missing, but it seems that SPECULATION is added to the "hypothesis" to turn it into a "theory."

    The key point in creating a "theory" using the "Gaedean method" seems to be to create something that is "VISUALISABLE." It appears that that means it CANNOT be a mathematical equation, it MUST be an illustration or a series of illustrations, i.e., "the Universal Movie inferred from assumptions and reasoning." My attempt to decipher "The Rational Scientific Method" results in the same thing: The result MUST be "visualisable."

    The final "step" is not called a "step," for some reason it's called "Stage 3" in the Gaedean method. Stage #3 is "CONCLUSIONS." And it says reaching this point "Tells us what experimentation or data we may need to verify the theory."

    So, evidently tests and experiments are done AFTER you have come up with a theory. That seems to confirm that all you have is a BELIEF that your personal logic accepts as valid.

    "Stage 3: Conclusions" also contains this point: "Multiple opinions may be formed and debated over, given that both parties forming these opinions accept the theory."

    There's no explanation for what that means. But, "The Rational Scientific Method" ends with this: "Once the theory is presented, science is done! The conclusion is left up to each individual." And this is stated earlier, "Conclusion: possible or not possible? Everyone decides for themselves."

    That would appear to an outsider to be neither scientific, nor rational. Scientists do not decide for themselves if something is possible or not possible. They produce EVIDENCE to show whether something is possible or not possible.

    The Rational Scientific Method says, "Belief, truth, evidence, and proof are not part of the [rational] scientific method."

    If there is no need for evidence, the Rational Scientific Method is NOT rational nor scientific.

    1. You’re a lying sack of stinking cigar smoke.

      You deleted your welcome thread, and everyone at the RSM group knows it. There are many identical discussions like ours, and just as many times I’ve had to rebuild the comments when the deleted their comments out of embarrassment and then ran away. Unfortunately, I had turned off my notifications feature temporarily, and forgot to turn it back on or I would have had all of the comments. How convenient of you to have saved only the ones that you placed on your blog.

      You were explained what the RSM is all about. All your questions were answered with the luxury of detail. You won’t be able to mischaracterize what I say about the RSM because the article is not only here at this website, it can be found in the Pinned Post, in all four of my Rational Science books, and on Academia.org. There are hundreds of conversations covering every aspect of RSM on the FB group page, and our conversation was very typical of them all.

      Anyone who claims “establishment” is the Truther, and there are articles covering this linked to in the Pinned Post at the top of the RSM FB page.

      Anyone who claims Bill Gaede, Mike Huttner, or myself are truthers either completely misunderstands what a truther is, how we roll, or, is a blatant liar. Since you were using truth claims in your arguments, I think it is the later.

      The RSM cuts through the nonsense of mainstream science or religion with the same sharp blade. The Rational Scientific Method waves away the miasma of stinking truth claims and opinion like smelly clouds of smoke. All that is left of you that remains is the stink of stale old cigar smoke.

      You’re welcome to return and try again. I have air fresheners.

    2. John Smith wrote: "You deleted your welcome thread, and everyone at the RSM group knows it."

      I did NOT delete the thread. As far as I can tell, there is no way for me to delete a thread on YOUR blog. That wouldn't even make any sense, since I would be deleting other people's posts, too. And how could that be allowed? I figured you would soon delete it, so I was trying to make a copy of it when it disappeared.

      I saved the entire file late on Friday. That's why I got the first 23 messages. You seem to be arguing that the only time to save a file is when the discussion is over. How do you know when it is over? Besides, saving a Facebook file is a pain in the ass, since there are so many hidden comments behind "see more" and "view previous comments," etc.

      I've only been on Facebook since Thursday, so I'm still learning how things work.

      I've reconsidered calling you "Truthers." It now appears that you are a group of Trolls. Your methodology is for Trolling.

      I'll sign up for your blog again just to check the options, to see if it is possible for me to delete a thread YOU create.


  3. The more I think about "The Rational Scientific Method (RSM)," the more irrational it seems.

    What is the RSM supposed to accomplish?

    The "mainstream" scientific method is for finding answers to questions. You BEGIN with a question. That is Step #1.

    Step #1 in the RSM is to create an hypothesis. An hypothesis about WHAT? Just any old hypothesis for the fun of it?

    It appears that the RSM "hypothesis" is the first step in coming up with a BELIEF. But, from what I see from RSM advocates, it could also simply be a way of coming up with an alternative argument to a scientific finding by "the establishment." If so, Step #1 should be "Find an establishment theory to dispute."

    Obviously, the objective is NOT to find a BETTER theory. No attempt is made to explain how or why the RSM theory is better. It is only to find a theory that the theorist can VISUALIZE, believe in, and use to ARGUE against "the establishment."

    The value of such a "method" is ZERO. It accomplishes NOTHING except to create a basis for endless arguing against "the establishment."

    1. “The more I think about "The Rational Scientific Method (RSM)," the more irrational it seems.”

      Well, thinking is not understanding, Ed. Any hog that feeds at the trough of “established” science is bound to have difficulty seeing past his own chubby little cheeks.

      ”What is the RSM supposed to accomplish?”

      Since science is about explaining reality, the RSM is used to help us explain reality.

      ”Step #1 in the RSM is to create an hypothesis. An hypothesis about WHAT? Just any old hypothesis for the fun of it?”

      No, dumbass, about whatever phenomena you are trying to explain. While you Truthers are asking why God made the sky blue, RSM explains how light scatters in the ultraviolet better than infrared using the underlying physical mechanism, or medium of light. No, ED, that’s not a psychic medium, that’s physical medium. Psychics predict, scientists explain consummated events.

      “It appears that the RSM "hypothesis" is the first step in coming up with a BELIEF.”

      It only appears that way to YOU, Ed, because you think rational explanations have to do with truth, evidence, and what you believe about it. Newsflash: Science is supposed to explain. Once the explaining is done, what you believe is up to you, science is done!

      ”Obviously, the objective is NOT to find a BETTER theory.”

      Obviously, you don’t understand what you are talking about, Francis the Talking Ass. The objective of a scientific theory is to explain reality. A theory which is irrational does not explain anything, and therefore is NOT a theory at all. But since the conclusion can only be possible (or NOT possible), it allows for more or “better” theories. The theory may become the hypothesis stage of another theory.

      ”No attempt is made to explain how or why the RSM theory is better.”

      RSM is a method, NOT a theory. AND every attempt is made to explain it top all who have ears to hear. OTOH, those who can not handle reality, will delete their comments, and run away like a dog with their tail between their legs. Others may put on an air, claim authority, or fancy themselves smoking stogies and dressing up like a 1930’s Noir film character.

      “It is only to find a theory that the theorist can VISUALIZE, believe in, and use to ARGUE against "the establishment."

      Not at all, RSM destroys all religion, all belief, and all truth claims, offering in exchange rational explanations for reality.

      ”The value of such a "method" is ZERO. It accomplishes NOTHING except to create a basis for endless arguing against "the establishment."”

      The value is that anyone, regardless of background, can see through the bullshit you or anyone else tries to peddle, instantly and without fail. It works against anyone, anywhere on any honest inquiry.

    2. Name calling just proves my point: You cannot discuss anything intelligently because you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

    3. Ha ha! First line of defense from a Truther, we see it every day. Quit whining like a Girly man and address the issues.

      Nope, you're just another pimple on the ass of the Troll's ass. You'll get popped like all the rest.

  4. BTW, this:

    "Scientists do not decide for themselves if something is possible or not possible. They produce EVIDENCE to show whether something is possible or not possible."

    The scientist uses the Theory to explain the assumption of the Hypothesis in his presentation at the conference. The attendees have to form a conclusion of possible or not possible based on the explanatory power of the Theory. Hopefully, the scientist has already concluded that his Theory is possible, else why would he take it to the conference?

    They do not, OTOH, provide evidence in an attempt to convince anyone of anything. This is what your preacher does from the pulpit on Sunday. What is true to you is a lie to another. Christians have all the evidence THEY need to prove to them that God created the heavens and the earth.. Big Bang Creationists have all the evidence THEY need to convince them that all of matter and even space and time were created.

    1. You make no sense, so I do not know how to respond to this gibberish.

    2. That's the sort of intelligent reply I've learned to expect from you, Ed.

  5. Idiot Ed Lake - Part 1
    Not only is this idiot Ed Lake a lying sack of stinking cigar smoke, but he is as dumb as they come. Why would I delete a thread in which HE ran away and was clearly embarrassed in every comment HE made?
    He asked for explanations, freely accusing RSM of doing religion. Cheap shot. So I gave him TWO explanations: how a magnet attracts another and the Slit Experiment. I asked him to provide an explanation to either. He ran away. Instead, he claimed that he understood Richard Feynman’s explanation. Yet, Idiot Feynman said throughout his interview that he had no clue how a magnet works.
    So, of course, Idiot Ed Lake had to delete the thread because it only embarrassed HIM.
    But now we see a new side of Idiot Ed Lake. He is also a liar, claiming that he is too dumb to delete a thread on Facebook, that he is too stupid to understand how to do it.
    Well, here we may have to agree with him. Perhaps it was a system glitch.

    1. Idiot Ed Lake - Part 2
      What is amusing is that in his post at Rational, Idiot Ed Lake began his prez by stating that he saw no difference between the Mathemagical Method and Bill Gaede’s Scientific Method.
      Here he also shows that he is a superficial reader (or none at all). Examples…
      1. “It appears the both the "Rational Scientific Method" AND " The Gaedean Scientific Method"… the hypothesis is really a BELIEF”
      What a fucking moron! A hypothesis is an ASSUMPTION. We say it everywhere. Yet this piece of shit Ed Lake can’t even regurgitate what he reads (or doesn’t) in a straight forward manner. A critic of a theory has to at least be able to rephrase the theory he is criticizing in his own words. Idiot Ed Lake obviously can’t do that.
      Here’s another
      2. “Somehow, the hypothesis is then turned into a "theory”… How the "hypothesis" differs from the "theory" is not clear.”
      Obviously, Ed Lake’s mother was a prostitute. She was ‘handled’ by every sailor in town. Does Idiot Ed Lake know who his father was?
      I mean, really… where does it say at RSM or in any of my pages that a hypothesis turns into a theory? Where did this moron Ed Lake get that idea? How did he reach that idiotic conclusion?
      A hypothesis is an ASSUMPTION.
      A theory is an EXPLANATION.
      How does Idiot Ed Lake visualize an assumption (objects, definitions, initial scene) converting into an explanation (mechanisms, causes)?

    2. Idiot Ed Lake - Part 3
      3. “tests and experiments are done AFTER you have come up with a theory”
      Where in the world did this idiot Ed Lake get that from?
      In Science, we do NOT do experiments. We do NOT test theories. I say it everywhere. It is the deranged morons of Mathemagix who do tests and experiments at their monasteries.
      Idiot Ed Lake has been raped so much by his priest that he can’t get away from testing and experimenting. It was shoved up his ass so deep that he can’t understand that tests and experiments have nothing to do with Science.
      Science: rational explanations
      Where is there a provision for tests and experiments in that definition?
      So, again, Idiot Ed Lake has not even read let alone understood what RSM is about and shoots his mouth attacking strawmen that he creates.
      Idiot Ed Lake was brainwashed to believe that tests and experiments are part of the ‘scientific’ method when tests and experiments have ONLY to do with Technology which in turn has NOTHING to do with Science.
      In Science, we must provide a rational explanation to a phenomenon. Mathemagical ‘fizzix’ has never offered a rational explanation to ANY phenomenon (e.g., 0D black holes that swallow astronauts and clocks, Big Bang self-Creation from nothing, Twin Paradox/time dilation, Uncertainty Principle, wave-packet…) ALL of Mathemagix is GARBAGE, RUBBISH, KaKa! None of it survives.
      Therefore, Idiot Ed Lake’s fucking mother should have drowned this piece of shit in the toilet together with the kitty litter when he was born rather than abandoning the basket at the monastery so that the monks could have their way with him. Now, Idiot Ed Lake is society’s problem. We have to baby sit him.
      PS: Since Idiot Ed Lake uses the word ‘Truthers’ so much, I am guessing that this moron probably also believes that WTC7 was brought down by Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta.

    3. Mr. Gaede,

      Name calling just shows that you cannot argue intelligently.

      I'll rejoin the group just to check the options to see if it is possible for me to delete a thread.

      I cannot argue magnetism with you because it's not a subject of interest to me, and I've never studied it in detail.

      I recommended discussing Time Dilation, which I HAVE studied in detail, and you just dismissed it without discussion. As I recall, you argued that my view of Time Dilation is about clocks. It is NOT about clocks. It uses a PULSAR instead of a clock, because a pulsar can be seen from different points trillions of miles apart.

      I will no longer call you "Truthers." "Trolls" would seem more appropriate, since your methodology seems designed to create arguments that Trolls can use to argue with "the establishment." But, since I need to have a less inflamatory term to use to refer to you all as a group, I'll use "RSM Advocates."

    4. "I recommended discussing Time Dilation, which I HAVE studied in detail, and you just dismissed it without discussion."

      The comments you deleted had a response to your ridiculous article on time and utterly destroyed ALL your arguments.

  6. For the record, I attempted to rejoin the Rational Scientific Method group about an hour ago, and it still says my admission is "pending."

    Has John Smith changed his mind. Did Bill Gaede change it for him?

    Time will tell. They will probably argue that I didn't try to rejoin. If I take a snapshot of the pending notice, they'll probably argue that the snapshot was doctored.

    1. Nope. Your request was acknowledged and YOU deleted it, just like you said you would do to "prove you couldn't!"

      "I'll sign up for your blog again just to check the options, to see if it is possible for me to delete a thread YOU create. "

      So, that alone, leads me to believe, you accidentley deleted you own thread when you were trying to copy all the comments because you thought WE would delete your threads,. Ha ha hA! Self fulfilling prohecy?

      HA hA! You stupid, silly, man.

  7. It occurs to me that we have a situation calling for "The scientific Method." We have a question: WHO deleted the Facebook blog page that John Smith started when I joined the Facebook group?

    John Smith and Bill Gaede claim I did it. It sees to me FAR more likely that John Smith did it, since it's his blog.

    So, following "The Scientific Method," the next step is to do background research. I'm trying to rejoin the group to see if I have the option to delete ANYTHING, specifically an entire discussion thread where many others have posted comments. It makes NO SENSE that I would be allowed to delete other people's messages on John Smith's blog.

    I did some research to see if it was possible to delete something on the other Facebook group where I am a member, and I could find no way to do it.

    When I create my finish my research I expect to have EVIDENCE that I could not possibly have deleted that page, and that ONLY John Smith has that ability.

    Then I will have a verified hypothesis that the deletion was done by John Smith.

    I will welcome any EVIDENCE which says otherwise, so that such evidence can be evaluated by all parties. But, I suspect the evidence will have no meaning to RSM advocates, and all the RMS advocates will just BELIEVE that I deleted the thread. They will use the RMS to develop that hypothesis and ignore all evidence that tends to disprove it.

    Meanwhile, for everyone else, the EVIDENCE will say that John Smith did the deletion.

    1. Ha hA You don't even understand that FG groups are not Blogs.

      It's just too funny! My sides are splitting. You are so stupid, YOU deleted your Welcome Thread by accident!. Ha ha HA!

  8. It's now been two hours since I tried to re-join the Rational Scientific Method group. My acceptance is STILL pending. Very soon I will shut down my computer, break for lunch and then head to the gym for my regular workout. So, will be at least two hours before I check on my admission again.

    I also feel that it is now too close to lunch time to do anything on the RSM page this morning other than to acknowledge acceptance -- IF they decide to accept me.

    1. Come back and cry at RSM. The fact that you deleted the New Welcome Thread, shows to me that you may have done it by accident. Else, why would you delete...unless you are trying to fool everyone!

    2. Someone is playing games. If you are saying that "someone" deleted a NEW "Welcome page," whatever happened happened while I was at the gym. I suspect the page was deleted so that I cannot prove that I have NO ABILITY to delete it.

    3. Then go join another FB Group that welcomes you and see for yourself.

      God lick finding someone to welcome you, I'm nice. RSM is different. One way we're different is that we never delete comments.

  9. Looks like they banned me from the Rational Scientific Method Facebook page. I can't even see the page anymore. All I see is a message that says, "The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page."

    That's okay. It was getting pretty creepy anyway. I felt like a Jew or a black man talking with Nazis. There was so much hatred there I actually tried to look them up to see if they are identified as a "hate group." I couldn't find anything.

    But, they certainly helped prove my hypothesis that there is no way to have an intelligent discussion with a "Truther," and that includes Rational Scientific Method advocates.

    1. "You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear."
      - The Mountain

      AND you demonstrated that you are too stupid to understand simple instruction, except this one: Go away, Ed.

      Since you responded OK, you were permablocked.

      Now you can't come back. AND you can't read what we're saying. You can't delete comments and get away with it. BUT rest assured, your comments are there forever showing how when given the chance to learn about RSM all you do is whine. ByeBye!

  10. I did some research and found an interesting blog thread from 2014 titled "The Absurdity of the ‘Rational Science’ Method." Here's the link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/03/01/the-absurdity-of-the-rational-science-method/

    41 of the 42 comments following the article support the idea that RSM is "absurd." But, I found comment #35 to be of particular interest. It says:

    So far I believe there are about 3 categories of “rational scientists:”

    1) individuals clueless about most things scientific and otherwise, but want to be be respected for what they perceive a superior intellect, true confirmation of the Kruger-Dunning effect.

    2) Individuals with scientific education of various degrees seeking to be vindicated for what they perceive academic censorship of their ideas when these ideas never gained traction or passed peer review.

    3) Bill Gaede, an individual who seemingly possesses narcissistic/borderline tendencies, enjoying the adoration of everyone in category 1) and feeling victimized for his brilliance.

    I also found another blog thread titled "Rational Scientific Method?" It contains a comment where RSM advocate "Munjit" actually tries to explain a belief:

    The universe can't expand.

    Is the Universe a physical object? Is the Universe like a pair of pants, or like an apple we can point to?

    Early man pointed to all objects and gave them a name. The name is irrelevant. The name is just an association/relation from a concept in the brain, to an object in the physical world. This is how language began. So the word “apple” is a concept, just as all words are concepts. But this concept “apple”, resolves to a physical object hanging from a tree.

    Now I ask you: What does the word “Universe” resolve to.....an object or a concept?

    First of all, the word Universe is a concept, as all words are concepts.

    Now does the word Universe resolve to any physical object? Can we point to ‘the’ Universe?

    The answer is unequivocally: NO

    His misunderstandings seem VERY basic and very easy to resolve. YES, WE CAN POINT TO THE UNIVERSE. To say we can't is like being in a room and saying we cannot point to the room. To Munyit, the "universe" is everything there is. He "knows" that. To mainstream scientists, the universe is only everything they can see. They simply do not "know" what is on the other side of the walls of "the room."

    But there seems no way to get a RSM advocate to listen to anything.

    1. Oops.. The first link is to a 2013 blog, not 2014. And I forgot to provide the link to the "Rational Scientific Method?" blog. Here it is: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/rational-scientific-method-63662.html

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. If anyone is interested in discussing the Rational Scientific Methodists & Their Beliefs, a new Facebook group page has been created here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/396188730576334/