Dualing Hypothesis

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation. —Herbert Spencer

Ah but this is not Herbert Spencers work (https://www.thefix.com/content/contempt-prior-to-investigation-AA-Herbert-Spencer8042)  but that does not matter. The point is that the statement presents a fact, that many things we learned are just wrong, regardless of the source that we learned them from. We are still responsible for having and using those bits of knowledge, even it they are wrong. Every thing is just hypothesis, as little can be proven to be true and right. It is our responsibility to make a few simple thought experiments to test our foundation concepts.

All this made sense to me when I wrote it. We are responsible for our own thoughts, and what we do as a result of those thoughts. Our culture has so many things wrong, and as a result, we were culturally indoctrinated wrongly, or with wrong concepts. We do not even realize we have collective or cultural neuroses. When we get down to a genetic or natural level, we start to see the errors. When we compare one culture to the next, we see the difference, and since the beliefs are mutually exclusive, logically, one or both must be wrong. Now it is my responsiblity to sort out which is wrong, or more likely, what is right as they are often both wrong.

What does it have to do with me is a good place to start. If it is none of my concern, well that leaves breathing space. Who has control, or does no one have control? We can project the illusion of control onto someone, where they do not have control, well there mind does not have control anyway. We can do likewise to ourselves, and wonder why we fail. Consider a weight loss diet, and the failure rate. The thin wonder at why we fail, and we are not in control if we have food available. If we do not have food available, and are able to keep ourselves busy where there is no food, then we can lose weight, short term. In reality our body is in change of appetite, our mind is not. Our appetite is beyond our control, and we can only influence it. Many control diet by rigid measurement or only providing that which we do not like. Oh well. So are we in control of our thoughts? Are we logical or controlled by our instincts or emotions/automatic brain?

The scientific method is a five step method, we have some observations and we produce a hypothesis or two to explain the observations. Those observations are then used to produce predictions of the outcomes of an experiment, and if those predictions are correct, the hypothesis moves one step closer to being assumed correct. If the prediction is wrong, the hypothesis needs to be modified, or is just wrong. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, Test, Conclusion, and around we go again.    

One of the most judgemental concepts is is there a god or not. Before we can take this on, we need to understand logic, evidence and truth. Evidence can be best understood as the result of logic and truth. When we start with truth, evidence, and logic, religions depend on traditions for there foundation, and ultimately on the existence of god or no god. Without a god, all religions fall apart, or down to we do this because it is tradition, not reason. Hearsay is not evidence, and as a result all religious books are not evidence, no mater how well they define the religion or the beliefs.

We can nest the scientific method; that is create a hypothesis of dueling hypothesis, that is to say test two hypothesis at the same time, no god vs there is a god. From the armchair it is obvious that there is no other case, for something cannot simultaneous exist and not exits. There is a special case of existence; ideas, concepts, theories, mathematics, logic, reason, that exist but have no physical existence. Yet there can be no doubt that these things exist. How about a god? Can we use a god to predict the future with a mathematical certainty, or a probability, even if we cannot apply exact dimensions to the probability? No, it just does not happen.

Consider the child cancer question. The ability to predict using the hypothesis is one portion of demonstration that the no god hypothesis is likely correct, but the god hypothesis requires modification such as a "greater good concepts" to be rational in any sense, so the hypothesis immediately needs to be modified to allow reality. This is the satin crack, or the introduction of a trichotomy from what was a dichotomy problem, which is not a scientific process, but makes the god hypothesis likely incorrect it that form. That all indicates the concept of there being a god does not stand up to scientific examination. Religion then turns to bulling, condemning logic and the philosopher who stands up for science, against religion. Religion has gotten us as far as it can, now we are on our own, and need to apply logic to get us further. We live in a time of overpopulation, and death is the great equalizer.

Examination and running of the dueling hypothesis will lead the logical, and changeable observant to the conclusion that there is no god. There are those also who do not have the capacity to do the thinking required, and those who will not change regardless of the result of the thought experiment. There are those also who's livelihood requires them to believe, and until retirement, are trapped into a  way of life. The end outcome is that there is very little to support a god exists hypothesis. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Now knowing this, we have a responsibility to teach the next generation the truth, and why we believe all true concepts to be true. Vulcan Scientific Director Statement like of thing.

There ought to be a charter of responsibilities for humans written in English. There are numerous charter or rights and freedoms, but nothing saying how one is to obtain these in a over regulated and over taxed world.  Several have tried, Grayling, Levine, and likely others. Many philosophers deal with a few concepts, one at a time, as do many religions. Some are mutually exclusive. Some value tradition above reality or logic/reason. Some a just not real enough in the modern world. So far it is just every man for himself.