AXIOM Science now only based on reason.
Corollary Revelation can now never be verified as science by scientific method.

AXIOM The search for knowledge is now directed by research-funding.
Corollary Much funding is directed to improving weaponry.
Corollary Much funding is directed to improving technology – improved technology has great commercial value and can often contribute to improved weaponry.
Corollary Funding is not directed towards using natural herbal medicine unless a way of assigning a patent for profit is included because of patent law.
Corollary Funding can be used to develop scientific counter-arguments to the scientific evidence that will affect profits.


Introduction:- The arguments as to why I am unhappy with science cause deep reactions and so are diversionary, it is good to have a reference place to avoid those reactions. This page does not propose any form of academic rigour, although I believe I have put forward the truth and I have not made any attempt to deceive.

Yet again I have reached a block with regards to science, Kabat-Zinn’s relational mindfulness meditation that (as far as I have seen) avoids the good practice of meditating in the context of right view and deals with the wysiwyg personality with imperfections that mindful meditation as described by the Buddha was designed to remove. In terms of science Kabat-Zinn’s mindfulness meditation has as its basis an acceptance of what science generally accepts and avoids any whiff of acceptance of religion.

Bacon-bit – Reason and Revelation

Here is my Francis Bacon-bit again. I have always accredited Francis Bacon as dividing knowledge into reason and revelation for taxonomy purposes ie for ease of understanding knowledge. In attempting to find a simple reference I searched to no avail but I gained greater respect of his body of work in which I see Buddhism!! Please see Bacon-bit BELOW for a limited reference.

Bacon was not the problem although this was an Oppenheimer error. Following his dichotomy, over the centuries (since 1605) academia, being the bastion of knowledge, has defined reason as science and revelation as non-science or religion; academia now eschews revelation or religion as not being part of knowledge. This cleaving of knowledge was never Bacon’s intention but neither was Hiroshima in the mind of Oppenheimer. This Hidden Axiom of Science has the greatest implications.

One corollary of this axiom is verification. If “hypothetical knowledge” is to be accepted as part of academia, it must be subjected to verification by scientific method. Over the centuries scientific method has developed in line with the focus on reason, and through this focus has been integrally linked with the reason as science. In other words scientific method would not accept a “hypothetical revelation” as knowledge. This important Hidden Corollary of Science would be that revelation can never be proven as knowledge by scientific method.

Bacon-bit BELOW:- As I use the above Bacon-bit regularly I ought to study “The Advancement of Learning” more thoroughly, but as I neither desire academic rigour nor recognition I just make the statement of the Bacon-bit. When I read the quote below, I am more impressed with his acceptance of “reason and revelation” (although it is something contemporaneously far more acceptable) and the teleological basis to his knowledge – idappaccayata. Whilst simplifying this quote and the “Advancement of Learning” into a taxonomy of reason and revelation might well be gross – and in a sense disrespectful, I don’t actually think that I am misrepresenting Bacon – I certainly hope not.

We will now consider Bacon’s classification of actual and possible human knowledge. The first division is made by reference to the source from which the materials of knowledge flow into the mind. They may come either from the direct action of the Creator on his creatures, or from the action of the created world including ourselves. Thus human knowledge is first dichotomised into that which is acquired supernaturally and that which is acquired naturally. Each of these great divisions is then trichotomised on a psychological principle, viz., with reference to the cognitive faculty which the mind mainly uses in the work of knowing. Bacon recognises three such faculties, viz., Memory (which for the present purpose includes Sense-perception), Imagination, and Reason. Memory and Imagination are concerned with particular things, events, and facts; Reason with general concepts, facts, and laws. Memory deals with real particulars and Imagination with feigned particulars. Thus human knowledge, whether of natural or of supernatural origin, is divided into History, Poesy, and Philosophy (or Science).

Before considering further subdivisions we must explain Bacon’s views about supernaturally acquired knowledge; we shall then be able to confine ourselves to the knowledge which originates naturally. According to Bacon there are three subjects which need for their complete treatment data that spring from a supernatural source. These are Theology, Ethics, and Psychology. Each of these sciences can, however, be carried to a certain length without appeal to revelation. Each of them therefore divides into a natural and a revealed part. Theology is the most fundamental of the three, since the parts of Ethics and of Psychology which depend on revelation are branches of Revealed Theology.

Bacon holds that the existence of teleology in Nature is an obvious fact, and that the investigation of final causes is a perfectly legitimate branch of Natural Philosophy. It has, however, been misplaced; for it belongs to the division of Natural Philosophy which Bacon calls Metaphysics and not to that which he calls Physics. Bacon’s epigram that “the research into Final Causes, like a virgin dedicated to God, is barren and produces nothing” has been taken by careless or biased readers to be a condemnation of such research. It is nothing of the kind. It is simply a statement of the obvious fact that there is no art of Applied Teleology as there is an art of Applied Physics. Now Bacon holds that the existence and some of the attributes of God can be established conclusively by reflexion on the teleology of Nature. But this does not give determinate enough information about God to form an adequate basis for religion. The further details must be supplied by God himself in revelation. God, says Bacon, did not need to work miracles to convince atheists but to convert heathens.

His view about Ethics is very similar. We have a partial and inadequate knowledge of right and wrong by the light of Nature. But it does little more than show us that certain types of action are wrong; it gives no very determinate information about our positive duties. Divine revelation is needed to provide an adequate basis for a detailed morality.

The division of Psychology into a natural and a revealed part follows a different principle. There are not two Gods, one of whom is the subject of Natural and the other of Revealed Theology. But in man there are two souls, the rational and the animal. The former is immaterial, peculiar to man, and directly created by God at the moment of conception. The latter is shared with animals; it is material, and due to one’s parents. It is described as “a corporeal substance, attenuated and made invisible by heat,” which resides mainly in the head, runs along the nerves, and is refreshed by the arterial blood. It is in fact our old friend “the animal spirits” which are as material as methylated spirits. In man the rational soul uses the animal soul as its immediate instrument. Now the science of the rational soul, its origin, nature, and destiny, must “be drawn from the same divine inspiration from which that substance first proceeded.” The science of the animal soul belongs to Natural Philosophy. Bacon’s theory of the animal soul owes much to Telesius, while his sharp distinction between it and the rational soul is closely analogous to the theory which Descartes worked out in greater detail a little later.

It remains to consider Bacon’s views as to the relations of reason and revelation. It is legitimate to exercise our reason on the data of revelation in two ways. In the first place we may try to understand them. But we have no more ground for expecting God’s revealed nature to be agreeable to our reason than for expecting his revealed commands to be agreeable to our wishes. On the whole Bacon thinks that there is a strong presumption that the contents of divine revelation will be repugnant to our reason; and that, the more preposterous God’s revealed nature and commands appear to be, the greater is our merit in believing in the former and obeying the latter. The position which Bacon here adopts has been most forcibly stated by Hobbes: “The doctrines of religion are like the pills prescribed by physicians, which if swallowed whole do us good, but if chewed up make us sick.” The second legitimate use of reason in matters of revelation is the following. We may take the revealed nature and commands of God as fixed, and to us arbitrary, premises like the rules of chess. We may then use reasoning to deduce remote consequences from them, just as we may use it in solving a chess-problem. Each use of reason has its characteristic dangers. In trying to understand the contents of divine revelation we may distort them by forcing them into the world of the human intellect. And in drawing consequences from revealed truths we may ascribe to the conclusions of our fallible reasoning that certainty which the premises derive from their Divine Author.

Article LINK

Funding directs research

The next is not the fault of any scientist, nor is it based any inherited frame of reference or paradigm. But it is a reality of our branches of higher learning. Contemporary science is expensive, and it is not accepted by government that science should be funded through taxation – this might be a solution to the problem although governments are not free of the same problem. Scientific experimentation is predicated on funding, and therefore the path of scientific development is directed by the funding bodies – primarily business. There are at present two key areas of scientific development – weaponry and technology, both areas inextricably linked. Control of scientific knowledge is maintained by patent, and a significant aspect of patent ownership is that it has to be non-natural, patent law cannot patent Nature. The legal implications of this I am not clear about (because of the intricacies of law) but if nature provides a herbal cure for an illness it might well not reach the market-place as no business could patent it and profit from it. Specifically there are a number of approaches towards the alleviation of cancer conditions that merit formal scientific investigation – Gerson, Burzinski, cannabis, B17, macrobiotics – plant-based diet, etc; it is my understanding that many of these approaches keep extensive records whose accuracy would not be questioned if conducted formally by a reputable funded university programme. However science accepts radiation and chemotherapy as the medical approach for alleviating cancer suffering – with all the obvious contradictions that statement contains.

In 2012 Seralini published an article in a reputable scientific magazine that was later withdrawn. Prior to publication this article had passes scientific scrutiny, but because the article criticised GM foods Monsanto pressured the science magazine to withdraw the article. It is my understanding that funded scientists have produced funded-science that refutes Seralini but great doubts are cast on this funded-science. Disappointingly the power of Monsanto has reached Wikipedia LINK and their info unfortunately questions the Seralini study – the Seralini website counters all of this funded-science.

Another more significant area in which funding has contributed to erroneous science is climate change. Up until 2006 when Al Gore produced his famous documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and beyond = maybe 2011, it was generally accepted that there was climate change. There were annual discussions about reaching an agreement over the climate which always fell far short of what was necessary. I remember the Durban talks for this wonderful speech from Anjali Appadurai. The Paris agreement was the most recent of these deals, and never went far enough but at least there was global agreement until …. Trump. The scientific evidence concerning climate change has been consistent until recently when there has been a concerted effort to fund climate denial orchestrated by the Koch brothers confirmed by the Guardian and detailed by Greenpeace. To me there is no clearer evidence of the bias that funding in science directs scientific invention than climate denial.

On a wider level what does this dominant funding dynamic mean? Primarily scientific funding means that science mostly advances in areas in which funding can see a purpose, and this purpose is usually business profit. At the time of the Bacon-bit science could be considered as the investigation and collection of all knowledge, but now we have science as being the investigation and collection of knowledge that will ultimately benefit the research funders.

This problem is systemic and deep-rooted. It is not scientists who are at fault, their universities need the money to fund expensive lab plant. It is not the fault of the university boards who by their institutional nature require funding to survive. If a university is asked by a researcher to investigate cannabis for alleviating cancer, and yet BigPharma funds their scientific equipment, institutionally it is a no-brainer. Science is not now directed by the search for knowledge because once such a search reaches a certain level it will require funding, and such funding is never neutral – never granted for the sake of the development of knowledge.

This Hidden Axiom of Science is that the search for knowledge is now directed by research-funding. It is the corollaries of this axiom that are most revealing. Funding is directed to improving weaponry. Funding is directed to improving technology – improved technology has great commercial value and can often contribute to improved weaponry. Because of patent law funding is not directed towards using natural herbal medicine unless a way of assigning a patent for profit is included. Funding can be used to develop scientific counter-arguments to the scientific evidence that will affect profits eg climate denial and Monsanto.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.