U. S. Naval Academy Speakers Bureau
Presents
The Great Scientific Deception
Robert A. Herrmann Ph. D.
(Note: This is an expanded version of my talk on this subject.) On the 12th of Nov. 1994, I presented at Western Maryland College and before the Mathematical Association of America my complete solutions to what many claim are "the greatest questions on the books of physics.'' In particular, I answered the questions: From a scientific viewpoint, how did our universe come into being and of what is empty space composed? Furthermore, I also gave the first known solution to the "General Grand Unification'' problem. (See How was Our . . . or Abstract 1 for Monograph M1.) The mathematical model that solves this problem and answers these questions also shows that our universe was created by processes that mirror those one would associate with an infinitely powerful mind.
You might wonder why you've not seen in your newspapers banner headlines announcing these scientific discoveries? And, even though, when I talked to John Wheeler relative to these problems, he indicated that a solution should lead to a Nobel Prize, why won't I receive one for this research? The answer to these two questions is very simple. Besides the scientifically established infinitely power mind model that the scientific community does not want you to know about, what has been discovered also yields a very special secondary effect. It's this secondary effect that has revealed one of the more significant scientific deceptions. This secondary effect was made known informally to the scientific community in 1982 (Herrmann, 1982).
Evidence shows that this deception has a major effect. Without an individual being aware of this deception, this effect may require an alteration in an individual's belief-system so that the altered belief-system corresponds to a different secular belief-system. The method used is an incorrect and subtle form of mind control.
Let me say that this significant secondary effect is devastating to the scientific work of numerously many individuals. Unfortunately, this discovery shows that a vast amount of what is called "research'' is probably a great waste of time, for such research can't answer the question that it was designed to answer. Furthermore, usually, such research is also a waste of taxpayers money. It appears that in order to prevent the general public from learning about this secondary effect, the public does not even know of the existence of this special type of research -- the search for a scientific cosmogony. Why not? Well, I repeat what is self-evident. Some scientists are afraid of what might happen to their research funds and how their philosophic predilections will be exposed if the public finds out about this secondary effect. By the way, as long as scientists use scientific logic or mathematical reasoning, this secondary effect is fact and not a mere prediction.
I'll shortly illustrate the processes that have led to this significant "scientific" deception. But, first, consider this. Every minute of everyday, with respect to physical science, we're being deceived. Where is this happening? We're being deceived within the pages of many newspapers, by numerous television programs, by CBS, ABC, NBC News, National Public Radio and Television, by Warner Communications and Time-Life, by CNN, the Internet, by hundreds of magazines, by textbooks we or our children use. We're being deceived through every single method of modern public communication. We're being deceived by the vast majority of our science educators, especially within the public classroom setting. Being so deceived by such powerful agencies in such a continuous fashion can only be described as a display of absolute evil.
I'll give you examples of how this deception is presented, how you can recognize it, and how to fight against its often devastating influences -- influences that may be destroying your mental well-being or forcing you to alter your personal belief-system.
A few individuals have warned me not to divulge the truth to you. Why? Because there are billions of dollars involved in this significant deception. Thousands upon thousands of individuals make a lot of money by either producing this deception or communicating it to you. And this deception involves what we are told is the bastion of truth, fact, knowledge and the like -- modern physical science.
This deception is produced by a very subtle and logically incorrect use of the scientific method and results by science writers as well as many eminent scientific authorities and extremely powerful scientific organizations such as The National Academy of Sciences, The National Education Association, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institution and almost every science museum in the world.
I'll make it easy for you to withstand the effects of this mind controlling deception and to understand why it is fostered and so forcefully propagated. I'll give you the tools and knowledge to counteract this deception -- to counteract much of the false "garbage'' you're exposed to on such programs as Nova, Nature, the National Geographic programs, the Cosmos and the David Attenborough's series. And, in particular, I'll give you the tools to counteract the effect that such misinformation has upon our children. Since it's children that are in the greatest danger.
Well, let's see exactly what is going on. Let's consider an example. Suppose you have an appointment with your doctor. He/she runs a series of tests and then states, "I don't want to alarm you but you have Grave's Disease. Don't worry, its curable.'' You then seek a second opinion from another doctor and sure enough you're again told that you have Grave's Disease. Now these two physicians are licensed and the state has certified that they are "authorities.'' You believe what they have said. Was it necessary for your physicians to tell you of your condition in the following manner. "I don't want to alarm you but you have Grave's Disease. What I've just said is true in reality. Don't worry, it's curable.'' Wouldn't it be strange if each had added the sentence "What I've just said is true in reality'' to the diagnose? Aren't we to assume that it is true in reality?
Your physicians have spoken to you in what I call a positive language. This is a language that carries with it additional unstated content that what is being communicated is also true in reality. Our minds have become so accustomed to adding this additional content that authorities never seem to state it explicitly, we assume it. But there's a great difference between a statement such as "You have Grave's Disease'' and the concept of what is "true in reality.'' From a language viewpoint, they are not immediately related.
If in reality you do, indeed, have Grave's Disease, then scientifically you are a "concrete model'' for this statement. The statement is "true'' about you. Well, some physical scientists, scientific organizations, news media etc. have used our experiences with such positive statements in a subtle effort to alter various belief-systems and, thereby, control our thinking.
Here are more examples of positive statements. On April 6, 1990, John Chancellor during his constitutionally protected commentary on the NBC Evening News, stated that "The Hubble Space Telescope will look back in time almost 15 billion years to the beginning of the universe.'' On June 27, 1991, the announcer for WTOP all news radio in Washington stated, "Astronomers have discovered one of the brightest objects in the universe at 12 billion light- years from earth.'' A Nobel Prize winner states, "In the beginning there was an explosion.'' The American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated in their Project 2061 report Science for All Americans, "Each type shares properties common to all life and yet each is different, as a consequence of millions of years of chance evolutionary events.'' On Nova, the announcer states, "Four billion years ago, when life first appeared on Earth . . . .'' A thirteen year old boy for his science project uses a line diagram from the 1993 edition of the "World Almanac and Book of Facts'' supposedly the "Leading Authority since 1886.'' It states that at 4.5 billion years ago the "Earth, solar system became their present form.''
Every one of these statements is intended to be a positive statement and to carry the additional content of "true in reality.'' What happens if your personal philosophy or religious belief yields the statement that "The universe is 5 billion years old''? Logically, what would happen if you accepted both statements that "The universe is 5 billion years old'' and that "The universe is 15 billion years old''? Well, our society would confine you to a mental institution. Why? Because you won't be able to communicate or, indeed, mentally function within our society. Your deductive powers would be worthless, you won't even be able to open a door. Due to these logical facts, you are being forced to accept one or the other of these statements but not both. How is this selection forced on you? If the so-called authorities repeat the positive type statement that "The universe is 15 billion years old'' enough times and require enough people to accept this statement, what are you going to do when faced with such social or intellectual pressure? What would be your choice in the face of such "scholarly'' authority? How can you retain your personal philosophy, be exposed to these so-called scientific statements and continue to think rationally? Indeed, it's a simple matter to show that the aim of some of these so-called authorities is to force you to accept their statements and, thus, to force you to alter your personal philosophy and, in this manner, to "control your mind." Indeed, they even state that this is their goal. For example, this is one of the stated policies of the American Humanist Association.
But what of significance has been mathematically established relative to these "universe" related statements? It's been shown that none of these example statements can carry any "scientific'' truth value. They are not "true in reality,'' not partially true in reality, not 90%, 50%, 25% or any percentage "true in reality.'' You cannot associate the concept of truth as it's empirically determined by the scientific method with any of them. Indeed, if you keep the intended content of "true in reality'' within these statements, then each statement is a lie. Do some scientists know this? Yes, and this is the significant deception. Further, they know full well that to accept these statements as true in reality you might need to change your personal philosophy so that it corresponds to theirs -- which is often atheistic, humanistic, new age, or liberal theistic.
One hundred and fifty years ago, no reputable scientist would use such positive statements. Indeed, at that time, such absolute statements about events in the far-past were forbidden. Such speculation would not appear in a scientific journal but it might appear in a philosophical journal. Further, a simple word such as "might'' or "maybe'' and the like was added to the speculation. You see sciences that predict by mathematical means use special positive languages. These are called first, or higher, order formalizable languages. But when speaking to the nonscientific audience about events that cannot be verified in a laboratory by any means and to avoid the additional content of "true in reality,'' they would say such things as "We speculate that, in the beginning, there might have been an explosion.'' If you check, you'll find that only in recent times has this type of positive statement been used when describing cosmological models to a general audience.
You might say, "Dr. Herrmann is that all that we need to do? Simply force every one involved in this deception to add such words to these statements. As was done just a few years ago, all we need to do is to see that such words as 'might' or 'maybe' are added and then everything is OK.'' If this were 15 years ago; yes, that's about all that could be done. But don't such terms as "might'' or "maybe'' still mean that it's, at least, a finite scientific possibility that our universe may have began about 15 billion years old?
There has been developed a mathematical approach to the study of certain aspects of how words are put together and how logical deduction comes about. What does this mathematical approach tell us? It tells us that such words as "maybe'' or "might'' with their additional content of "possible'' in the ordinary sense are also incorrect. What has been shown is that we can have little scientific knowledge about any event that is claimed to have occurred in the far-past. Indeed, all the radiation from outer space that floods the earth can scientifically tell us *almost* nothing about events that are claimed to have occurred in the far-past. Why not? Because of the mathematical existence of something called the MA-model. (The mathematical structure that generates this model can be found in my book "Ultralogics and More.'') As mentioned, this model has solved many significant problems within cosmological studies for it is the first scientific cosmogony, but, along with the startling solutions it gives to such things as the General Grand Unification Problem, this model also yields the fact that scientifically there are infinitely many different scenarios, different "beginnings,'' and the like that could have produced the universe in which we dwell, the earth on which we live and everything about it, and even you yourself. Also there are infinitely many different scenarios for how our universe actually appeared in the far-past. But each of these infinitely many scenarios can produce the exact same results, the exact same images on photographic plates, the exact same readings on any data gathering machine as we observe these machines, today, within any laboratory.
The model has a scientific imagination. The facts are that the model explicitly describes some fantastic but, as you will see, scientific possibilities and these possibilities cannot be differentiated one from another by any scientific means. The mathematics states specifically that at certain moments during the development of our universe an initial "time condition" could easily have lead to a universe wide alteration in a Natural law that existed prior to this "time fracture." Hence the Natural laws we use today to speculate about the universe's evolution need not be those that existed long ago. This mathematically generated fact is the exact same philosophical rule laid down by John Stuart Mill in his philosophy of science (Mill, 1963-92). The model actually shows how these laws could be altered and states that we can have no knowledge of what Natural laws existed prior to the time fracture -- a time fracture that could have occurred numerously many times in the far-past relative to specific time related initial conditions. Some scientists try to deduce logically from the Natural laws that they observe today and data received what would have been the case in the far-past. Under this scientifically viable scenario, such a process is impossible. What we see is not related to what came before, what may have actually produced the data. The properties of the far-past are completely hidden from intellectual investigation. And although this may seem to be fantastic, some might say, "Well, Nature is as Nature does."
There are many more possibilities that cannot be differentiate from say the so-called Big Bang theory (the standard model). Here is another "fantastic" yet viable scientific possibility. The entire universe could simply pop into existence already shaped into some complex structural form. For example, such a structured form could be a type of radiation and matter soup combination at thermal equilibrium at say 4,000 or so degrees Kelvin. Then "stranger" still, it could actually pop into existence with stars formed and everything else that's necessary as "in-transit" electromagnetic and particle radiation. In this case, even the so-called background radiation can be explained without the universe ever being in thermal equilibrium (Stensch, 1996). Assuming logical consistency and depending upon the "size" of the universe at the time things just popped into existence, the radiation would need to contain a past history that need not have actually occurred. If for example one of the objects was the remains of a supernova, then the radiation might need to contain information about how these remains were produced although no supernova actually occurred to produce these remains. "But, would this not be a deception on the part of Nature?" you might ask. Of course, not. Nature does not have to follow the rules we select. We cannot associate such a statement with Nature. "Nature is as Nature does." Indeed, the "strangeness" that Nature might display has absolutely nothing to do with Nature itself, but it has a great deal to do with human pride, a pride that tends to insist that Nature must behave in a nice humanly comprehensible way.
Let me mention that the model also states that there are infinitely many other possibilities for how our universe came into being and evolved into its present state that will remain, for the live of the Natural universe, impossible for any life-form within the universe to comprehend. Now that is a truly fantastic scientific fact. But, Nobel Prize winner Max Planck wrote as much in his philosophy for the concepts needed to produce theoretical models.
"Nature does not allow herself to be exhaustively expressed in human thought." (Planck, 1934, p. 2)I point out that, at this moment, scientists are constructing specific models -- specific cosmologies -- that are totally different from the standard model and yet these models satisfy all of the data used in observational cosmology. But, considering the above facts produced by the MA-model, I need not take your time and discuss these constructions. Now, as to the fantastic character of the viable possibilities presented by the secondary effect of the MA-model, has such strange or might we say absurd Natural system behavior been discussed by any well-know and respected scientist? Consider the following recent quotation from Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman relative to his elementary lectures on quantum electrodynamics.
"Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe how Nature is -- and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is -- absurd." (Feynman, 1985), p. 10)Thus, relative to cosmological models, the Feynman philosophy indicates that a scientific model is a scientific model. If a model explains the data, then this is all that is necessary. Such models are independent of whether an individual likes, agrees with or comprehends the model at a sufficient depth.
Clearly, I sincerely wish that this mathematical model did not have this somewhat hidden property, this secondary effect. To have the GGU-model accepted as a solution to the General Grand Unification Problem, it would certainly have been much better if I had not discovered this secondary effect or the MS-model. But, I have no choice but to bring the absolute truth to you. Thus simply putting the word "might'' into any scientific description for how our universe was formed and all that can be deduced from any such description requires a change in the concept of what the word "might'' signifies. What science is doing with respect to events that are claimed to have occurred in the far-past is a game of deductive logic that has no concrete single model. We have no simple words in our language to describe these infinitesimal possibilities. So, we can only use such words as "might'' or "maybe'' or "possibly'' with the added understanding that scientifically this means one out of infinitely many. You can choose any one of these cosmologies. Indeed, any one of these theories is probably just as good or bad as any other one. Unless other factors are considered, any particular word-picture you choose is an excursion into science fiction.
This mathematical model actually scientifically establishes one of the philosophical stances of John Stuart Mill called the "fallacies of generalization." (Mill, 1963-92) Now this Mill's rule has been strengthened and established using the purest of all of the sciences -- mathematics. This fallacy has been know for many years within the discipline of mathematical modeling and, there it is called "the model theoretic error of generalization." What this means that it is logically unacceptable to argue that a specific model will satisfy a specific set of statements and then to claim that the same set of statements also hold for a different domain that may have other properties.
These facts are known by the vast majority of the scientific community. I've communicated these facts to them in one way or another. Indeed, I can't believe that these facts are ignored by many members of the scientific community.
Some of the most influential individuals in our society seem to have a basic intent. These individuals want to alter your personal philosophy so that it corresponds to theirs. They have enlisted what they claim is the ultimate source -- physical science -- in their attempts. But the actual statements made by such individuals have no truth value, although the implication that is intended is that these statements are "true in reality.'' I repeat that such an implication is false; it's a deception that's designed to control your thinking.
The actual state-of-affairs is that your belief-system must come first. Then you can select any one of these infinitely many scenarios as long as it does not contradict your beliefs. What's ultimately true about what may have occurred in the far-past can't be known by scientific means. You must find some other way to determine "truth'' with respect to questions relative to the far-past as well as the far-future. The absolute scientific fact is that if there is no supernatural way to verify a particular scenario, then the correct scenario can never be determined. But Christians do have a supernatural method, verification by the indwelt Holy Ghost.
If you wish to correspond a belief-system to a consistent scientific model, then you need to be properly instructed as to the existence and content of such a model. Only then can you make a proper choice based upon Holy Ghost verification. For example, you can find many specific models within the pages of the journals Speculations in Science and Technology and the Creation Research Society Quarterly as well as similar journals that publish such theoretical research. Indeed, two specific models can be found on this Web site. A literal universe creation model is described in the paper A U-cosmology. Then there is the very important microeffect Great Flood model.
Finally, let me point out that the modern scientific rules for accepting a particular theory are concocted by the scientific community and need not be true in reality since they are based upon human comprehension. But, when comparing such models (or theories), the modern scientific method states that if a model explains human experiences, and predicts events as they are observed today within our local environment, then that model is as good as or even better then other models. Indeed, if such a model increases our ability to understand the workings of the natural realm as it's observed today, then such a model is a preferred model. However, there are numerous preferred models and such models still have no scientific truth value relative to the far-past or far-future. Models for the far-past or far-future depend first upon philosophical considerations with the most important being religious beliefs.
As a scientist, as a committed believer in the correct use of the scientific method, I have no alternative but to present these facts to you. Please remember that there is a great scientific deception that uses a linguistic trick --- the positive statement. And, without you being aware of it, this deception might force you to alter your personal belief-system. You can easily check this out for yourself next time you watch a Nova program relative to the cosmological beginnings of our universe and, indeed, any other so-called educational program that discusses natural events that are claimed to have taken place in the far-past. I will not give this warning again and I will not suggest a response on your part. I will leave this matter entirely in "your hands." (March 1995)
Theological Supplement Besides the requirement that one use the indwelt Holy Ghost to aid in selecting the correct cosmology, there is something else that I have not mentioned in the above article because I do not want it to overly influence your thinking in the guise of "natural" science. There is another special aspect to the GGU-model, an aspect that has been written about in a few published articles. Unfortunately, these articles have appeared in rather obscure journals - journals read by only a small number of individuals.
One of the foremost philosophical arguments against the validity of the Scriptures is that it is claimed, especially today, that such writings are irrational and, indeed, contradictory. The same claim is made relative to "supernatural" experiences. The basic claim is that these writings and experiences, at the very least, do not follow the rules of scientific logic. This claim was most strongly argued by Feuerback and other philosophers of the "enlightenment." This belief was totally assumed by Max who wrote:
"Christianity . . . cannot agree with reason[i.e. scientific logic] . . . ."Today, this is the exact bases for the rejection of religious experiences and the Scriptures by almost all nonbelievers. This is especially the reason advanced by scientists and all of the members of the very powerful American Association of Humanists.
"All humanists agree that religion is not based upon reason [i.e. scientific logic] . . ."(H. J. Eysenck) "Any theistic interpretation of the Universe . . . is rejected." (Paul Kurtz)Thus if you believe in the Scriptures or have perceived supernatural experiences, then, using these claims, it indicates that you are mentally defective. Indeed, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health stated that if a person claims that he "talks to God and God talks back to him," then this is an example of psychopathic behavior. But, what does a re-interpretation of the scientific GGU-model say about this?
It is possible to re-interpret, in terms of linguistics, the mathematical structure used to generate the GGU-model. Now it is important to know that one need not make such a re-interpretation. The scientific language can be kept just as it is. However, when such a re-interpretation is properly done then you obtain a rational scientific description for an infinitely powerful mind and other infinitely strong attributes. When one compares the predictions made by this re-interpreted model (the D-world, the General Intelligent Design (GID) portion) with descriptions of the Godhead as they are written within the Scriptures, these mathematically generated descriptions model exactly the Scriptural statements. This "mind of God" model, as I called it, establishes that the above claims of irrationality are totally false.
Of course, this does not "prove" that perceived supernatural experiences are "true in objective reality." It does, however, remove the major argument against the rationality of Scriptural experiences. Since these results have been known since 1982, it also establishes that all of the present day humanistic statements against the logical validity of the Scriptures and true supernatural experiences are lies.
Finally, these results also can be used to eliminate much "Christian" cult doctrine. "Christian" cult doctrine has been promulgated for thousands of years. Rather than use the same type of simple straightforward two-valued logical argument as displayed within the Scriptures, such cult concepts are usually created using various forms of dialectic argument. But, these models have established that this type of logical argument is contrary to the Scripturally described mind of God. Thus much "Christian" cult doctrine can now be rejected purely on logical grounds.
References
Feynman, Richard, 1985. QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJHerrmann, R. A. 1982. Science and logic, Johns Hopkins Magazine (Letters to the Editor), Vol. 33, No. 6.
Mill, John S., 1962-92. A System of Logic and Ratiocinative and Inductive. Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, (Books IV-VI, p. 785). The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, University of Toronto Press, Toronto Canada.
Planck, M., The Mechanics of Deformable Bodies, Vol II, Introduction to Theoretical Physics, Macmillan, New York.
Stensch, W., 1996. Cosmic background radiation: a consequence of redshift energy losses, Speculations in Science and Technology, 19:207-209.
Mathematics Department, U. S. Naval Academy, 572C Holloway Rd., Annapolis, MD 21402-5002.
Return to free pre-print listing by checking twice on your browser's BACK button. Or return to top of home page.